🚀 go-pugleaf

In article  <1352@fs1.ee.ubc.ca> mikeb@ee.ubc.ca (Mike Bolotski) writes:
]
]In article <2428@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
]> [ ...                 ].  One should not have to use a different programming
]> language for different types of problems.  [ ... ] 
]
]The most ridiculous statement I've seen on this newsgroup.  It rather 
]causes the reader to question the qualifications of the author on
]any aspect of language design or implementation.

Only ridiculous if you have a limited imagination.  It is perfectly
plausible that it is possible to design a ``universal'' language of
some sort, that makes it unnecessary to use other languages.  Such a
language will probably not be small, and it may be divided into many
sublanguages, each appropriate for different problems, but there could
be a unifying framework and user interface.  In fact a lot of current
research is going into the search for such a language, although the
researchers don't generally think of their work in this way.

Of course, it is also perfectly plausible that no such unification is
possible, and that the current state of affairs will continue
indefinitely, where it is necessary to pick an appropriate language
for your problem.  To suggest that the issue has been decided is a
little premature to say the least.
-- 
					David Gudeman
Department of Computer Science
The University of Arizona        gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
Tucson, AZ 85721                 noao!arizona!gudeman