Wednesday, August 03, 2005
My ideal language
Over the years I've studied and used several different languages. Like many programmers, I ended up liking some, disliking some others. I've also collected a number of ideas on how my "ideal language" should look like. Some of them are really trivial: for instance, I like the C/C++ syntax more than the verbose Pascal or Basic syntax. Others are much deeper. I'd like the language to be extremely small, so most of the language would end up in the library. I want a language so small that things like "for" and "while" should be in the library. This would allow the [smart] programmers to add new concepts working at "level 1", while usually working at an higher abstraction level. Method interception and rich relationship semantics, as well as deterministic destruction, are also fundamental ingredients of my ideal language.
More on this in the future, but no, I'm not seriously considering the idea of creating a new language :-).
More on this in the future, but no, I'm not seriously considering the idea of creating a new language :-).
Comments:
<< Home
Well, no, not really :-).
The whole idea of a two-level language is that you can access powerful features at level 1, where you build your true language, that is, a language closer to the problem to be solved.
To me, Forth always looks like... Forth :-). But that could be because of my limited experience with it (I met Forth in the middle '80s, and never really loved it [sorry?] :-)
Post a Comment
The whole idea of a two-level language is that you can access powerful features at level 1, where you build your true language, that is, a language closer to the problem to be solved.
To me, Forth always looks like... Forth :-). But that could be because of my limited experience with it (I met Forth in the middle '80s, and never really loved it [sorry?] :-)
<< Home
