On 20/11/2007, Vlad Dumitrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Nov 20, 2007 3:03 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The logical (but worrying) conclusion I draw from that paragraph is
> > that you would like to see a language with an intended application of
> > go...
>
> Why would that be a worrying conclusion?
It would be worrying because in the last 20 years there has been a
trend away from application specific and domain specific programming
languages to application and platform independent languages with
application/domain specific libraries.
As near as I can tell the primary motivation for this is the resource
overhead of building, and maintaining a language and tool chain. The
economies of scale are just much better if you cover more {platforms,
domains, applications}. You can get much more bang (and many more
shiny toys) for your buck by joining an established language /
toolchain. There are exceptions to this, mainly where the field is
well understood and extremely specialised and the language has the
backing of deep-pocketed companies (i.e. PDF, VHDL, etc).
cheers
stuart
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
