Notes following transcript skim:
if you're doing like you know video game programming like you can't have some GC in the background
Realtime gc exists (both soft and hard; former is good enough for games).
you've got things like Smalltalk, which are object oriented, and that's a different paradigm than the array programming languages or LISP, which is LISP processing
Smalltalk and lisp are both oriented towards interactivity, cohesion, and modularity. The most notable difference is that the latter is much more pragmatic.
what's Dyalog APL written in? C. What's J written in? C. I think cbqn is written in C, but the VM is written in bqn
Only out of convenience, not necessity--and I argue writing in c is _less_ convenient than the alternative; only, the road is better trod--really, it is _inertia_. There is no reason you cannot bootstrap a high-level language. I will point to some notes by a friend on the issue (https://applied-langua.ge/posts/zero-feet.html) as well as the sicl bootstrap process (http://metamodular.com/SICL/bootstrapping.pdf) for ongoing work on the issue. Once done, my j compiler will be fully bootstrapped and stand alone--modulo a few unpleasant details, j is much easier to bootstrap than these other languages.
At a certain point in time, there's people that knew exactly what the opcodes were for each of the assembly instructions
I recall the following anecdote: a student of john von neumann's wanted to use an assembler instead of writing out machine code directly; von neumann reprimanded the student: what a waste to make a computer do trivial clerical work!
God knows I know far too many x86 opcodes...
there's just no point going to machine code because it says the exact same things
It does not. There are all sorts of cute tricks you can play with machine code that you can't witha ssembly.
In French they'll at least go in whole 20s, and so you might have 3 * 20 + 17
60 is just sixty (soixante); 76 is 60-and-16, yes (soixante seize), but the only hint of 20 is in 80 (quatre vingt).
quite often appending something with a dot will have a relationship back to the function that doesn't have a dot
Isn't it the same with overstruck diareses, quads, etc.? On Fri, 14 Apr 2023, 'robert therriault' via Programming wrote:
A follow up email from Henry Rich gets us started and we find there is a place for everyone in the world of computer languages. Host: Conor Hoekstra Panel: Marshall Lochbaum, Adám Brudzewsky, Stephen Taylor and Bob Therriault. https://www.arraycast.com/episodes/episode51-naming-is-hard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
