Viv Chamberlin-Kidd  <viv@ckidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm trying to compile a list of standard programming language features:
>things you expect a pl to be able to do.  Can anyone help with either
>suggesting what features they think a pl should have or point me in the
>right direction of a source on the subject?

I believe this is seriously off-topic for both newsgroups posted to,
which are concerned with the standardisation of the C and C++
programming languages.  (Would the comp.std.c++ moderators care to
comment?)

 [Moderators' note: yes, after that article was approved,
 it prompted some discussion amoungst the moderators, and
 in retrospect we agree.  (Sometimes it's a fine line between
 discussion of inclusion of certain language features in C++,
 which is on-topic, and general discussion of language features,
 which is not -- and moderators are of course human.)
 We therefore will not accept any further followups to this
 thread, unless they specifically relate to C++ standardization.
  - comp.std.c++ moderators.]

alt.lang.design is probably the most appropriate place for this sort of
enquiry, but being an alt group it isn't universally available.
comp.lang.misc is another possibility, though it is primarily concerned
with specific existing languages.  If you are specifically concerned
with how language features affect compilers, comp.compilers is a good
place to ask.

(As an aside, if anyone knows of a language-design group better
propagated than alt.lang.design, I'd be interested myself.)

Anyway, to address the original question, the features a language
should have depend primarily on the purpose and general style of the
language.  For example, if type safety is critical, polymorphism can be
a useful feature, but it's less useful otherwise, and is never
essential.  Even something as fundamental as the existence of a type
system depends on the purpose of the language.

In order to get coherent replies, you will have to be more specific.
Ask "what features should an OO language have?", or "what features
should a language for embedded systems have?".  Even then, on USENET,
expect irrelevant suggestions.  I'm reminded of a poster on
comp.unix.shell who asked what features would be essential in a minimal
shell intended for system recovery, and received suggestions concerning
very complex features some of which aren't currently available in any
standard shell -- I don't think he even wanted anything as complex as
shell variables.

-zefram
--
Andrew Main <zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

I'm trying to compile a list of standard programming language features:
things you expect a pl to be able to do.  Can anyone help with either
suggesting what features they think a pl should have or point me in the
right direction of a source on the subject?

Thanks in advance
Viv

email viv@ckidd.demon.co.uk



[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]