Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new language, arch, furth, etc.

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 17:55 -0700, Tom Lord wrote:

> So, A is an example of a language in use because A has not been
> implemented  but B is _not_ an example of a language in use because
> B _has_ been implemented?

It has nothing to do with being a language or not.  It has to do with
being a counterexample for the creation of an entirely new language.

> But all those rules for different header fields --- only a few of them
> have been implemented!  Since the others have not yet been
> implemented, using your logic, you are proposing implementing a new
> language!

Not at all!  Because for the uses given, simple string key/value pairs
work quite well.  So there is no deviation in form from the existing
patch log format.  Parsers can easily ignore unknown fields.

> WL looks to me like a half-done job.   To finish the job, something
> like xl is needed.

But the point is that xl is for the most part a massively over-
engineered solution to a non-problem.  For the rest of the use cases,
it's far better to have an actual programming language with real
libraries and features that you can use to implement project-specific
procedures.

> Why?  That's a very glib statement.  I've demonstrated some uses
> already and more will surely follow.  

And I've demonstrated those uses are more easily solved using existing
methods.

>     > A client can perform whatever computation they want on the data.
> 
> Why can't the data itself represent, unambiguously, a program, albeit
> a very limited program (so that we can terminate in finite steps)?
> 
> What is this essential difference that you see between code and data?

The difference is turing-completeness, of course.  If xl is not turing-
complete, then we can stop discussing that.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part