Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!phage!wchang
From: wchang@phage.cshl.org (William Chang in Marr Lab - CSHL)
Subject: Re: J is NOT APL (was Re: Interpreter advice sought.)
Message-ID: <C1KLxK.8K0@phage.cshl.org>
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Lab, Long Is New York
References: <1993Jan25.144021.22129@csi.uottawa.ca> <C1K1GK.39q@quadsys.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:34:32 GMT
Lines: 18

I'd appreciate any feedback regarding APL?! and APL/!.
In theory, I agree that we are moving toward more complex glyph 
sets, particularly as PDAs become more popular.  In practice,
however, and for at least several years to come, we have a
problem.  Not so much ASCII vs APL glyphs, but different
uses of glyphs by the APL vendors.  Things get very complicated
very quickly...  I have in front of me five incompatible APLs!
(IBM APL2 for RS6000; DEC VAXAPL; MIPS Dyalog APL for Sparc;
APL.68000 II for the Mac; orphaned STSC APL*PLUS for the Mac.)
Each requires a custom set of bitmap and postscript fonts,
keyboard mapping, translation software, etc. etc. etc.

My hope is that an ASCII standard can act as a neutral lingua
franca, a device for communication--electronic or otherwise.

Again, this was hotly debated last year, but not much came of it.

-- Bill Chang (wchang@cshl.org)
