🚀 go-pugleaf

Me writes:
> 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.

gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) responds:
> This is an approach that I favor, but frankly it has been tried and has not
> born out its promise.  By all means keep trying, but I'm a little
> discouraged...
Agreed.

The simple kernel/language embellished (even supplanted) by a rich set of
libraries/packages is the model of choice.  Keep the base language simple, and
expand it as necessary with libraries and packages.  For instance, there's been
mention of natural languages in this discussion.  They should be implemented in
the universal language in such a manner as to embellish the language, but they
should not be part of the language's definition -- they're just too darned
expensive.

I could continue with a wish list of the features that the Ultimate Language
should have in mine eyes, but such discussions often turn into jihads and tend
to be nonproductive.  (Wanna have one anyway?, hee hee!)  We could continue
kicking around the same old arguments and discussions.  They'd benefit muchly
those who haven't participated in them before, and perhaps some new and germane
issues would be discussed.  But is it possible that we could end up with an
acceptable Universal Language?  Not without a *lot* of concerted effort.  It
sure would be a pretty sight, though!

Regards, [Ag]