Re: Programming language vote - results

[Robert Bernecky <bernecky@acm.org>]

Kaz wrote:

> In article <3451AA9D.259C@dynamite.com.au>,
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain  <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
> Does APL still require a character set full of graphic symbols, or are there
> ``alternate spellings''? What is the latest status of APL as a standardized
> language? Is it possible to decompose a system written in APL into separately
> compiled modules?

a. APL still requires an oddball character set. I am now on week 9 of
    my latest effort of trying to make a Type 1 PostScript APL font work
    for getting my thesis into .pdf format.
    Languages derived from APL, such as J (www.jsoftware.com) and
    QNial use ascii, and not thus hampered. I suspect that if we [the
    APL design community] had not been so blind to the realities of ergonomics,
    psychology, and display engineering, that we would have abandoned
    the APL character set long ago, and perhaps thereby made APL a far more
    popular language.

b. There is an extant ISO APL Standard, N8485, and a new extended language
     standard either pending acceptance or already accepted. Unfortunately,
     APL vendors are taking almost NO steps to make their products interoperable
     [The adoption of the APL2000 control structures by Dyadic represents a
      very desirable departure from the past in this area. I hope IBM and
      Soliton see the light and do likewise.]. In fact, they seem go to
      substantial lengths to ensure that their products are different enough that

      an application writer has almost zilch change of writing a highly portable
      application. Specific nasty areas include, but are not limited to:
        - Screen driver support
        - File handling
        - Error handling
        - Namespaces
      This NIH attitude is not a new thing. It's been going on since the dark
ages.
      To be fair to the designers, I think they honestly feel that their approach

      is somehow better than the competition. This, however, does the APL
      user community a great disservice.


c. It is possible to decompose an APL application into separately compilable
    modules, sort of. There are several ways this can be done, depending on
    your definitions of separately, compilable, and module. For example:

     - Dyadic Systems offers a namespace capability that lets you
       segregate subsystems (applications) into logically distinct spaces.
       This greatly simplifies merging subsystems into a single workspace,
       maintaining large systems, etc.

     - Iverson Software/Strand offer a similar capability within the J
        interpreter.
     - Snake Island Research's APEX APL compiler has the ability to
        compile APL into UNIX/Winnt executables or .DLL files.
        APEX is not yet a product, but an adjunct to our consulting services.

      - Products such as Soliton's logos provide many of the capabilities needed
        for large system development, such as checkout/checkin, hierarchical
        libraries, makfiles, etc.

Bob