I've been kicking around a model that may be useful here, vis à vis naming and the difficulties it implies.
In short, a language may have a single global "namespace" that is a collision-resistant hash function. Values below say 256 bits are referred to as themselves, those above are referred to as the 256 bit digest of their value. Identities are also hashes, across the 'initial' value of the identity and some metadata recording the 'what where when' of that identity. An identity has a pointer to the current state/value of the identity, which is, of course, a hash of the value or the value itself depending on size. We'd also want a complete history of all values the identity has ever had, for convenience, which might easily obtain git levels of complexity. Code always and only refers to these hashes, so there is never ambiguity as to which value is which. "Symbols" are pointer cells in the classic Lisp fashion, but the canonical 'symbol' is a hash and the text string associated with it is for user convenience. I've envisioned this as Lispy for my own convenience, though a concatenative language has much to recommend it. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:43:44AM +0200, Jb Labrune wrote: > > > as a friend of some designers who think in space & colors, it always > > strucks me that many (not all of course!) of my programmers friends think > > like a turing-machine, in 1D, acting as if their code is a long vector, > some > > kind of snake which unlikes the ouroboros does not eat its own tail... > > Today's dominating programming model still assumes human-generated and > human-readable code. > > There are obvious ways where this is not working: GA-generated blobs > for 3d-integration hardware, for instance. People are really lousy at > dealing with massive parallelism and nondeterminism, yet this is not > optional, at least according to known physics of this universe. > > So, let's say you have Avogadro number of cells in a hardware CA > crystal, with an Edge of Chaos rule. Granted you can write the > tranformation rule down on the back of the napkin, but what about > the state residing in the volume of said crystal? And the state > is not really compressible, though you could of course write a > seed that grows into something which does something interesting > on a somewhat larger napkin, but there's no human way how you could > derive that seed, or even understand how that thing does even > work. > > Programmers of the future are more like gardeners and farmers > than architects. > > Programmers of the far future deal with APIs that are persons, > or are themselves integral parts of the API, and no longer people. > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
