Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsfeed.cit.cornell.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!bms88!stuart
From: stuart@bmsi.com (Stuart D. Gathman)
Subject: Re: Syntaxology (Re: C++ vs Smalltalk?)
Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 18:56:07 GMT
Message-ID: <1995Oct26.185607.2633@bmsi.com>
References: <45j18l$5as@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <46dp04$m06@tandem.CAM.ORG> <46grru$r5d@gaia.ns.utk.edu>
Lines: 30
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:156607 comp.lang.smalltalk:29919 comp.lang.misc:23545

For all you minimalist syntax fans, here is the second most minimal
programming language syntax I could think of:

  1) there are two symbols: '0' and '1'
  2) interpretation is defined by the standard library
  3) execution begins at the left and procedes to the right, with
     exceptions as defined by the standard library.

There are a number of vendors of standard libraries for this language.
Intel and Motorola come to mind.

But this is still too many symbols.  Version 2 has only one symbol: 'S',
plus end of file.

For example:

    SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

is equivalent to the version 1 program:

    1001

Hey guys, you can keep your minimalist syntax.  Espesially LISP - which
bears a striking resemblence to version 1, but uses '(' and ')' instead
of '0' and '1'.
-- 
Stuart D. Gathman	<stuart@bmsi.com>
     			<..!uunet!bms88!stuart>
    			Business Management Systems Inc.
   			Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
