Sorry, I've missed a beat somewhere. "Arrowized?" What's this bit with arrows?
I saw the term arrow earlier and I think I've assumed that it was some slang for the FRP thing (if you think about it, that makes some sense.) But starting with intuitive assumptions is usually a bad plan, so I'd love some clarification if possible. On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:30 PM, David Barbour <[email protected]> wrote: > Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language. > > But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't > limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be evaluated > as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model in a > concatenative language. Further, subprograms can interact through the arrow's > model - e.g. sharing data or constraints - thus operating like agents in a > multi-agent system; we could feasibly model 'chromosomes' in terms of > different agents. > > I've recently (mid August) started developing a language that has these > properties: arrowized, strongly typed, concatenative, reactive. I'm already > using Prolog to find functions to help me bootstrap (it seems bootstrap > functions are not always the most intuitive :). I look forward to trying some > genetic programming, once I'm further along. > > Best, > > Dave > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice <[email protected]> wrote: > With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative > language like Joy. > > APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify. > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important > context. My words below... > > On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic > > programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. > > I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any > language with the right "semantic chops" but so far it seems like we're > looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH. > > My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of > recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is "syntaxlessness." > > I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are > conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting > work done with one of the logic languages. > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > -- > -Brian T. Rice > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
