Hello All,
This is the first time I am able to understand what Factor is and the great
idea behind it. The material could serve as a great introductory material
and I must add that it was a good read.
However, I have some concerns,
Heading .......Factor: a dynamic stack-based programming language, while the
first sentence starts off with "Factor is a new dynamic object-oriented
programming language". This is a bit confusing, Factor is not known as OOP
language first, but stack-based language.
In the first paragraph , you have "The Factor implementation
is self-hosting", and under 3.2 Architecture you have "Factor is partially
self-hosting". This sounds a bit contradicting.
Regards,
Emeka
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Eduardo Cavazos <[email protected]>wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Let me clarify a couple of things.
>
> I do not want to be listed as an author on the paper. What I meant in my
> last note is that, if the dataflow combinators and partial application
> syntax are presented as they are:
>
> New abstractions for managing the flow of data in
> stack-based languages
>
> two original contributions
>
> We propose a syntax for the construction of point-free
> closures in a stack-based language.
>
> i.e. as somehow (which I don't think they are) contrbutions to the
> literature or in anyway new results, then proper attribution is
> required, since they're my contrbutions to Factor.
>
> I agree that these topics need to be introduced so that examples in the
> paper can be understood. The problem that I see is that they are being
> presented as more than just incidental syntax and mechanism.
>
> They are not "new abstractions". I'd like to think that the referees
> would catch this.
>
> Partial application and the combinators are not
> "original contributions". Well, if I were writing the paper, I certainly
> wouldn't go that far in describing my work. If this wording gets
> through, it's going to set a precedent that all one needs to do is port
> an old idea to a "concatenative language" and you can get published and
> claim new results.
>
> Finally, the third excerpt above, "we propose a syntax ..." is inacurate
> as long as my name isn't on the authors list. So I suggest changing this
> part of the paper.
>
> Oh yeah, I also designed Factor's module system:
>
>
> http://factor-language.blogspot.com/2006/12/factor-module-system-considered.html
>
>
> http://factor-language.blogspot.com/2007/05/work-begins-on-new-module-system.html
>
> however, at least that's not presented as a New Kind of Feature in the
> paper.
>
> Ed
>
> First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted
> to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so
> important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.
>
> -- William James. Pragmatism, lecture 6. 1907
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Factor-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
