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

k2consult@aol.com (K2 Consult)
26 Feb 1996 10:40:28 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
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)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) blume@zayin.cs.princeton.edu (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) przemek@rrdjazz.nist.gov (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: k2consult@aol.com (K2 Consult)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 26 Feb 1996 10:40:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
References: 96-02-248
Keywords: standards, forth

>To add the comp.compilers angle, has anyone seen a language
>implementation that would allow people to buy and use features a la
>carte? Many other products seem to be developing "plug-ins". Why not
>compilers? If people actually knew how much they were paying for each
>feature (in $$, compilation time, code bloat, and bugs), they might be
>more reluctant to ask for everything.


Actually, there is at least one language I know of that implements
plug-ins (after a fashion), and that is everybody's "favorite",
Forth. With its notions required word sets and optional word sets, it
achieved something very like the modern craze for "plug-ins".


<<Now retreating before the outraged citizens.>>


Timothy Knox
Parallel Staffing Group
K2Consult@aol.com
--


Post a followup to this message

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