The point I am trying to make w/the PL community is that using inadequate notations like BNF leaves out an important bunch of PLs. I don't think they are motivated to do anything about this, judging by the BNFy flavor of Redex. Roger's simple table in the C appendix of "APL from 1978" ( https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3386319) is marvellously simple and robust but I don't think the PL people will take it seriously until it's applied to a language more familiar to them. The Redex tutorial ( https://dvanhorn.github.io/redex-aam-tutorial/) evaluates s-expressions using a Racket interpreter and the example target is "...a very simple, typed functional programming language based on the PCF language (Plotkin <https://dvanhorn.github.io/redex-aam-tutorial/index.html#%28autobib._.Gordon._.Plotkin.L.C.F._considered._as._a._programming._language.Theoretical._.Computer._.Science._5%2C._pp..._223--2551977http~3a%2F%2Fhomepages..inf..ed..ac..uk%2Fgdp%2Fpublications%2F.L.C.F..pdf%29> 1977 <https://dvanhorn.github.io/redex-aam-tutorial/index.html#%28autobib._.Gordon._.Plotkin.L.C.F._considered._as._a._programming._language.Theoretical._.Computer._.Science._5%2C._pp..._223--2551977http~3a%2F%2Fhomepages..inf..ed..ac..uk%2Fgdp%2Fpublications%2F.L.C.F..pdf%29> ). " We are at an impasse with the PL community unless we can show that array language notation can describe more familiar languages as well as array languages. Otherwise we're back to competing notations which the small, weird one will always lose.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:54 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect that a redex representation of J's grammar would not be very > descriptive. > > I think you would need an adequate dependent type system to fully > specify the syntactic types of the results of J's adverbs and > conjunctions. > > Still... you could specify an informative subset of J's grammar in > redex, by [falsely] assuming that adverbs and conjunctions always > produce verbs. > > I hope this helps, > > -- > Raul > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 4:52 PM Devon McCormick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I recently butted in to a PL (programming languages) discussion on > Disqus - > > > https://disqus.com/home/discussion/sigplan-pl-perspectives/pl_notation_is_a_barrier_to_entry/#comment-5091883057 > > - where I moaned about the lack of inclusion of array languages in the PL > > discussion. > > > > The writer of the blog entry "PL Notation is a Barrier to Entry" > responded > > with some examples of PL notations to look at: Ott (which I could not > > find), K (same K we know?), and Redex about which there is info here > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNrRSAjyzQ and here > > https://dvanhorn.github.io/redex-aam-tutorial/. > > > > Since Redex looks a lot like BNF (Backus-Naur Form), I'm guessing it may > > also be inadequate for describing languages like J but I would like to > hear > > the opinion of someone more knowledgeable than me about this. > > > > Roger referred me to Appendix C of his and Morten's recently released > "APL > > since 1978" paper (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3386319) where they > > describe a parser model using APL. This is an example of using APL to > > describe a PL. I would be interested in seeing a language like C > described > > this way. Does anyone have an example like this? > > > > -- > > > > Devon McCormick, CFA > > > > Quantitative Consultant > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA Quantitative Consultant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
