Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!Jacob_Palme_QZ
From: Jacob_Palme_QZ@QZCOM.MAILNET
Newsgroups: net.works
Subject: Subject: Choice of programming language
Message-ID: <2641@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 08:46:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2641
Posted: Wed Jul 10 08:46:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 03:00:39 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 34

From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

We are just planning the start of writing a large and complex
system, which will, when ready, consist of two cooperating programs,
one on a main-frame, one on a PC or workstation, communicating
via different net protocols.

The program will, when ready, be in the size of about 30000 lines
of source code or more. The main programming will be done by
1-2 programmers in the beginning, perhaps 2-3 towards the end
of the project.

The program should be portable, i.e. it should be possible
to get it running on many different kinds of main-frames and
workstations.

We are at present considering which programming language to use
for this project. The main alternatives under discussion are
Pascal
Modula 2
Ada
C
Forth

If Forth is chosen, our intention is not to use any existing
Forth interpreter or compiler, but rather write our own compiler
which will be ported as part of the portation effort. We will
then also probably modify the Forth language definition to suit
our application. Thus, we would avoid the problems with writing
portable software of encountering variyng quality of the compilers
on the various goal machines.

Can I have comments on our choice of programming language. We
are very open for your comments, no decision has been taken yet.