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

chris glur <[email protected]> wrote:

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

That's what I told you,yes.

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

Laziness is a virtue, if you work at it. You're not working at it; you're
just whining.

BTW you've confirmed what I suspected: it's taboo to discuss the

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

You don't make any sense at all. And you haven't discussed any psychological
bases; you've merely blabbered about your pet non-project that you fantasize
will make your work better. If you ever put any work into it, I'll be
surprised. And if you do, it still won't be a concatenative language, and
won't belong on this forum.

If you have any interest in concatenative languages, stay here and learn
with us. If you're only interested in your compositional language, it's off
topic, so we won't discuss it further (this is your first, and much overdue,
warning). If you can discuss psychology we can listen, but so far you
haven't said word one about it, except to fantasize how much better your
ideas would make the world. They might make the world better, but they won't
be discussed anymore on this mailing list.

You are, as of now, moderated. This means that I have to approve your
messages.

 == Chris Glur.


-Wm


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]