ftp.cs.arizona.edu/ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar/ftp.cs.arizona.edu/icon/newsgrp/group93a.txt/000051_icon-group-sender _Fri Jan 29 11:06:24 1993.msg

Internet Message Format | 1993-04-21 | 2KB

Received: by cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu; Fri, 29 Jan 1993 05:54:19 MST
Date:    Fri, 29 Jan 1993 11:06:24 +0300 (EET)
From: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Removing various features
To: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: INET::"[e-mail]"
Status: R
Errors-To: [e-mail]


    In a recent posting Steve Holden <[e-mail]>
    said:

Result? Total non-portability of code.  This is definitely _not_ why I'm
interested in Icon.  Those who want to cut it down or build it up may
by all means do so, as long as they don't then put programs built with
the resulting compilers/translators out as "Icon".  Me, I want to grab
other people's code and use it!

    Agreed to 100 %. Furthermore, we don't have to go as 'far back'
    as to Cobol: just think of what different implementations of
    the name/2 predicate does to a Prolog programmer.

    By the way, what is the overhead of having a few unused
    builtins in a programming language - except losing the
    'elegant, mathematical minimalist' approach. And a thicker
    manual, of course. (This is an UNINFORMED question from
    non-computer-science person, NOT intended to cause flames;
    if it does, I'll try and get my flame-proof suit out of
    the closet.)

    Arne
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Arne Larsson            Nokia Telecommunications
Translator            Transmission Systems, Customer Services
[e-mail]    P.O. Box 12, SF-02611 Espoo, Finland
                Phone [phone], Fax [phone]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*