From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10805012125p2d812ccer7ff30482e2128574@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  1 May 2008 21:25:58 -0700
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <31D2A9A4-E6AD-4D66-AE2A-6168A3F09D9C@mac.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <3CB4093E-098C-4E6F-B843-7B65E4461D81@mac.com>
	<7359f0490805011852k64a52a01k1efc1e6aba8b030c@mail.gmail.com>
	<31D2A9A4-E6AD-4D66-AE2A-6168A3F09D9C@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] A new language for Plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9c7fdc6c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

you can do what you will, with your indentation-based language, but
that won't change the fact that indentation for lexical scope is a
horrible idea.

I first saw it in a language in 1978 called Offal, by Aron Insinga.
Aron was smart: after 6 weeks, he said, "this sucks", and put it away.
When I saw the beginnings of Python 10 years or so later I thought: "
I wonder when they'll figure it out". 20 years later, they haven't.
That says something.

The other ideas are interesting. Don't wreck yourself on the bad idea
of indenting.

Popularity is no measure of goodness. Or have you used Windows lately :-)

ron