🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1470@mdbs.UUCP> wsmith@mdbs.UUCP (Bill Smith) writes:

>I think one of the weaknesses of this idea is that many language have
>more than one fundmamental concept and thus argument can begin what
>the true fundamental concept is.  (In other words, the idea is ill defined
>for some langauges.)

Are you concerned with the "Fundamental Concept" at the time the language
was new, or in current use? It makes a difference.

>Language	Fundamental Concept

Assembler	labels + mnemonic instructions

>Lisp		Lists + dynamic scope
Scoping rules depend on dialect. But certainly true for original Lisp
>Fortran 	Arrays + fixed allocation
Originally "algebraic syntax" since only other alternative was assembler.
>FORTH		Threaded code + postfix notation
Originally true, but threaded code not used in all implementations.
I feel the key concept is all tokens execute the same way.

Smalltalk	All data are objects + browser
Pascal		Local functions
Modula-2	Modules + processes
BCPL		lvalue/rvalue concept + single data type (covers integers,
			arrays, functions, labels)
Algol		Dynamic scoping + structured programming


Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply