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

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Then I do a quick google and find that some one has made this proposal
before.... www.geda.seul.org/mailinglist/geda-dev37/msg00013.html

Steve Meier



On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 16:33 -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
> 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
>