Re: [stack] Re: How the Interpreter Works

chris glur <[email protected]> wrote:
>  As previously stated I'm aware of Backus' and McCarthy's
>  promotions of functional programming for facilitating formal methods
>  of correctness proof.  But that's decades ago, and I've never seen that
>  anything usable came of it.  It reminds me of these blokes that spend
>  every weekend polishing their vehicles, but have never made a 'journey'!

There are quite a few production languages based on that type of work:
OCaml (fast, a bit quick-and-dirty rather than pure-and-theoretical
but easy to use because of it); Erlang (multiprocessor); J (array
based, like APL); Haskell (pure and theoretical); and Scala (a bit
experimental, but being proven).

Lisp, of course, is the best-known example, but it's much more-so
quick and dirty than any of the above.

>  The first part of joy/j04alg.html looks like interesting manipulations,
>  but no indication for me that it will achieve 'formal methods'.
>  What I need to see is a 'hello world', as a proof of concept.
>  My related rant below, hopefully further explains why I'm reluctant to
>  start a journey which won't reach a profitable destination.

Cool. I look forward to hearing it!

>  == Chris Glur.

-Wm