On 14/06/2011, at 1:50 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: >> When you're about to type the next "tile", you're given options... anything >> outside of those options is impossible, so the computer doesn't put it in, >> because syntactically it wouldn't make sense. > > There's nothing specific to tiles in what you wrote. You could do the > same just as easily with a keyboard-based system. > This is what I mean when I say that "tiles prevent syntax errors" is > not accurate; it's confusing two separate things. > Again: more accurately you could say, "strong typing can prevent > syntax errors"... tiles have nothing to do with it, really.
Assuming a "compile after composing" type of system. If it's a running, live, system, then "type" is irrelevant because an "object" at the point of being "talked to" will provide its own semantic and therefore syntactic-appropriateness context (ie duck typing for want of a better term). Do you see why I think text-stream based systems are outmoded crappy systems yet? They're not "real" in the sense of first-level representational. It's the equivalent of me sending you this email by fax, and you running an OCR program across it so it can get into your computer, though obviously less error-prone. However... not to be rude, but you're potentially missing my larger point, which was underneath the two lines you quoted... and you're perhaps getting "caught" on my bad example of syntax in TileScript - I'm saying the possibilities and ramifications of programming a live system using non-text-stream representation are far greater than that of text-stream ones... either that, or we have to re-engineer the natural possibilities after the fact... (ie Eclipse Java IDE is an example of doing this... where the IDE knows a lot about the language, rather than asking real live objects about themselves). Instead of having actual one-level-linked instantiated objects AT THE POINT of programming, we use multi-layered deferred referencing (ie text-stream based "codes" which are later processed and further decoded into computer codes by another computer program many times). One of the troubles with computing is that there are so many layers between what's real and the user that we've forgotten how to deal directly with the real. We've forgotten what is happening when we use computers, and this is sad and needs to be addressed. It's the real that's exciting, interesting and impassion-ating... ... granted there will always be those who don't want to see the real, and for those people, we build layers on top (ie Apple products), but still allow the guts to be got at by those who wish it. Presently it's SO DIFFICULT to get at the guts and not because it's hard to fire up GCC... mostly it's the learning that gets in the way... (at least, that's my experience). The sheer amount of education one needs to get through before one can get to the point where one is a true systems expert on our current top-level systems is colossal, and this is mostly due to cruft, IMHO. Julian. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
