Judson, Christopher started to add Scheme-like continuations to Rhino's implementation of JavaScript. If continuations are in JavaScript, I don't see why we cannot have two different back-end implementations to choose from.
Ovidiu On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:33:38 -0600, Judson Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 06 March 2002 05:35 pm, Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:05:42 -0500, Jason Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I looked on the Rhino code, and also spoke with Christopher Oliver > > > > (Rhino serialization) and Norris Boyd (Rhino main developer) about > > > > continuations support in Rhino. > > > > > > You *have* been busy :) > > > > > > <snip content="full continuations are out"/> > > > > Yep ;-) > > > > Would this really be so bad? Certainly the set of utility that continuations > supplies minus the set of utility from CPS is not null, (well...I'll concede > the point as OT) but isn't the set of utility we need for Cocoon from > continuations intersected with the set that CPS provides is identical to the > first set, no? I mean, don't we get everything we want from CPS? > > <snip> > > > Near as I can tell, the really big thing, other than transparent states, > > > will be the abilities to call a Cocoon pipeline for output and to > > > construct pipelines on the fly. <-- deliberate Functionality Syndrome > > > provocation, but let's be honest... it *will* happen regardless of > > > whether we use Rhino or FlowScript. > > > > As I said in an earlier message, we should not have a language > > designed for the average programmer, but for the hackers we all > > are. It would take a lot of words to explain why we should do this, > > and other people have done much better explaining this. Therefore I > > ask you to go read some interesting stuff: > > > > I think both your references could as easily be read for either side of this > argument. > > > http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html (long version, highly > > entertaining and funny) > > In which it's argued that Lisp is a bad solution because its better. Or > worse. Or not. He doesn't know. In essence though, the Worse is Better > suggestion is that less structured systems are prefered...which tends to > attack the purity suggestion later. > > > > Five questions about language design: > > http://www.paulgraham.com/langdes.html > > I thought the suggestion that CPS in servers would be great, real > continuations better "if it isn't too costly." > > > > I'm not trying to take anything away from continuation-style programming, > > > Scheme, or any other language. I'd actually like to learn about this > > > stuff. What I'm wondering is whether we are pursuing purity at the > > > expense of maintainability and comprehension? > > > > Probably this is controversial, but maintainability and comprehension > > usually come from purity. The whole apparent complexity that you see > > in Lisp like languages is built on top of only 5 (five) operations: > > quote, variable reference, lambda, if, set variable and procedure > > call! Everything else is syntax only, which is translated to above 5 > > operations. > > And to some extent, the obtuseness and confusion of Lisp results directly > from the concision of its basis. Is there a real reason to pass up Rhino > just because it won't do real continuations? Isn't CPS sufficient for our > purposes? > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
