Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Christophe de Dinechin Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Looking for volunteers for XL Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:34:46 -0800 (PST) Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 28 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <11-11-058@comp.compilers> References: <11-11-048@comp.compilers> <11-11-053@comp.compilers> <11-11-054@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: leila.iecc.com 1322426552 91981 64.57.183.58 (27 Nov 2011 20:42:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:42:32 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: design, history Posted-Date: 27 Nov 2011 15:42:32 EST X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.compilers:360 On Nov 27, 12:19 am, "BartC" wrote: > Extensible languages have to be used with some care I think. Those > features aren't for everyday use. Apply your reasoning to libraries, and you'll see its limits. "It's not necessary to make available to the Unix programmer all those untidy function-building features". I heard that exact reasoning from Basic gurus hearing about Pascal: "User-defined procedures? That can't be for everyday use. Who would need to add their own keywords? Leave that to Basic designers." In reality, the majority of notations, vocabulary, idioms are private, even in real life. The point of a programming language is to provide easy to use notations for your ideas. You can only benefit from the notations suiting the ideas better. The objections that making a language extensible necessarily makes it unreadable or fragile flies in the face of our experience with other forms of abstractions, and even of the limited experience we have with those few languages that are actually extensible, such as most Lisp derivatives. [Well, you know, given a choice between my personal experience that languages with extensible syntax led to unreadable programs, and hand-waving that this time is somehow different or I didn't see what I saw, I know what I'd choose. You're welcome to build any language you want, but you have a rather steep hill to climb to persuade people that your language doesn't have all the same problems that previous failures had. -John]