home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group02b.txt
/
000061_icon-group-sender_Fri Oct 4 12:30:25 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 g94JUNU11523
for icon-group-addresses; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:30:23 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200210041930.g94JUNU11523@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>
From: Art Eschenlauer <art.eschenlauer@sufsys.com>
To: "'Brian Clausing'" <clausing@voyager.net>,
"'icon-group@cs.arizona.edu'"
<icon-group@cs.arizona.edu>
Subject: Commercial use (RE: icon) - where to go FFI?
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:41:06 -0500
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
Status: RO
Where can one learn more about where and how Icon is being used
commercially? Since Icon programs are 5-10 times shorter, I
suppose that they should be cheaper to produce - I'm interested
to know if anyone has done analysis to support my supposition.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Clausing [mailto:clausing@voyager.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:18 PM
To: icon-group@CS.Arizona.EDU
Subject: Re: icon
"Frank J. Lhota" wrote:
>
> I still use Icon for code analysis / generation. I must admit there are
> times where it feels like I'm the world's last Icon programmer.
It's a superior tool for many purposes, and it is being used
commercially. I'm told that one reason it was selected for commercial
work is that Icon programs are 5-10 times smaller than their
counterparts in popular programming languages. The Icon system, which
one seemed to be large, now looks small in comparison to the huge
memories and elephantine applications of the present day. Much
programming these days involves handling text, and a great number of
programs are interpreted. Griswold and colleagues have created a
coherent and powerful system in Icon. And the source doesn't look like
line noise.