🚀 go-pugleaf

In article  <1356@fs1.ee.ubc.ca> mikeb@coho.ee.ubc.ca (Mike Bolotski) writes:
]In article <23893@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>, gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]> 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
]
]This is an interesting claim.  Of course, it is difficult to dispute
]statements that begin with "it is plausible", but I will attempt to do so.
]
]For one, I haven't seen any supporting arguments for the possibility
]existence of the universal language (handwaving excluded).

Since you left out the relevent portion of the reply, I include it here:

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.

Here you make a gratuitous ad homenim attack based on an unsupported
assumption.  My article was not intended to support the position that
a universal language is possible -- by handwaving or any other means.
It was meant only to point out the unfairness of _your_ remark.  The
fact that you think the idea is ridiculous implies that you think the
issue is decided, contrary to your comment:

]These days, the suggestion that any issue has been decided is premature.

I have an opinion on the question, but I do not intend to discuss it
in this setting of ad homenim attacks and insulting condescension.
-- 
					David Gudeman
Department of Computer Science
The University of Arizona        gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
Tucson, AZ 85721                 noao!arizona!gudeman