On 12/14/21 2:58 AM, James Harris wrote:
How can someone make sure a new language is 'complete', i.e. that no
essential is left out and that it will allow a programmer to do
anything he might need to do?
The reason for asking is that I recently realised that I had to add a
new parameter mode. Because of certain choices I found I couldn't get
away with just in, inout and out so I had to add a new mode. I'm
avoiding going in to the details as they could divert from the topic
but the point is that I found that something was missing and it got me
wondering what else could be needed.
So is there a way to make sure a new language is complete?
AISI first of all there's computational or 'Turing' completeness. For
that, perhaps it's enough to ensure that the language has selections
and loops. But then there are other things - such as the
parameter-mode example, above. How does one make sure nothing is missing?
One approach is probably to base a new language on an existing one.
Then as long as the earlier language is complete it should be easier
to make sure the new one is, too. But even that has its weaknesses.
For example, one might base a new language on C but then find that
some things cannot be done - or cannot be done reasonably - without
the preprocessor.
If attempting to create a new language without an antecedent then the
situation is even more challenging. There will be no prior model to
guide the design.
So, any suggestions?
Have you read "Hints on Programming Language Design" by Tony Hoare?
http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs428/doc/HintsPL.pdf
Published in 1974 but still worth reading.
[...] Hoare doesn't
really deal with making sure a language is complete and some of his
comments relate to the time when the paper was written. But others of
them are timeless. It's a pity there aren't thinkers of his type
still around - at least I don't know of any.
On 09/12/2023 13:51, James Harris wrote:
[...] Hoare doesn't
really deal with making sure a language is complete and some of his
comments relate to the time when the paper was written. But others of
them are timeless. It's a pity there aren't thinkers of his type
still around - at least I don't know of any.
Tony Hoare is still around. So are, for example, Don Knuth, Niklaus Wirth, Brian Kernighan, Ken Thompson, Steve Bourne, Michael
Jackson and many others, just to mention some of those active more
than 40 years ago. I don't know how many of them are /still/ active.
Fred Brooks and Charles Lindsey died fairly recently.
On 09/12/2023 13:51, James Harris wrote:
[...] It's a pity there aren't thinkers of [Hoare's] typeTony Hoare is still around. So are, for example, Don Knuth, Niklaus Wirth, [...].
still around - at least I don't know of any.
Sysop: | DaiTengu |
---|---|
Location: | Appleton, WI |
Users: | 919 |
Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
Uptime: | 48:42:32 |
Calls: | 12,183 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 186,524 |
Messages: | 2,236,131 |