On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:10:27 GMT, David Alan Black
<dblack / candle.superlink.net> wrote:

>Let's say Ruby and Python merge.  At that point, someone who finds
>deficiencies in that composite language (and there's no such thing as
>a language in which nobody will find deficiencies, and there never
>will be) decides to write a new language, which might borrow from the
>Ruby/Python composite and from other languages but won't be identical
>to any of them.

Hmm, I wonder if it wouldn't be more productive
to find some commonality on the back end.  Like
maybe some "standardized" byte code so that
you could code one module in Ruby, one in
Python, one in Perl depending on what is best
for the particular task.  Maybe the syntax of
the various scripting languages is too diverse
to use all the modules from any client.. I dunno'.
I'm not a yacc user so I don't know how hard it
would be to wrap the compiled modules to
make them automatically acceptable.  For
procedural compiled languages it seems
easier.  At least TopSpeed used a common
code generator in the PC world.  I love mixing
and matching so I'd rather see something
like common code generation than some
language merging anyway.


Mike

--

"I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."
    -- Groucho Marx