Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:28:30 -0700
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:47:38 +0100, "Herwig Huener"
<Herwig.Huener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>One of those problems is not too far away: grammars with a
>lookahead of plus infinity - that means, that a compiler needs to know the
>complete program-text in order to make any sense of even the first symbol.
I used a language on the Atari 800 called Action!. It was designed
so that the last command in a program was the program, executing code
already parsed out before.
This type of design is useful in interpreted languages beyond design
philosophy.
I always enjoyed Forth for this philosophy.
But with compiled languages, it doesn't really matter where the code
is - but I like having all the code in one place where I can find it,
which doesn't seem to be the style anymore.
.
- References:
- Next generation COBOL?
- From: Steve Richfie1d
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Richard
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Steve Richfie1d
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Herwig Huener & Josella Simone Playton
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Steve Richfie1d
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Herwig Huener
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Steve Richfie1d
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Next generation COBOL?
- From: Herwig Huener
- Next generation COBOL?
- Prev by Date: Re: Next generation COBOL?
- Next by Date: UNSTRING performance issue
- Previous by thread: Re: Next generation COBOL?
- Next by thread: Re: Next generation COBOL?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|