🚀 go-pugleaf

> [All the heat concerning mikeb@coho.ee.ubc.ca...]
And while we're at it, you always put in two signatures!  :^D

gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
> First, I doubt that there will ever be any formally specified language the
> size of, say Ada or smaller that can make a true claim to universality
> (although we can't really know for sure).

I hold just the opposite opinion.  Any `universal language' must be very small
but very versatile.  The components of the language itself should be objects in
the language and easy to modify.  F'rinstance, the scanner should be very
customizable so to be able to arbitrarily add notations.  Of course, all of the
nice basic language features should be available, like arbitrary symbol and
environment manipulation, garbage collection, executable objects are data, etc.
The rest should be provided by library routines.

Regards, [Ag]