Re: gEDA-user: Serious discussion on the proper selection of a language

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since, for little good reason, my proposal to require a rewrite of geda
in snoboll on cpm was regected I would like to put forth a new proposal.
The language INTERCAL http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/ 

"INTERCAL was inspired by one ambition: to have a compiler language
which has nothing at all in common with any other major language. By
âmajorâ was meant anything with which the authors were at all familiar,
e.g., FORTRAN, BASIC, COBOL, ALGOL, SNOBOL, SPITBOL, FOCAL, SOLVE,
TEACH, APL, LISP, and PL/I. For the most part, INTERCAL has remained
true to this goal, sharing only the basic elements such as variables,
arrays, and the ability to do I/O, and eschewing all conventional
operations other than the assignment statement (FORTRAN "=")."

A second point in favior of INTERCAL is that its initial implementation
was written using spitbol, thus giving me a backdoor method to re-impose
my first proposal.

I am reasonably sure that all the major commercial eda companies who are
at risk of geda becomming truely successfull would fully, in spirit,
support the efforts of this rewrite.

Steve Meier


On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 14:35 -0700, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
> > >   That figures.  Now if only people would forget about x86 the way
> > > they have about Pascal, we could move the mainstream computer industry
> > > out of the 1970s.
> 
> And move them into the 60s instead with C?  You gotta be kidding me. 
> I agree that Pascal isn't a terribly great language, but I *do* love
> Oberon (the language, not the environment) very much.
> 
> --
> Samuel A. Falvo II