Re: specifications (was Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier)

Dave Lloyd <dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>As with so many things, we need a hierarchy and I propose:
>
>(1) As formal and precise a standard document as is feasible with
>current science.
>
>(2) At least one interpretation book with plenty of examples but less
>precise in its description....
>
>(3) At least one tutorial on the language from scratch assuming no
>knowledge of programming at all.....
>
>Too many standards fall half-way between (1) and (2).


See Appendix C of *The Unix-Haters Handbook*, or the original Richard
Gabriel article "Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big." In this
context, at least, the observation isn't original; I recall a SIGPLAN
Notices article of ten or fifteen years ago which commented on how
little, supposedly clear, standards bloat once the language they
describe has spread and the call for standardization arises.


James Jones
--

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