[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon May 2 11:30:52 1997 
Subject:Re: The future of POP-11 
From:Jonathan Cunningham 
Volume-ID:970502.03 

In article <5k5p6a$1vk@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>,
pop@roo.cs.umass.edu (Robin Popplestone) wrote:

(snip
>I am proposing to make my own work target the Java Virtual Machine, because
>I think  it  is  going  to  be  a  highly  portable  and  efficient  target

Sounds like a good idea. I've been saying for several years now that C++
is too hard to learn (i.e. the demand for programmers exceeds the supply
of people capable & willing to use C++). It wasn't obvious until about
a year ago what would replace it.

Having done a certain amount of AI programming in C++ recently, I, for
one, expect java to be an improvement (the language - I'm not sure if even
yet the development environments are ready for serious work).

But it would be nice if I didn't have to, yet again, retranslate various
personal libraries, half-completed developments etc into yet another
language. And Java (at present) is a bit too low level.

But I wonder if pop is the best choice for a modern AI language? (I'm also
very aware that I have an evaluation copy of a PC pop11 which I haven't
yet evaluated! Life is too short.) Ok, you did mention the POP9x group,
and I think this is important: Poplog pop11/poplog has got too big
and messy (so have all the existing alternatives: but this is precisely
my point: that's why they are being superseded). The original
conception looks to me now very dated: we've learnt a lot about
language design in the last thirty years. The latest (modern)
additions make it too big (cf C++). Maybe it is time for a completely
new language, inspired by pop but based on current knowledge.

IMNSHO, programming languages should be small and simple. There is
an irresistable tendency for environments to grow, because they make
the current generation of users more productive. But eventually, they
become too much trouble for new users. People are only happy to use
large, comprehensive systems *if they don't have to learn them*. For
too many current systems, it is as if, in order to write this post I
had to search for suitable paragraphs from the complete works of
Shakespeare, and then edit them to reflect more closely what I meant.

Note that "small and simple" doesn't imply low level. Words and lists in
pop
are simple. Why have vectors, arrays, strings etc.? Those are
implementation details, and I shouldn't have to know about them. (I.e.
the "simple" concept is of a sequece: whether it is implemented
as a linked list of pairs, or as a vector shouldn't be my concern.)

Anyway, good luck with your work targetting the JVM.

Jonathan