What about Transmogrifier? I guess this is not word you
have been looking for, but did you that a Transmogrifier is
indeed a small “wrapper” method used to propagate a
method/property implemented in another subsidiary object?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmogrifier_(computer_science)
-J.
The term meta-circular describes a language characteristic that enables
meta-programming. It means that the mechanisms needed to define the
semantics of a language are available to programmers _in_ the language
itself. This leads to support for internal Domain Specific Languages and
other
Russ Abbott wrote:
So now I'm thinking about /application schema/. Admittedly that's
moving in the direction of /application template/. Part of my quest is
that I want a word that describes application code that can be
parametrized in certain ways. /Template /all by itself is just too
general
This is to the programmers on this list.
I'm looking for a word that refers generically to software that is open to
virtually object in its host language. The best way for me to explain it is
with examples.
- In Java, the various collection classes each have this property. A List
can be a
A private message suggested *template *or *pattern*. The problem with *template
*or *pattern *is that they are too generic. Neither implies any kind of
defined processing. Each is just a pattern with holes and without suggesting
that the pattern *does anything* to whatever fits into the holes.
--
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09/07/2009 12:14 PM:
This is to the programmers on this list.
I'm looking for a word that refers generically to software that is open to
virtually object in its host language. The best way for me to explain it is
with examples.
How about undecidable? Or perhaps
*Pattern *suggests *design pattern*. Perhaps closer but still not quite
right since *design pattern *doesn't imply executable code whereas the
examples I gave earlier do. Some design patterns do fit my categorization.
The Visitor pattern is a good example because it can be implemented as code.
One
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09/07/2009 12:46 PM:
I'm missing the connection between *undecidable *and what I'm asking for.I
don't want a property of these things; I want a generic name for them.
The point is that the validity of a statement (e.g. a program, down to
the formal parameters in a
But not *too* generic. Just generic enough. You seem to be difficult to
please.
What you appear to be asking for is exactly that the STL brought to C++.
The Standard Template Library: a completely generic yet well-specified set
of containers for any kind of data object, providing the ability to
Still, *undecidable *is an adjective. I want a noun.
-- Russ
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:58 PM, glen e. p. ropella
g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote:
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09/07/2009 12:46 PM:
I'm missing the connection between *undecidable *and what I'm asking
for.I
don't want a
OK. And Java and C# have the Collection Classes. STL and Collecition Classes
name a group. Is there a generic name for a prototypical member of one of
these groupings? The name should also be applicable to generic code that
implements the Genetic Algorithm.
Perhaps there just isn't such a word.
I'm leaning toward a coined term like processing structure. A processing
structure is a active in that it does something. It's also open in that it's
a structure into which many different things may fit.
Both a list and a genetic algorithm is a processing structure.
What do you think?
Having
Being slightly less terse:
A Data Structure is the term for any collection, container, or
arrangement of primitives or objects. In a language that makes
functions first class objects, the structure can contain anything
(variables, objects, or functions.) The details are sorted out during
Birchard Hayes wrote:
Data Structure
Birch...
you are *so* not ObjectOrientedly Correct... you, you, you...
PROCEDURAL PROGRAMMER! Bring your KR Bible by the house and we will
burn it ceremoniously. It is about time for my first cookstove fire of
the season and tip a few glasses
I get unduly hung up on unparsable grammar, where probably my brain
just needs to fill in one missing word, so help me here: did you mean
virtually *any* object. Or, did you mean that the software is able
to object (Your honor, I object!), and do so virtually? Assuming the
first, I would
Steve,
I thought Container as well (although Bag leapt to mind too) but Russ
decided against so all that was left was the more abstract
descriptor. Besides, LISP has a data structure or two and underlying
types, loosely defined but they are there - IMHO Data Structure is
neither
*Data structure* would be a possibility. My problem with it is that it
already is in widespread use to refer to static storage organizations. As
such it has no active component. An array is a data structure. But an array
is not one of the sorts of things I want to include in the class of things
I'm not a C++ programmer and haven't kept up with its Templating capability,
which I understand is quite sophisticated.
In Java I think that the closest equivalent is type parameterization. And
that's really not what I'm after because a type-parameterized entity does
not operate on its type
Birch -
I thought Container as well (although Bag leapt to mind too) but Russ
decided against so all that was left was the more abstract
descriptor. Besides, LISP has a data structure or two and underlying
types, loosely defined but they are there - IMHO Data Structure is
neither procedural,
Let me bring this back to where I started with this. You may recall that a
while ago I was talking about what I wanted in an ideal agent-based modeling
system. I have been thinking about as a starting point. One of the things I
like about Drools is that it is a forward chaining system that
Steve,
C is a wonderful thing and still runs the world, don't give up hope!
If it is any consolation, Prolog warped my fragile mind and ML hurt my
feelings.
Ah Brooklyn, life was simpler then
-Birch
--
I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and
that we
Okay Russ,
There are several options to chose from, depending on just how
adaptive you'd like the functionality to be.
LISP (Scheme, et alia): Allows for partial instantiation or
currying. This mechanism allows your program to build functions out
of little pieces of text and then call
Birch,
Written like a true computer scientist. I lived in a LISP world for a happy
period between, say '85 - '90.
But then the real-world encroached, and C++ began to become the only
realistic way to implement large ABMS of complex systems. LISP was nice,
but the virtual machine and garbage
No, I'm not looking for programming language features. I'm look for a term
that describes a certain class of applications. Here's a revised version of
what I wrote a couple of messages ago.
Let me bring this back to where I started with this. You may recall that a
while ago I was talking about
Douglas Roberts wrote:
LISP was nice, but the virtual machine and garbage collection made it
a non-player in the modern HPC computing arena.
I'd argue that the Lisp way, is a reasonable fit to HPC.
Certainly virtual machines are not needed to implement Lisp-like
languages (some systems are
All --
Apropos some of this, today I found myself going back and forth
between the FRIAM discussion and this review/analysis of what's new in
Mac OSX Snow Leopard . . .
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8
tom
On Sep 7, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Birchard Hayes
WRT the original quest, I realize that the trail is probably cold for most
of the list by now and that tangential discussions have now generated more
interest, but I think I have a reasonable answer.
In functional programming map and reduce are often called *meta-functions*.
GA, GP, Ant Colony
27 matches
Mail list logo
