🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2408@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>It seems that the various groups of language designers seem more concerned
>with restricting the language than in having it a means of communication.

How do you know that?? Do you think you have studied enough many computer
languages to make such sweeping claims? Have you ever designed and
implemented a usable language? What do you know about human/computer
communication? Have you studied *either* of these topics to any depth
whatsoever before opening your mouth?

>We need a language with reasonable syntax with which we can communicate
>with the computer.

How about esperanto ??

> It will necessarily have to contain a super-assembler.

Necessarily !!!

>Such a beast,
>with a flexible macro processor, and a user-rewritable flexible syntax

Macros AND user-rewritable syntax? Ah but of course !!! That is exactly
what is needed !!! Why didn't anybody think of that before? Say, Herman,
you ever heard of EL/1 ?? But Herman, why would I need any of this if
I were communicating an AI program to solve problems? [Don't have to
answer that Herman!! It is only a rhetorical question.] 

>would
>enable someone like me to produce good code at a comparable rate to the HLLs.

I doubt it very much. 

>HLL features can be added; I have no opposition to that.But we cannot afford
>languages like the present analogues of Basic English, where the language
>takes the position that something cannot be said.

So glad to have your well-informed opinion on this matter.