🚀 go-pugleaf

Oh well, into the breach...

In article <1262@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>No apologies are due to the compiler writers.  Rather, criticism is due to
>them for the arrogance they took in leaving out the possibility for the
>programmmer to do something intelligent.  The HLLs are woefully inadequate,
>and I would not be surprised that the ability to do intelligent coding using
>the machine capabilities may be destroyed by learning such restrictive coding
>procedures first.

     Some misdirected flames here.  If you want to blame anyone, blame the
language designer, not the compiler writer.  Us poor compiler writers just
sit around, horrified, as the hardware guys take more and more of the hard
part and give it to us.  :-)

     If you dislike the current crop of HLLs so much, you are free to design
your own.  As one who has designed and implemented several languages on a 
variety of systems, I know how easy it is to take potshots at the language
implementors.  Go through the loop yourself, and then complain.  Designing
anything which will please some segment of the world is very difficult.
Designing a language which is elegant, orthogonal, easy to learn and use,
easy to implement on a variety of machines and that will appeal to a large
number of users is almost impossible.

Chuck Musciano			ARPA  : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation 		Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912		AT&T  : (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902		FAX   : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}