Jacob_Palme_QZ@QZCOM.MAILNET (07/10/85)
From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA We are just planning the start of writing a large and complex system, which will, when ready, consist of two cooperating programs, one on a main-frame, one on a PC or workstation, communicating via different net protocols. The program will, when ready, be in the size of about 30000 lines of source code or more. The main programming will be done by 1-2 programmers in the beginning, perhaps 2-3 towards the end of the project. The program should be portable, i.e. it should be possible to get it running on many different kinds of main-frames and workstations. We are at present considering which programming language to use for this project. The main alternatives under discussion are Pascal Modula 2 Ada C Forth If Forth is chosen, our intention is not to use any existing Forth interpreter or compiler, but rather write our own compiler which will be ported as part of the portation effort. We will then also probably modify the Forth language definition to suit our application. Thus, we would avoid the problems with writing portable software of encountering variyng quality of the compilers on the various goal machines. Can I have comments on our choice of programming language. We are very open for your comments, no decision has been taken yet.
ron@celerity.UUCP (Ron McDaniels) (07/19/85)
In article <2641@topaz.ARPA> Jacob_Palme_QZ@QZCOM.MAILNET writes: >From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA > >We are just planning the start of writing a large and complex >system, which will, when ready, consist of two cooperating programs, >one on a main-frame, one on a PC or workstation, communicating >via different net protocols. > . . . > >We are at present considering which programming language to use >for this project. The main alternatives under discussion are >Pascal >Modula 2 >Ada >C >Forth > >If Forth is chosen, our intention is not to use any existing >Forth interpreter or compiler, but rather write our own compiler >which will be ported as part of the portation effort. We will >then also probably modify the Forth language definition to suit >our application. Thus, we would avoid the problems with writing >portable software of encountering variyng quality of the compilers >on the various goal machines. > >Can I have comments on our choice of programming language. We >are very open for your comments, no decision has been taken yet. By all means create your own dialect of FORTH. While your at it, you can add the best features of PL-I, F77 and CORAL66. Then, look me up when you get out of college and we'll show you how it's done when you have to make a living (wow! I didn't know I could be so cynical). R. L. (Ron) McDaniels CELERITY COMPUTING . 9692 Via Excelencia Way . San Diego, California . 92126 (619) 271-9940 . {decvax || ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ron "Yes, my Precious. . . we hates them socket(2)eses!"