[M3devel] [M3commit] FW: move to version 5.7.1?

[Rodney M. Bates]

I like the Scheme interpreter idea.  I think Modula-3 partially refutes
the oft-repeated argument that every programming language has a narrow
range of suitability.  Among the imperative languages, there's not a lot
around that can beat it, even for specific application areas.  Builtin
complex and non-integer fixed-point arithmetic are about the only things
I can think of.

But the functional languages are an area Modula-3 doesn't cover.  Actually,
you can write a lot of code in functional style in Modula-3, including, I
think, some polymorphic stuff, but it's syntactically an awfully lot more
ponderous than in a traditional functional language.  With a true functional
language tied into the implementation, we could claim very broad coverage.

Mika Nystrom wrote:
> Jay writes:
> ...
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
>>> To: rcoleburn at scires.com; m3devel at elegosoft.com
>>> Subject: RE: [M3devel] move to version 5.7.1?
>>> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:28:07 +0000
> ...
>>> Cmd is an awful language for nearly any purpose.
>>> Please don't ask me to support any cmd files.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I will rewrite the automation in JScript.
>>> It is a half decent language and works plenty well for command line automation.
>>> It is been "in the OS" for many years, probably at least since Windows 2000, and
>>> with any install of Internet Explorer.
>>>
>>>
>>> But really..you know..all the Python I write...is somewhat of an indictment
>>> of either Modula-3 or myself -- I don't "like" Modula-3 enough to write much
>>> of anything in it.. That is..these "scripts" perhaps should be written in Modula-3.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or maybe actually in Quake?
>>> Quake is kind of limited though.
>>> Maybe with the updates though that Olaf made?
>>> I'll think about it.
> 
> How about in Scheme?  I have written/am writing a Scheme interpreter
> in Modula-3 that I am happy to release with CM3; it's very easily
> extensible (that's sort of the point of it), so one can easily add
> low-level features to it as necessary.  The system would be
> self-contained with that interpreter.  Maybe writing scripts in
> Scheme is a little "weird"... (but I do it :-) )
> 
>      Mika
>