🚀 go-pugleaf

jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> Being dynamically redefinable is not necessarily a bad idea.  However, it
> doesn't bring you closer to the concept of a universal language.  In fact, it
> takes you further from it.  If you can dynamically redefine a language, what
> you _really_ get is a _whole_lot_ of incompatible dialects at various sites
> (or even - from one person to the next).
That's a problem in distribution, not definition...  The programmer community
can collectively cut their throats by witholding packages, but that's a
different issue altogether.

I'm suggesting a language which is a common base, extendable with a library of
packages which provide various interesting linguistic features.  The intended
result is an environment in which everything is generally the same unless
requested otherwise.  Symbols and comments don't change shape unless you do
something unusual.  A program which requires immutable data looks just like one
that doesn't.  Infix, prefix, and postfix notations are available; only one is
default, however, it doesn't matter which.

Somebody cut me down to size, I just reread the paragraph above and it doesn't
even seem totally off the wall!  (Um, Mark, I shaved yesterday, so you'll have
to try another tack. :^)

Regards, [Ag]  gaynor@paul.rutgers.edu