Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<2cfa1a3f397a58991f3190df051ae8b8@www.novabbs.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: text in programming languages, Unicode in strings Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 17:50:15 +0000 Organization: Rocksolid Light Message-ID: <2cfa1a3f397a58991f3190df051ae8b8@www.novabbs.org> References: <v0s17o$2okf4$2@dont-email.me> <v2anov$11l1$2@gal.iecc.com> <2024May19.175249@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <v2df6i$3ghp4$1@dont-email.me> <v2dju2$11ed$1@gal.iecc.com> <2024May20.131055@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1702138"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$BaTWJhvQQq8Vl6tw72Sb2uhPqhsQYag6Hx67HjYXEfWZMIMRIbiLG Bytes: 3083 Lines: 48 Anton Ertl wrote: > John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: >>According to Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid>: >>>> That may have been the idea, but I think the idea was wrong. >>> >>>I think few would disagree with both parts of that. I certainly >>>wouldn't. But I give the designers some slack as, in the late 1950s, >>>there was lettle knowledge about programming languages to go on. > Certainly. >>>Now, the mistake is obvious. > Maybe not so obvious. Certainly, as the start of this discussion > shows, the idea that a programming language should orient itself > towards the native language of a person is not yet universally > considered a mistake. > Anyway, such mistakes are valuable as we now can say that this idea > was tried, and did not catch on. Ok, this might be due to programming > language designers not liking the idea while it was popular with > programmers, but given that programmers language designers tend to > also be programmers, and many programmers have designed another > programming language if they did not like what they are given, I doubt > that. >>COBOL is older than Fortran > According to Wikipedia, COBOL was designed in 1959. A draft of the > FORTRAN specification was completed in 1954, a manual appeared in > 1956, and the compiler was delivered in 1957. COBOL also looks > syntactically more modern, with something BNF-like already leading to > excessive syntax, whereas Fortran's approach to white space makes it > obvious that the modern (i.e., post-FORTRAN) division into scanning an > parsing had not been developed yet and had not affected the syntax. DO 400 I = 10 Is an assignment statement assigning the variable DO400I the value of 10 >>Don't forget that while COBOL's control structures were quite weak, >>its data structures still look pretty good. Everything in a C or C++ >>structure comes from COBOL by way of PL/I. > And Algol 68. > - anton