🚀 go-pugleaf

: Mark Tillotson <markt@harlqn.co.uk> wrote:
: >No no no no no.  The reasons why this is a fundamentally flawed idea
: >are endless: linewrap, tabs, painful to automatically generate code,
: >virtually impossible to stream-edit code, proportional fonts,
: >breakable v. non-breakable spaces of differing widths, difficulty of
: >cut-and-paste, impossible to use yacc-style tools, difficult to read
: >out over the phone, hard to internationalize, sensitive to identity of
: >newline character, macros, statements inside expressions, ...  

Should languages really be based on such issues?  Your complaints
certainly apply even more strongly to any form of visual programming, but
the potential benefits of visual techniques are overpowering (even if 
only in some problem domains).  We can't forever restrict our choice of 
languages to those that are easily manipulated with legacy stream based 
tools.

Karl Wilkinson.