colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (12/24/85)
> > Even though I have a biased preference for the beauty of simplicity of > > Snobol, I must agree that Icon serves better practical purposes. > > Yes and no. Thought experiment: imagine that the syntax of SNOBOL4 > were modernized. What would then be your complaints about the language? It _is_ modernized ... from SNOBOL 3. (And SNOBOL 3 was _lots_ easier to learn!) -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/26/85)
>> Yes and no. Thought experiment: imagine that the syntax of SNOBOL4 >> were modernized. What would then be your complaints about the language? > > It _is_ modernized ... from SNOBOL 3. (And SNOBOL 3 was _lots_ easier to > learn!) No, I mean: what if the syntax were made to look more like, say, C? Check out my article: "The Snocone Programming Language" in last summer's Usenix proceedings (Portland), or wait for the 2/86 Byte (I hope...)
joe@petsd.UUCP (Joe Orost) (01/02/86)
<>
Try REBUS, it is a preprocessor for SNOBOL, just like RATFOR is to FORTRAN.
regards,
joe
--
Full-Name: Joseph M. Orost
UUCP: ihnp4!vax135!petsd!joe
ARPA: vax135!petsd!joe@BERKELEY
Phone: (201) 758-7284
Location: 40 19'49" N / 74 04'37" W
US Mail: MS 313; Concurrent, a Perkin-Elmer Company; 106 Apple St
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724