Re: [tutoriald-design] Design Goals

[Leandro F. C. D. <lgc...@te...>]

Em Seg, 2003-08-11 às 06:32, Brian Olsen escreveu:
> In thinking about creating an implementation of Tutorial D, we should 
> figure out what the design goals are, given the time, knowledge and 
> other factors involved.
> 
> - I think it makes sense, and it seems to be the consensus, to 
> implement over Duro. The process of creating the language is then 
> simplified to a degree.

	Agreed.  Actually, one can consider the language is already created, if
we want *Tutorial* D.  If it is a generic D, then one has the choice of
Tutorial D, D4, even extending QUEL or BS12... or one can create
something, but then has to choose even style -- COBOL-like just as
Tutorial D, Pascal-like as D4, C-like, C#, functional?

	Just as a tip, Nathan Allan is considering "open sourcing" parts of
Dataphor, so perhaps D4 is as good a choice as any other, as he has some
support from Date & Darwen.


> - What should be the general design goal? I personally think we 
> shouldn't expect much from the first implementation. I think the goal 
> should be that the environment is conducive to just working with 
> Tutorial D - possibly as an educational tool first. What's the opinion 
> here?

	The idea of Tutorial D is exactly to be implemented as an educational
tool, it was never meant to be a "serious" language, even if its
COBOLesque flavour should make it accessible to SQL coders.

	I'd even favor implementing first the specific data access portions
first; computational completeness is needed to user-defined data types,
but it is lower priority than "getting it working", and can be reused if
one extends an existing language (such as Lisp) instead of going for the
syntax of Tutorial D.


-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra    +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  Lausanne, Vaud, Suisse                    +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Brasil                                    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/          Soli Deo Gloria!