Hi Joel,
> That sounds good. However, natural language and the common-sense
> expectations of 'normal' people (or even programmers when they're
> not programming) are notorious for their ambiguity and fuzziness.
Important qualities that traditional computing cannot deal with.
>
> I humbly propose that the need for precision in programming means
> that rigorous, elegant, and minimalist definition should take
> priority over everyday conversational comfort, should they ever
> come into conflict.
Respectfully, I think you are putting up a language design goal that many
(most?) computer languages have been aiming for for years. The same thing
that many (most?) serious (experienced?) programmers would aim for in their
programs. A mindset legacy of structured programming, provable programs,
etc. There is nothing wrong with this - indeed it is necessary line of
thinking, and up until recently I would have seconded your proposal for
Rebol to follow this goal. Now I think otherwise.
1) If feel that "rigorous", "elegant" and "minimalist" are from the
Mathematical space of thinking. Paradoxically, I think these concepts are
very subjective.
2) I believe one of the main aims of Rebol is to be a useful language. Its
practical and pragmatic approach has been the selling factor for me to
invest my time in it.That said, I do agree with you (and others) that it
needs a more detailed supporting documentation set on the language, but I
can accept that the language itself is still stabilising.
3) "precision in programming" reminded me of the often heard "Arrgghh! It
did what I said, not what I meant!". I'm hoping that Rebol will succeed in
reducing the occurrence of this phrase via dialecting.
I hope you don't find my comments frustrating - I am deliberately "coming in
from a different angle". They are meant to invite the questioning of
perhaps long held "truths". In the Rebel fashion ;)
One last thing which has perplexed me with this whole thread. Your example
of the ordering of logical values. Why? What do you use such a thing for?
I've been trying to think back over my programming experience for a
practical example of this but I've failed miserably. Maybe my experience
wasn't broad enough or maybe I just needed a coffee!
For me, I have to agree with Rebol, ordering logical values seems to be a
nonsense. Grouping fine, but ordering?!
Thus, pick's behaviour (using true/false as selector) as long as it is
consistent with poke seems ok.
Brett.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
