James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
Darren- Boxer: are you referring to the /Berkeley Boxer Project/? I
don't see too much about any other boxer programming language.
Hard to say. It was described in CACM (Communications of the ACM) a few
decades ago. The papers they make available online have a dearth of
pictures and no mention of CACM in the bibliographics. Given that the
boxer I'm talking about was very graphical (loops were instructions
inside boxes inside boxes inside...) I'd be surprised.
Regarding "actually producing something", that may well be a valid
obversation. He was, after all, called a /researcher/ in the article
linking to the demo. :-)
Yes, but research that doesn't lead to anything usable after 15 years,
especially in a field developing as fast as computer programming, isn't
a worthwhile thing to study, IMO.
How does it scale? How does it handle transactional operations? How does
it handle metaprogramming? How does it handle persistence? All these
things should be answered by now. Anyone can build cute pie-in-the-sky
scenarios. That doesn't make them worth studying.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
The primary use of XML is as a technique
to avoid documenting your interchange formats.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
