[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
3197: Language design
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Greg Munt <greg@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 20:42:18 +0100 (GMT+0100)
References: [1]
Organization: Kanga.Nu
I seem to remember that someone (Jeff Kesselman, I think) stated that when
designing a language, they always went via one of two routes:
1. The language is tightly-bound to the task at hand
2. The language is very generic in nature
What are the (dis)advantages of each? I suspect that a non-generic
language would not be too extensible (and may cause problems if it went
on to a public ftp-able release), what are your opinions on this? A
generic language with libraries for specific purposes seems better than
tying everything to the language itself, but this is pretty much 'the C/C++
route'; I'm anxious to avoid making decisions solely on the basis of
"It's all I know."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORON n. Adult whose mental development corresponds to that of a normal
average child between the ages of 8 and 12; (colloq.) very stupid
person.