Gaby, On Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:50 PM you wrote: > ... > Maybe there is a confusion about appreciating diverse > programming languages and appreciating the set of tools > we should use to deliver a coherent, attractive, scalable, > and maintainable project.
I understand your point and actually in principle I do agree with you (and Tim) I just don't think it makes any sense to take it to the extreme, e.g. "all lisp". > Bill Page wrote: > | I think Icon was a worthy predecessor of the currently very > | popular web scripting languages like perl and python that > | came later but did a lot of the same things (not necessarily > | as well ): > > You mean SNOBOL? :-) Icon was a child of SNOBOL just as (in a looser sense) perl and python are children of Icon. But it seems that children often do not appreciate their parents until they themselves get older. Perhaps I would be giving too much away to admit that the first language I ever used with "real string processing" was SNOBOL. But in fact I never programmed in Icon until last year. > > | > | http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/index.htm > | > | Icon has venerable history rather similar to Axiom's, > | beginning in 1977: > > Thanks; not mean to be rude -- but I'm an Icon hacker. I spent > long time studying Icon. For example, I wanted to add generators > (not co-routines) to C++; among other things I digested Icon's > implementation. That was not too long ago. > I certainly do not consider your comments rude, nor do I mean any insult. :) Norman Ramsey's code for doing LaTeX to HTML conversion is written in Icon and uses the method of completions - not really native to Icon but quite easily implemented. I learned a lot by studying that code. Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
