Then I do a quick google and find that some one has made this proposal before.... www.geda.seul.org/mailinglist/geda-dev37/msg00013.html
Steve Meier On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 16:33 -0700, Steve Meier wrote: > Since, for little good reason, my proposal to require a rewrite of geda > in snoboll on cpm was regected I would like to put forth a new proposal. > The language INTERCAL http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/ > > "INTERCAL was inspired by one ambition: to have a compiler language > which has nothing at all in common with any other major language. By > ’major’ was meant anything with which the authors were at all familiar, > e.g., FORTRAN, BASIC, COBOL, ALGOL, SNOBOL, SPITBOL, FOCAL, SOLVE, > TEACH, APL, LISP, and PL/I. For the most part, INTERCAL has remained > true to this goal, sharing only the basic elements such as variables, > arrays, and the ability to do I/O, and eschewing all conventional > operations other than the assignment statement (FORTRAN "=")." > > A second point in favior of INTERCAL is that its initial implementation > was written using spitbol, thus giving me a backdoor method to re-impose > my first proposal. > > I am reasonably sure that all the major commercial eda companies who are > at risk of geda becomming truely successfull would fully, in spirit, > support the efforts of this rewrite. > > Steve Meier > > > On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 14:35 -0700, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: > > > > That figures. Now if only people would forget about x86 the way > > > > they have about Pascal, we could move the mainstream computer industry > > > > out of the 1970s. > > > > And move them into the 60s instead with C? You gotta be kidding me. > > I agree that Pascal isn't a terribly great language, but I *do* love > > Oberon (the language, not the environment) very much. > > > > -- > > Samuel A. Falvo II >
