Expanded from 180 lines to 450+ lines per language:
- Real failure stories: EU bank COBOL→Java (€200M), Brazil Clipper→Python (tax error)
- Deep Go analysis: 25 keywords vs 90+, no exceptions by design, hardware future
- AI paradox: code generation vs code understanding gap
- Detailed code comparisons: Go vs Five for discount calculation
- Five principles with battle scars from 30 years of xBase deployment
- Independence manifesto: zero-dependency code ownership
- Epilogue: what will future archaeologists find?
"The measure of a language is not what it can express,
but what it allows a stranger to understand."
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The founding document of Five, written as a manifesto:
- Why 30 years of xBase code must not be discarded
- Why Go is the right foundation for the next 50 years
- Why human-readable code matters more in the AI era
- What was designed: 5 principles, 5 architectures
- The vision: living code that bridges past and future
"Code fades, but thought endures."
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
- five-syntax-en/ko: Add Math comparison table (Harbour RTL vs Go math)
- go_math_compare.prg: Detailed English comments explaining each section
- Example lists updated with go_math_compare.prg
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five's DEFER is Go's defer in PRG syntax.
Same safety guarantee, but without if err != nil pollution.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five's hidden strength: PRG code is readable by non-developers.
When AI generates code, humans must verify it.
Five's xBase syntax makes this possible.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>