home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group94b.txt
/
000001_icon-group-sender _Fri Aug 19 05:47:30 1994.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-02-09
|
3KB
Received: by cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu; Fri, 19 Aug 1994 05:35:49 MST
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 05:47:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris Tenaglia | 456-8765 <TENAGLIA@MIS.MCW.EDU>
Subject: Re: Simple syntax? A definition?
To: mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il
Cc: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
Message-Id: <01HG2Z73GWN68WVZ0T@mis.mcw.edu>
Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin (Milwaukee, WI)
X-Vms-To: IN%"mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il"
X-Vms-Cc: IN%"icon-group@cs.arizona.edu"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
Around 1985 I had developed a plain language operating system for
an IBM 360/20 compatible. I had just read an Apple Computer user
interface guide about the goal of a good user interface is not
fewer keystrokes, but rather brain strokes. Apple was thinking MAC
but I was thinking PLOS.
The command line was everything. Instead of learning menus, transaction
numbers, or flagging options you just had to memorize a group of
applicable sentences. Each program was responsible for parsing the
command line. For example the backup command was SAVE. Here are some
samples:
SAVE ALL TO TAPE 1 * FULL BACKUP
SAVE SOME TO TAPE 2 * INCREMENTAL BACKUP
SAVE ALL FROM TAPE 2 * FULL RESTORE
SAVE 6400 TO 10000 FROM TAPE 1 * SELECTIVE RESTORE (NO FILE SYSTEM YET)
Easy to parse. Easy to remember.
Chris Tenaglia (System Manager) | "The past explained,
Medical College of Wisconsin | the future fortold,
8701 W. Watertown Plank Rd. | the present largely appologized for."
Milwaukee, WI 53226 | Organon to The Doctor
(414)456-8765 |
tenaglia@mis.mcw.edu
> From: IN%"mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il" 18-AUG-1994 17:50:28.18
> To: IN%"icon-group-l@cs.arizona.edu"
> Subj: Simple syntax? A definition?
> Following the recent thread on perl vs. Icon, and posts about UNIX
> *tools* I started thinking on how one can define what are the good
> qualities a synatx should have.
> It appears to me that what counts is simplicity. A simple syntax would be
> one that can easaly be built (NOT parsed) by programs (so that the
> language can be used as a tool interface). It would also be easy for
> humans (that's us!) to learn and use.
> Does anyone have suggestions on how to define this in a more mathematical
> or precise way? I thought about YACC clauses/sentence. But I am not sure
> it's enough because the YACC approach narrows you down to LALR.
> I thought one criterion can be PROXIMITY - that is that semantically
> related elements should be near each other. Any others?
> Ehud Lamm == mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il "My home is not a page!"