Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C)

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
22 Feb 1996 00:23:37 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Possible to write compiler to Java VM? (I volunteer to summarize) seibel@sirius.com (Peter Seibel) (1996-01-17)
Re: Aliasing in ISO C rfg@monkeys.com (1996-02-16)
Re: Aliasing in ISO C jplevyak@violet-femmes.cs.uiuc.edu (1996-02-16)
Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) rfg@monkeys.com (1996-02-19)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) jgm@CS.Cornell.EDU (1996-02-19)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) Martin.Jourdan@inria.fr (1996-02-21)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) robison@kai.com (Arch Robison) (1996-02-21)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-22)
Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-02-22)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) gasser@ilw.agrl.ethz.ch (Laurent GASSER) (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) fabre@gr.osf.org (Christian Fabre) (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) k2consult@aol.com (1996-02-26)
[14 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Feb 1996 00:23:37 -0500
Organization: nil organization
References: 96-01-037 96-02-171 96-02-187 96-02-248
Keywords: standards

Arch Robison <robison@kai.com> wrote:


> Here's a solution:
>
> 1. Every year, put N language judges in a separate room. The
> judges would be good programmers, but not language lawyers. I
> leave this distinction to the reader.
>
> 2. Give each judge T hours to write down their description of the
> language.
>
> 3. Remove any feature from the language that K or more judges
> forgot to describe.
>
> If K=1, this is the extreme of making the language the intersection of
> what people remember.


I _like_ this idea!


#1, above, is particularly crucial. I've begun to notice that
particular personality types gravitate towards programming language
standards committees. The problem isn't that these people aren't
competent; indeed, the problem is the very opposite -- they're
extraordinarily competent. They can simultaneously hold the whole of
a very complex language in their heads, and can reel off obscure
sections of the manual which allow them to get around restrictions in
other parts of the language. They seem to _enjoy_ and _revel in_
complexity. They also tend to be extraordinarily talented _verbally_,
as well; after all, they are writing a specification in 'English'
(insert your favorite human language here). In short, they would tend
to go off-scale on the LSAT's (American law school aptitude tests).


I would add rule #0 to your list, above:


0. In advance, serve every judge a healthy helping of Alice B. Toklas
brownies.


This should reduce their short-term memories to more nearly that of
the practising programmer, so that #2 becomes a reasonable
approximation to a stressed-out programmer who has to ship product the
next day.


--
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.