From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 05 17:49:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25367 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2000 00:49:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2000 00:49:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.67) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 00:49:04 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id a.34.a12ea97 (9156) for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <34.a12ea97.26e6ee6b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:48:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: emacs, etc. To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-09-05 18:19:15 EDT, you write: << Microsoft makes it hard for people to develop applications that run well both on Windows and non-Windows. >> Whereas Linux, say, makes it easy to develop something that runs on that system as well as Windows and Macs? Hooohah! My problem is not with Windows (etc.) per se but with the fact -- to continue the example -- that of the seven critters I have called BASIC no program written and running well in one will run under any of the others. (None of them are really BASIC either, but that is another point -- though none of them run the real stuff, either) With the exception of GM- and Q-, these programs did not come with the machines but are produced by outside providers, who provide similar services for at least various Apples as well as DOS machines. But, in fact, programs written in such a BASIC for a DOS will not run on the same company's "equivalent" system for another machine, either. I had similar experiences with Forth (an anti-establishment programming language, it says) and Pascal. I don't see the evil hand of MS in all this, I'm afraid, though I do wonder how the designers of Java managed to avoid the problems (aside from simple competence, that is -- but then I don't exactly understand how Java works so competence may not be an issue) that have foundered every programming langauge since Fortran I: the need not merely to recompile or interpret each program for a new platform but to rewrite it from scratch -- even in the "same langauge". Overcoming this "little problem" would go a long way toward relieving the general problem of which I have complained: too much stuff for the peripheral systems like unix etal and nothing for the central systems, which most people (by a factor of a 1000 remember) have. A program in that could be compiled or interpreted on any system (as the corresponding names falsely suggest they all can) would take care of that more or less immediately, at no increase in price. And we would all be happy. Failing that, I would like to see a bit of work on the central systems, for myself and for the possibility of taking Lojban out to the world.