Another D idea: RPN (and more)

[Dave Sill]

In article <5333 at utah-cs.UUCP> Donn Seeley <utah-cs!donn> writes:
>You're missing the point, or at best splitting hairs.  This discussion
>IS about language design; I see no reason to dither about whether we
>are discussing the design faults of C, or a new design for a language
>that is 'just like C, but better'.  Without a method to the madness,
>without some design goal or programming methodology in mind, a
>discussion of language design is pointless.

Hey, lighten up.  So maybe we're just a bunch of amateurs.  What's the
harm in a little "pointless" discussion?  Or maybe we're just a bunch
of Utopians.  *Somebody* has to dream of a better way.  Then again, we
could just be a little dissatisfied and looking for a better way.

>I personally feel that C has met its design goals quite admirably.

Agreed.  But I question the appropriateness of those goals compared to
how C is used today and will be used in the future.

>Dennis Ritchie has stated these goals more clearly than I ever will be
>able to, and if you haven't read his discussion of these goals, how can
>you comment intelligently about whether these goals were met?

As I said above, it's not how well C met its goals, but how the C
Philosophy can be merged with today's goals.

>(Hell, how can you program in C if you don't know its design goals?)

How can you tell time if you don't know the design goals of the
watchmaker?  Well, first you look at the little hand...  But
seriously, folks, C is being used for things it was not designed to do
well.  Do we tell people who want to use C for general or scientific
programming that they can't borrow the Look And Feel of C for a
language more suited to their needs?

>Language
>technology has changed since C was invented, and any new language
>design must reflect these changes, which are far more fundamental than
>anything dredged up in this 'D' discussion.

Look, I know a little about language technology.  I know the
phenomenal benefits of object-oriented methodologies, functional
programming languages, [insert your favorite language buzz-phrase],
but of all the languages and approaches I've studied, I like C the
best.  But it has its problems.

>I feel quite irritated
>that some people are advocating a new language that is 'just like C,
>only better' -- not that we shouldn't learn from C's successes, but
>that our imaginations should be so impoverished that we see only C and
>nothing that has come since C.

Like I said above, I've seen the alternatives, and find none as
appealing as a better C.

>If you really wanted to impress me,
>you would cite psychological studies (like those of Don Norman) that
>show how real people make mistakes and then show how your design acts
>to limit these mistakes...

First, I'm not out to impress you, or anybody else.  I merely wanted
to see what people would like in a language if they could have
anything they wanted.  Judging from the volume of discussion on this
topic, I'm not alone in thinking that major improvements are possible.

Secondly, I don't need to cite psychological studies to know what
kinds of things give people trouble in C.  I use the language myself
and run into these problems all the time.  I also read this list, of
which 90% [just an approximation, Donn] is related to problems people
have while using C.  [The other 10% is X3J11 flamage :-]

>	>Of course, these 'D' proponents have been working from ANSI
>	>C's example,
>	This is totally unjustified.  ...
>Am I slandering the 'D' proponents here, or the ANSI C committee? :-)

That depends on your point of view.  

>	>PPS -- Naturally, this brings up the issue of what should go
>	>into the language 'F'...
>	Sure, which brings up the question of G...  ...
>Another person who missed the joke...  Now I know how Mr. Limoncelli
>felt.

I'm sorry, I thought there was a well established convention that
identifies sarcasm with a smiley.  Even though I figured you weren't
serious, I wasn't sure.  I also figured that if I wasn't sure, there
might be others who would take you seriously, so I replied.  Now if
you had just observed the convention...

=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.

"To a teacher of languages there comes a time when the world is but a place
 of many words and man appears a mere talking animal not much more wonderful
 than a parrot."
					-- Joseph Conrad