[OT] The perfect language

[17.hzV.tRL.478]

>Let's look at this another way. All current languages are a bit sucky in
>some ways, some are more sucky than others. Some are good at OO, but
>generate big but pretty fast code (C++). Some are good at OO but generate
>slow code (Smalltalk, Java). Some are good at small, fast code, but are a
>pain to write (C, Assembler). Some are incredibly amazing at writing certain
>kinds of application, such as compilers, but are awful at I/O (Haskell, SML,
>Miranda). Some of you may disagree with some of what I've said, but I think
>that the general trend is very difficult to dispute.
>
>So what would a perfect language *be* like?

perfect anvort = So what would a perfect *be* like?
dze !mpetuz 4 1 perfect = devaztaz!on ov 1 kompet!z!on

>code is too hard (or just too long winded) to write. Not to mention the
>drastically reduced development timescales that would result as a natural
>consequence.

drastically reduced = relat!v 2 drastically reduced
hensz !t = 1 !luz!on ov 1 l!e ov 0+0 s!gn!f!kansz.

language = 1 abrev!az!on.


data = korekt. humanzsukc++



dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info,
FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links
http://shoko.calarts.edu/musicdsp/