home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group02b.txt
/
000026_icon-group-sender_Mon Sep 16 08:05:10 2002.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2003-01-02
|
2KB
Return-Path: <icon-group-sender>
Received: (from root@localhost)
by baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) id g8GF57E09376
for icon-group-addresses; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:05:07 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200209161505.g8GF57E09376@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:17:54 +0200
From: No spam <complaint@nospam.org>
X-Accept-Language: en
X-Newsgroups: comp.lang.icon
Subject: Re: Icon Wish List
X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be
To: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
Status: RO
"Frank J. Lhota" wrote:
> 1) Object-Oriented Programming
>
I have not used Icon a lot, but was fascinated by its expressive power.
Why I don't use it much has nothing to do with its lack of OO support -
I would never have used it for large programs anyway - it is lack of
time to become familiar with a new language, and 'competition' from
other languages like Perl.
There is one language that I would _never_ use for a small ad-hoc
program: Java.
Why? Because it is terrobly verbose, and there is no need for OO in an
ad-hoc program.
So, I would actually vote to keep OO out of Icon!
I would find it a lot more attractive if it was kept trimmed-down.
> 2) Better Interfacing to External Programs
One of the resons I don't use Icon much, is that I haven't figured out
how to interface with C.
> 3) Unicode Support
No view on it - I don't use other than 'normal' character set for small
systems utilities.
>
> 4) Icon as a Scripting Language
>
Or go the other way, and reenable iconc?
Atle - trolletATskynetDOTbe