I wonder if we're not asking the wrong question here.
Language, it seems to me, is for expression. If we design a language (as opposed to allowing it to evolve) then we should have a goal for that language. What's the goal here? Although polymorphism is certainly an interesting capability shouldn't we be looking at the kinds of tasks we wish to perform? Would we demand an artist work in tempra when water color is what expresses the mood best?
Personally I like the idea of small languages that do some things very very well. They are easy to learn because their concepts are clear. If languages can agree on ways to intermingle so I can write my image manipulation in one language and my text in another and my GUI in yet another -- and have them work together intimately and EASILY -- then I think we have a software system which is about expression first and language second.
I'd love to easily, trivially, combine Smalltalk, Perl, Fortran, Obj-C and be able to easily explore other languages in this same context: it becomes easy to grow.
Adam Bridge
From: Alan Kay alank@wdi.disney.com
There is even a very cute way of doing a top-down parser that
looks a lot
like BNF (cf. Val Shorre's "META II" parser) directly using Squeak
control
structures and without needing a parse tree....
Guessing: a recursive descent parser?
Can you give a short hint as to how this looks?
Marcel
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org