🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <eeuqR#3lcVcX=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>> Speaking of *obvious* examples, what isn't a B&D language?
>C. C++. Lisp. Basic. Fortran. Any assembler.

Gee, the last time I used C, the garbage collector didn't seem to work.
Oh, you mean I'm BOUND to manage memory myself?  I have to DICIPLINE
myself to make sure I free memory I'm not using anymore?

I think we need a narrower definition of B&D. Like, maybe, "a language
which doesn't allow the programmer to do everything the hardware
allows."  Note that this definition factors in the hardware.  All the
langauges you mention, except assembler, would be B&D on a vector
processor.  APL might be a better choice on such an architecture.  A
while back, someone built a machine designed to do combinator reduction.
On such a machine, SASL would be a good choice; on a 680x0, SASL would
be pretty far from the hardware.
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
..!sun!quintus!pds