K, Dylan, etc etc etc.

[Jecel Mattos de Assumpcao Jr.]

> yes, jvs, we should design our own language.  but of course we should 
> check whether existing languages fit our purposes.

Agreed. And, even if you design your own language, I don't see any
advantages in *not* knowing K or some other language.

> k doesn't, it seems write-only and unsuited for systems programming.

People were always surprised to see me using Smalltalk ( and now Self )
as a system programming language in my project. But all of the first
implementations of Smalltalk ( from 72 to the early 80s ) ran on the
bare hardware - the language *was* the OS. It all depends on what you
want to do.

I have just reread the Cecil paper and think that it might please
most people on this list ( just a guess based on what I have read
here so far ).

I have just designed a neat language called Troy, so I can say that
it is a fun thing to do! It would not be at all the right thing for
Tunes, of course, and I all decided not to use it in a Merlin derivative
( for children ) that I am considering, but to stick with Self.

Regards,
-- Jecel