🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4930@watdragon.waterloo.edu> djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) writes:
>In article <10407@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>>The idea of a universal language has appeal:  One language
>>for every problem.  So does the idea of a universal vaccine:
>>One cure for every illness.  Personally, I believe the chances
>>for either are about the same.
>
>This is a poor analogy.  The function of a programming language is
>totally different from a vaccine, and so is the development process.
>A vaccine has strict biological constraints on its size and form, but a
>programming language has few constraints.  Save this cute line for
>cocktail parties when people are too drunk to analyze it.

Actually, I believe that Chris has a reasonable analogy.  I sent him
mail saying so.  Vaccines generate antibodies which "recognize" virsues,
etc.  The constraints of languages are frequently many: strong typing,
subscript checking (memory protection), etc.  I come to Chris's
defense because you posted this rather than mailed to him.  Why
not argue the superiority of any single natural language like the
superiority of English over Chinese like the lingistics people did
around Whorf's time.

P.S. I agree with Chris's chances.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene