----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Woodhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jan 15, 2006, at 8:30 AM, James Gray wrote:
What is so horrible about the M language definition?
Jim
What? Do you want a list?
The shortcomings of the language definition shouldn't obscure the good
points of the language, but in the past, when I've tried to point to
problems with the language, I would begin to wonder if I was going to
need a surgeon to reattach my head to my neck. More seriously, a formal
semantics and a standard library (for I/O and the like) would be a good
start.
First I assumed that if someone says the language definition of M is
horrible that it is meant globally. I think that means the horrible parts
of the definition far outway its good points. I do not know that is true.
I quite aware that there are people on this list who think some parts of the
language are bad. To me that is a whole 'nuther ball of wax than the global
statement. Greg, I learn a lot from your posts. I hope I do not goad you
into saying something else that will cause somebody to attempt to chop your
head off. I am old time programmer who has programmed in at least a dozen
other languages besides Mumps, but I do not understand some of your
terminology. I do not know the difference between the semantics of M and a
formal semantics. I am well aware that M has flaws. I would enjoy learning
more about these issues.
Jim Gray
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
