🚀 go-pugleaf

Before I get started with included text, I want to include some
preliminary stuff.

I am personally of the opinion that a "Universal Language" is an
impossible goal. As I've said before on this newsgroup, a language
is a description of a machine, and the form of the language describes
the form of the machine. When you choose a language, you're choice
is based on which language define the machine that most clearly and
easily models the solution that you have in mind. 

Some models are irreconcilable. For example, try to unify the Smalltalk
model, where object identity is central to the language, with ML, where
immutable data is central. You can't unify them without destroying
the central concept of one of them. (To those who are going to mention
the Object-oriented functional languages: I know that they exist - but
object-orientation in a functional language is a different model of
object-orientation than Smalltalk. Functional object-orientation could
not be unifying with Smalltalk either.)

Now, on to the text.

In article <Aug.7.14.07.35.1990.16114@paul.rutgers.edu>
 gaynor@paul.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes:
>> [All the heat concerning mikeb@coho.ee.ubc.ca...]
>And while we're at it, you always put in two signatures!  :^D
>

And frankly Andy, you could could use a shave. 8^)


>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.

And I've got to disagree with both of you!

To Andy: if you read your proposal, you'll see the error: "The components
of the language should be objects in the language {\em and easy to modify}."
What about language models where objects cannot be modified? You've just
elminated Prolog, ML, Haskell, and a host of other languages and models.

To David, I say that no language, no matter how large, can make 
fundamentally incompatible models compatible. 

Now, on to what I believe the answer is:

One language can never possibly fit all models together. That won't
work.  But a system which allows multiple languages to interact is
possible. One language, no. One Environment, maybe. Systems such as
Poplog are already starting to investigate this possibility. Make it
simple for the programmer to combine routines written in different
languages in one program, and then let them use whatever combination
of language is appropriate.

>The rest should be provided by library routines.  
> 

Or perhaps, library LANGUAGES.

>Regards, [Ag]

	<MC>

--
|Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>  |"We the people want it straight for a change;
|Soon-to-be Grad Student at| cos we the people are getting tired of your games;
|University of Delaware    | If you insult us with cheap propaganda; 
|carroll@dewey.udel.edu    | We'll elect a precedent to a state of mind" -Fish