🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec10.192524.25311@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
> |> Do you hold to this principle?  Did you ever?  How well did it work?

> It works *really* well in programming environments in which several
> languages are available and are all compatible at the procedure call
> level.

It also works really well in UNIX, where programs are expected to work
together. I write tools in whatever language is best suited for the task.
Sometimes I write them several times as the requirements change: starting
as a shell script, then moving to awk/perl/tcl/..., and then to C. I have
one tool that's a combination of shell and C that started as Fortran and
PL/M and migrated bit by bit as time went on...

I wish there were more languages I could easily use: right now I' pretty
much limited to whatever will run on Xenix-286. Working on 386en and
Sparcs I'd be using scheme by now.
-- 
%Peter da Silva/77487-5012 USA/+1 713 274 5180/Have you hugged your wolf today?
/L{lineto}def/C{curveto}def/F{0 562 moveto 180 576 324 648 396 736 C 432 736 L
482 670 518 634 612 612 C}def/G{setgray}def .75 G F 612 792 L 0 792 L fill 1 G
324 720 24 0 360 arc fill 0 G 3 setlinewidth F stroke showpage % "Peerless"