Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!newsfeed.sunet.se!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!Norway.EU.net!nntp.uio.no!NewsWatcher!user From: Kolbjorn.Aambo@ub.uio.no (Kolbjørn Aambø) Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta Subject: Re: The plasticity of the BETA language Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:52:37 GMT Organization: University of Oslo Libray Lines: 190 Message-ID: References: <4b9204$79p@krone.daimi.aau.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: ubmac86.uio.no Albertina Lourenci (AL@BRUSPSCE.BitNet) wrote: : : < Znippety > : as follows: BETA: o Has only one implementation which unfortunately is commercial. I can agree with you that a commercial version is a disadvantage because like it's predecessor SIMULA it become too costly to aquire the neccesary means to try it out! i.e. you often need a assembler and/or linker and may be some editor to be able to run it. In other words it's not a full system. o As has been already mentioned by JLK, the present beta system's speed is equivalent to unoptimized C or C++. Well even C compilers vary quite a bit in performance! o The Mojlner Beta System (MBS), is unavailable in source form. Is that a disadvantage for a potential user or competitor of Mjølner? o The user base is so small that there is no international effort to standardize BETA (like ISO standard or ANSI standard etc) Well the language is allready standardized since there are already one tranlator for the ENTIRE language! ;-). I would like to add that a environment that included 64 bits Integers and Unicode strings would have made the language even more standardized! Here it would have been an advantage if file IO where such that the endian-problem where solved such that something written by one machine could be read by another (endian) machine. o Most people (one news item also had comments from Mjolner people) use BETA in research environment (including me!). o Atleast one free version of the language must be available preferably GNU GPL'ed, with sources, so that researchers and individuals with low budgets can experiment with the environment and the language. Experimentation in this regard does not mean that individuals must only write end-user-applications, but that the semantics and syntax could be changed, modified etc. I for one will be elated if such an environment was made available--- (not a klugged version of MBS, I mean a full environment __no_bars ). Agreed! I have not heard anyone making big money on language translators, lets have it for free for PC's and Mac's! Lets talk to Danish and Norwegian autorities about sponsoring their own ideas, that are a lot better than JAVA, C++, DYLAN, SmallTalk, CLOS and all the other lookalikes and wannabees! Once upond a time there where a language called SIMULA 67;-) The inventors of SIMULAthe predecessor to BETA and some other Object oriented systems, was told to sell their language translators for profit as soon as possible. That was at the beginning of the 1970ies. The price asked should cover development cost and bring a profit for the research institution. The price asked for the SIMULA translators was so steep that even the most prominent representatives for American Universities couldn't afford them. Later Norwegian Object Oriented Technology grant applications where refused because of the availability of the universal language ADA. If we count the number of languages developed for general and spesific purpose since the seventies we have no problems concluding that there is always a need for another language or system- definition framework. How many languages or system definition frameworks do we need? If history can tell us anything, probably one per application field! The more customized a framwork is relative to the application field the more helpful the feedback to a user of the system. Conclusively the science establishment in Norway where dead wrong! (This is history how I thought Kristen Nygaard told it to me....) o For a language to find acceptance in market, it must have lots (atleast more than one) implementations of production quality. This is healthy for development. It must have a whole lot of tools based on solid software engineering for development/debugging etc. Beta lacks that level of finesse in its development environment. Lets have a good toolbox interface for Windows and Mac, dont try to make both in one box, there is still quite a difference..... o For large acceptance, semantic interpreters for popular languages must be provided that can enable a big organization to migrate their existing mamoth applications to BETA without problems. Would others than possibly you understand the tranlated code ;-) ? C++: o Is very close to C in which major OS's are written. People feel that apps written in C may run faster on the OS due to existing affinity with C. I think this have more to do with the possibility to make low level bithandling, what about having the possibility customizable basic patterns in BETA? o Excellent commercial development environments, on almost all OS's and hardware. The Syntax and semantics for BETA have been awailable for quite some time, there is nothing preventing all this comercial companies from making a real difference... Well after been looking at the comercial market place for ten years I'm not impressed, things are changing all the time, but not much progress in software.... o Excellent free GNU compilers available that enable development to occurr without suing the pants off poor individual developers. What's so great about GNU, what about Mjølner? o Standardized semantics and syntax (ISO -- ANSI). Oh well I have tries getting Standard Template Library as of the October Draft C++ standard, I have found there too be quite a distance between the draft and comercial reality.... Still there are a lot to standardize in the future and standarding take a LOT of time! o Tools for assisting in migration from other languages etc... Lets make it over again with a clearer mind, I'm not the only one that don't beleave in automatic translation of natural languages, it's impossible even for humans! It's not much better for computer languages if you want to continue working on the code that is translated from a simple minded but overly complex language like C with preprosessor macros.... I'm considering starting to use BETA again after some years waiting for a C++ "Standard" and it's implementation...... One good book is better than loads of thick american books claiming to teach you C++ but really trying to sell you a old C book with another name.... But lets have a simple BETA environment where only the fundamental pattern of Windows 95 or MacOS 7.5 is implemented. Let us decide what library to have since we have to make it our selves to be able to customize it to our own purpose! There is one problem though... more users make for a lot more work for the constructors of the Compiler if the wrong impression is made..... It's my impression that the Danes are doing as much as time and money allows them to... but then they may even like to have a "normal" life... -- Kolbj|rn H. Aamb|, University of Oslo library/Bibliographic dept. N-0242 Oslo, Norway kolbjorn.aambo@ub.uio.no Phone: +47 22 85 91 36 ................................................................ They brought their books, the natives had their land, then... they got their land, the natives only books.