🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <24011@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
   In fact, we may well have to loose the preconception that a language
   must have a single, unambiguous definition.

I have problems with this. Fortunately, Mr. Gudeman expresses them
quite adequately for me in article <24013@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>:
   But as a practical matter I think you really want to standardize as
   much as possible, and include in the definition all of the useful sorts
   of notations.  Otherwise this ``universal language'' is going to have
   huge numbers of dialects, all incomprehensible to the larger
   community.

In both cases, Mr. Gudeman could be describing LISP. It's grown and
changed over time. While such a system could well provide a universal
language, the current state of the world suggests that such a system
isn't an improvement over a multitude of special purpose languages.

	<mike
--
And then I saw her...					Mike Meyer
She was a bright red '64 GTO				mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
With fins and gills like some giant piranha fish,	decwrl!mwm
Some obscene phallic symbol on wheels.