On 2021-09-08, charles hottel <chot...@earthlink.net> wrote: > So what do yoy think or feel about a language like RATFOR (Rational > FORTRAN) which was implemented as macros? Should they instead have > simply adapted themselves to FORTRAN?
That's an interesting question. If the langauge is complete, well-defined, and well-documented then it's not that much different than any other source language than gets translated into a lower level language (e.g. C -> assembly). My recollection of RATFOR was that it provided enough signifcant "features" that weren't available in the underlying FORTRAN to make it worthwhile. That seems to me to be qualitatively different than a set of macros that simply make one language look (somewhat) like a different language with a similar level of abstraction -- without providing anything other than cosmetic changes. -- Grant -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
