TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (03/03/88)
I'm really excited about the idea of a "D" programming language. Let me
make a suggest or two:
I think that the one thing that really detracts from C is the fact that it
isn't RPN. Reverse-polish-notation has a lot of benefits. First of all,
we'd get the support of all the HP calculator lovers, all the FORTH users,
and compiler writers would find it easier to write compilers since RPN is
easier to parse.
Another thing that "D" should have... actually not have, is pointers. At
least 85% of the problems discussed here on Info-C are people who have
some problem with confusion about pointers. Removing pointers would solve
this whole set of problems.
Instead of pointers, we should have dynamic links. These would be just
like pointers but totally different. Dynamic links will hold the address
of what they are pointing to. With such a simple definition like this,
nobody will get confused.
Tom Limoncelli | Drew U/Box 1060/Madison NJ 07940 | tlimonce@drew.BITNET
Disclaimer: These are my views, not my employer or Drew Univesity
------------------------------------------------------------------------gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/04/88)
In article <12088@brl-adm.ARPA> TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: >I think that the one thing that really detracts from C is the fact that it >isn't RPN. Reverse-polish-notation has a lot of benefits. First of all, >we'd get the support of all the HP calculator lovers, all the FORTH users, >and compiler writers would find it easier to write compilers since RPN is >easier to parse. This idea isn't totally off-the-wall, but it would move the D language away from being a revised C and toward something markedly different. I think "reverse" should be dropped, i.e. the operators should precede the operands. (ordinary Polish notation) Lisp is essentially based on Polish notation. One of my all-time favorite programming languages, TRAC, used Polish notation. When I work with logic notation, for example in the reduction of intermediate terms in the DES, I normally use Polish notation, which is more amenable to symbolic manipulation than infix notation. >Instead of pointers, we should have dynamic links. These would be just >like pointers but totally different. Dynamic links will hold the address >of what they are pointing to. The only interpretation I could come up with for this was that pointers should be typeless. Actually, in Algol-like languages that is what pointers were like, so it's not an entirely new idea.
rcvie@tuvie (ELIN Forsch.z.) (03/04/88)
In article <12088@brl-adm.ARPA> TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: >I'm really excited about the idea of a "D" programming language. Let me >make a suggest or two: > ... RPN ... [no] pointers ... I hope you did not really mean that! Even HP had to change to an algebraic input as people really disliked the polish input, stack handling, etc. And pointers give the C programmer one of the most powerful means [s]he has to develop efficient code. Who is not able to use pointers correctly should better try BASIC or stay away from programming at all. > Tom Limoncelli | Drew U/Box 1060/Madison NJ 07940 | tlimonce@drew.BITNET > Disclaimer: These are my views, not my employer or Drew Univesity Does your employer know them? Dietmar Weickert, ALCATEL-ELIN Research Center, Vienna, Austria.
gordan@maccs.UUCP (gordan) (03/05/88)
In article <12088@brl-adm.ARPA> TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes:
-
-With such a simple definition like this, nobody will get confused.
I am (or someone else is, just like me but totally different).
--
Gordan Palameta "Ecrasez l'infame"
...mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan -- Voltairedonn@utah-cs.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (03/06/88)
Congratulations -- this was the funniest article I've read in weeks! Actually, this whole 'D' discussion is the best example of how not to do language design (or indeed any other kind of design) that I've ever seen. That's not to say I object to any particular language concept that has been brought up -- although a C-like language with RPN syntax is stretching it -- but this 'design' process is uninformed, undirected and mostly unintelligible. State your programming methodology first; then justify your inclusion or exclusion of programming language features based on how they interact with your methodology. I hope that anyone who submitted a programming language paper that exhibited the same 'design principles' as 'D' would get a D for it, if not an F. Of course, these 'D' proponents have been working from ANSI C's example, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@cs.utah.edu 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 utah-cs!donn PS -- Can we move the 'D' discussion to comp.lang.misc? Or at least move the articles that aren't funny? PPS -- Naturally, this brings up the issue of what should go into the language 'F'...
gregory@ritcsh.UUCP (Gregory Conway) (03/07/88)
In article <12088@brl-adm.ARPA>, TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: > > Another thing that "D" should have... actually not have, is pointers. At > least 85% of the problems discussed here on Info-C are people who have > some problem with confusion about pointers. Removing pointers would solve > this whole set of problems. > You seem to me to be a little hasty here. The problem has NOTHING to do with pointers, but rather people who do not understand pointers who use them anyways. Pointers are the most powerful aspect of the C programming language and are what make it such a joy to work with. To para-phrase, pointers don't kill, programmers do. -- ================================================================================ Gregory Conway@Computer Science House UUCP: ...rochester!ritcv!ritcsh!gregory Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY "I got an allergy to Perrier, daylight, and responsibility", Marillion
frank@zen.UUCP (Frank Wales) (03/08/88)
In article <580@tuvie> rcvie@tuvie.UUCP (Dietmar Weickert) writes: >In article <12088@brl-adm.ARPA> TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: >>I'm really excited about the idea of a "D" programming language. Let me >>make a suggest or two: >> ... RPN ... [no] pointers ... >I hope you did not really mean that! Even HP had to change to an algebraic >input as people really disliked the polish input, stack handling, etc. Not quite. Only those HP calculators with business functions use algebraic logic now (this includes the 27S, which is a hybrid scientific/business calculator). HP's pure scientifics continue to use RPN, because it is the only consistent logic system for calculators. This tells us something about the scientific and business marketplaces, not the relative merits of RPN vs algebraic logic. Having said *that*, I would not like to see postfix notation used for a descendant of C, because to make it fit into the language right would involve recasting the rest of the syntax along the lines of FORTH, and that would be a bad move. -- Frank Wales, Development Engineer, [frank@zen.uucp<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x220
justin@inmet.UUCP (03/09/88)
/* Written 4:29 pm Mar 3, 1988 by gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP in inmet:comp.lang.c */ In article <12088@brl-adm.ARPA> TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: >I think that the one thing that really detracts from C is the fact that it >isn't RPN. Reverse-polish-notation has a lot of benefits. First of all, >we'd get the support of all the HP calculator lovers, all the FORTH users, >and compiler writers would find it easier to write compilers since RPN is >easier to parse. This idea isn't totally off-the-wall, but it would move the D language away from being a revised C and toward something markedly different. /* End of text from inmet:comp.lang.c */ God, it's finally happened. I had heard about this trend, but I couldn't believe it. But it's really true. Nobody on the net (except in talk.bizarre) is capable of recognizing sarcasm without a row of smileys at the end! Come on, people, *think* about what you're reading. If we really have lost the ability to tell what tone the article was written in, it means that English on the net has degenerated a lot more than I thought. -- Justin du Coeur
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/11/88)
In article <124200005@inmet> justin@inmet.UUCP writes: >/* Written 4:29 pm Mar 3, 1988 by gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP in inmet:comp.lang.c */ >In article <12088@brl-adm.ARPA> TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: [...] >God, it's finally happened. I had heard about this trend, but I couldn't >believe it. But it's really true. Nobody on the net (except in talk.bizarre) >is capable of recognizing sarcasm without a row of smileys at the end! Actually, the two of us conspired in advance to post this dialogue. But I did mean what I said in my response, unlike the originator who was indeed just poking fun at the "D language" discussion.