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.