Re: Substitutions

[billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )]

From Judy.Bamberger@sei.cmu.edu:
> -- A standard preprocessor would have the advantage of being standardized,
> -- but would suffer the disadvantage that compiler optimizations are not
> -- possible where the compiler has no knowledge of high-level semantics,
> -- which is a major reason not to simply codify the preprocessing practice. 
> 
% With a few substitions and a bit o' poetic license, the above could be
% rephrased as:
% 
%    A standard LANGUAGE would have the advantage of being standardized,
%    but would suffer the disadvantage that APPLICATION-SPECIFIC 
%    IDIOMS are not possible where the LANGUAGE has no knowledge of 
%    APPLICATION-level semantics, which is a major reason not to simply 
%    codify the PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.

   The analogy is fundamentally flawed; while the first passage notes
   problems with one strategy and suggests another, the second states 
   in essence that since a standardized computer programming language
   is more rigorous than a human language, computer programming languages
   should not be standardized, which of course does not follow.

   Perhaps the spiked eggnog is being passed around a bit too early... 


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu