A programmer's description of L6
Communications of the ACM
Syntax macros and extended translation
Communications of the ACM
Revised report on the algorithm language ALGOL 60
Communications of the ACM
The LISP 2 programming language and system
AFIPS '66 (Fall) Proceedings of the November 7-10, 1966, fall joint computer conference
APL: a language for associative data handling in PL/I
AFIPS '66 (Fall) Proceedings of the November 7-10, 1966, fall joint computer conference
Incorporating complex data structures into a language for social science research
AFIPS '69 (Fall) Proceedings of the November 18-20, 1969, fall joint computer conference
PORTS: a method for dynamic interprogram communication and job control
AFIPS '71 (Spring) Proceedings of the May 18-20, 1971, spring joint computer conference
Requirements for a generalized data base management system
AFIPS '71 (Fall) Proceedings of the November 16-18, 1971, fall joint computer conference
Data structures in the extensible programming language AEPL
AFIPS '72 (Fall, part I) Proceedings of the December 5-7, 1972, fall joint computer conference, part I
Data types and program correctness
AFIPS '75 Proceedings of the May 19-22, 1975, national computer conference and exposition
Toward an understanding of data structures
SIGFIDET '70 Proceedings of the 1970 ACM SIGFIDET (now SIGMOD) Workshop on Data Description, Access and Control
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
A programmer using existing programming languages typically codes a problem by (1) defining it, then (2) analyzing the processing requirements, and (3) on the basis of these requirements, choosing a data representation, and finally, (4) coding the problem. Almost always, difficulties arise because necessary processing not envisioned in the analysis phase makes the chosen data representation inappropriate because of a lack of space, efficiency, ease of use or some combination of these. The decision is then made to either live with these difficulties or change the data representation. Unfortunately, changing the data representation usually involves making extensive changes to the code already written. Furthermore, there is no assurance that this dilemma will not recur with the new data representation.