Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support

"Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk>
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:15:12 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2018-03-27)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2018-03-30)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2018-04-06)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2018-04-08)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2018-04-09)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support 157-073-9834@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2018-04-10)
[13 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:15:12 +0100
Organization: virginmedia.com
References: <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="53509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: design, history
Posted-Date: 10 Apr 2018 11:09:55 EDT
Content-Language: en-US

George,


>>> Modern popular languages are neither powerful nor easy to learn.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for this?
>
> I disagree about "easy to learn" - there are plenty of languages that
> are easy to learn. But as to the question of "power" ...


Powerful and easy to learn is a claim that proponents of every language
make. It is a marketing statement.


If you ask them how their language can be more powerful than other
Turing complete languages, hey invariably switch to saying that it's
easy to write powerful programs (whatever they might be).


Something like 30 languages per year get non-trivial implementations.
So the question to ask is, how does your language compare to the
30 languages created last year? They invariably have not checked
out last year's languages. Then ask about comparing against the 30
from the year before, and so on.


Inventing languages is invariably vanity research. Fine, but let's
not take anything claimed seriously.


Post a followup to this message

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