Re: [stack] Abstracting away the complexity is the goal.

You might note that I wrote "data flow VIEW",
and not data flow programming language.

Without giving much thought, I speculate that such a one dimensional
facility, could not be Turing complete.

In the real life example that I gave, clearly the control
structures are embedded in the library 'utilities'.

Did you understand, how I explained that conventionally unix puts
the control structures in the shell-scripts, and has the
'straight-line data transformer chains' embedded in there ?

I want to be more lazy and just string someone else's transformers
together, where it's possible.

BTW you've confirmed what I suspected: it's taboo to discuss the
psychological basis of computing practices. Importantly the MIT
old-boys touch on it discretely.

I can well believe that any diversion from the popular wisdom of
NY [Wall street] was hammered down.

== Chris Glur.



On 2/23/10, John Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:59 PM, chris glur wrote:
>
>>> How did you measure the complexity? I don't get it.
>>
>> The number of new concepts introduced.
>
> That's a terrible way to measure complexity.
>
>> For decade/s I ignored Turbo-pascal & used my own P-code compiler,
>> because
>> "turbo" was a fad-word. I've been thinking that blogs are just a
>> passing fad
>> like sub-prime-loans.
>
> This exchange is embarrassing to read.
>
>> I'm not convinced that adding control stuctures to this data-flow-
>> view,
>> is viable, because it would destroy the one-dimensional simplicity.
>
> Yes, just like adding a steering rack to a car.
>
> - jn
>