Re: Dynamic Language (grammar)

Martin Rodgers <mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
10 Aug 2000 00:03:26 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Dynamic Language (grammar) pohanl@my-deja.com (2000-07-31)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-04)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) jimbo@radiks.net (2000-08-04)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-05)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-05)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-10)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) koontz@ariolimax.com (David G. Koontz) (2000-08-10)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Martin Rodgers <mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 10 Aug 2000 00:03:26 -0400
Organization: The Wildcard Killer Butterfly Breeding Ground
References: 00-07-094 00-08-007 00-08-036
Keywords: design

Voice in the desert: Quiet, isn't it, Martin Rodgers?


> "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
> is not worth knowing."
> --
> [Alan said lots of stuff, much of it contradictory. (He was my thesis
> advisor.) TCL actually does a rather good job of having a syntax that
> you can extend, even though everything is a string. It's worth a look.
> -John]


I've looked, and wasn't impressed. Perhaps because, as my sig.file
says, write code that writes code that writes code. You need tools
that can cleanly express multiple levels of evaluation to do that with
ease. See the books I mentioned earlier, or read my homepage.


While I see no contradiction in the Perlis quotes I gave, perhaps I
just picked two good ones. ;) They're certainly apposite here.
--
                        <URL:http://www.wildcard.demon.co.uk>
[You should look again, TCL does multiple levels of evaluation quite
cleanly, not unlike the way that Lisp does. It's almost as cool as
Trac. -John]





Post a followup to this message

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