On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 04:20:41PM -0700, David Barbour wrote:
>(Forwarded from Layers thread)
>On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Gath-Gealaich
><[1]gath.na.geala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Isn't one of the points of idst/COLA/Frank/whatever-it-is-called-today
> to simplify the
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:48:53AM +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 12 April 2013 22:18, John Pratt wrote:
> >
> > This is just like open source software. A bunch of feelgood people
> > hangin' out and messin' around, not ever doing anything, but pretending
> > they are getting somewhere by indul
d and misrepresent this concept)
>
> [1]http://www.edge.org/conversation/understanding-is-a-poor-substitute-for-convexity-antifragility
>
>On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Ondřej Bílka <[2]nel...@seznam.cz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:00:26
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:00:26PM -0700, David Barbour wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Julian Leviston <[1]jul...@leviston.net>
>wrote:
>
> LISP is "perfectly" precise. It's completely unambiguous. Of course,
> this makes it incredibly difficult to use or understand some
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 04:57:05PM -0700, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/1/13 3:18 PM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> >On opposite end of spectrum you have piece of haskell code where
> >everything is abstracted and each abstraction is wrong in some way
> >or another. Main reason o
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 09:12:07PM +0100, Loup Vaillant-David wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 04:36:09PM -0700, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> > On 12/31/12 2:58 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> > 2. The programmer has a belief or preference that the code is easier
> > to work with if it isn't abstracted
Reversibility is quite old idea. Prolog is typical example.
In applications trying to make fuction invertible complicates problems
more than it helps.
Typicaly it you want only adjunction as you want to omit what function
abstracted away.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:47:02PM +0200, Jarek Rzeszótk
My language pattern matching language which I call amethyst starts
coming close to generic tool for pattern matching.
For example it is easy to write generic highligther as I did for
amethyst
http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/peridot/parser_highlight.ame.html
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:20:52AM -070
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:21:42AM -0800, Wesley Smith wrote:
> > most notable thing I did recently (besides some fiddling with getting a new
> > JIT written), was adding a syntax for block-strings. I used <[[ ... ]]>
> > rather than triple-quotes (like in Python), mostly as this syntax is more
> >
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 09:55:22PM +0530, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 Nov 2011 12:43:00 PM Dan Amelang wrote:
> > "Input prefixing" is what I call this pushing of data onto the input
> > stream, though I'm not set on that term. You used the term "pushback",
> > which I like, but the
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 03:43:04AM -0700, BGB wrote:
>On 8/4/2011 6:19 PM, Alan Kay wrote:
>
> Here's the link to the paper
> [1]http://www.vpri.org/pdf/rn2005001_learning.pdf
>
>inference:
>it is not that basic math and physics are fundamentally so difficult to
>underst
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:16:24AM -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>Even if it were possible to have a last language, it would be double plus
>ungood.
>
>On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Paul Homer <[1]paul_ho...@yahoo.ca>
>wrote:
>
> Realistically, I think Godel's Incompleteness T
Reminds me io language.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:41:06PM -0400, John Zabroski wrote:
>John Shutt has a new blog, sharing his thoughts on programming language
>design. He has written a blog post titled "Primacy of Syntax".
>[1]http://fexpr.blogspot.com/2011/06/primacy-of-syntax.html
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:04:20PM -0700, BGB wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 12:14 PM, Michael FIG wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >John Nilsson writes:
> >
> >>So my fix is to make the separation a hidden thing, which means the
> >>program needs to be represented in something that allows such hidden
> >>things (and I
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:42:28PM +0800, Brian Gilman wrote:
> >
> > No, I do not accept this. I do not think it is in the project's best
> > interests, I do not think it is in computer science's best interests,
> > and I do not think it is in the public interest. That is why I am
> > "banging on
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:14:57PM +1000, Steve Taylor wrote:
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
> >1. You prefer to release only polished artefacts. This is just egotistical.
>
> Demanding that people show you their work before it's ready can come
> across as pretty egotistical too.
>
> Yes - I'd love to
s list. It will make a good topic
> > for discussion.
> >
> > This is easier than it was 50 years ago because there are more examples and
> > more formalisms. So, in what ways are e.g. "operational semantics" and
> > "denotational semantics similar, and how
Hello
Can you explain benefits of operational semantics.
I skimmed through few papers and it looks that they define yet another
language with its abstract syntax tree.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 04:55:45PM -0800, Alan Kay wrote:
>Hi Casey,
>
>You might enjoy looking at "operational semantic
18 matches
Mail list logo
