Re: [stack] Re: Jon Purdy: Why Concatenative Programming Matters

yes please.

more zeroone.  (sounds like a planet in flash gordon's univese, doesn't it?)

On Mar 19, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Robbert van Dalen wrote:

> i still remember the days when basicode programs were broadcasted!
> you could actually hear the 0's and 1's.
> 
> Seriously, i do want to hear about your zeroone language!
> what's morphing?
> 
> i'm experimenting with a combination of datalog, the chemical abstract machine and constraint handling rules with postfix syntax.
> nothing concrete yet, but i believe that (syntactic) postfix expressions match (reactive) molecules, whatever that means.
> 
> cheers,
> R.
> 
> On Mar 19, 2012, at 6:38 PM, William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
> 
>> John Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> *explodes*
>> 
>> John, thanks for your comments here and on Lambda the Ultimate. Unless
>> everyone's already unsubscribed, we got quite a few new list members
>> who are probably wondering what this is all about. The answer: no,
>> it's not all about Unix shell syntax for pipes, even though those are
>> interesting in their own rights and on their own mailing lists.
>> 
>> As you saw on the LtU discussion, it's more about the idea of
>> languages whose syntactic properties exactly match their semantic
>> properties, so that parsing goes away. As Nowak said earlier in this
>> thread, that's not a miracle cure-all, but as I also said, it's very
>> interesting anyhow.
>> 
>> The discussion on LtU turned to several interesting points --
>> typechecking, Kerby's and my zeroone language, and so on... We should
>> start this list moving again. I'm wrapped up in a few things at the
>> time, but zeroone's been morphing a little recently, and I'd like to
>> talk about it more. Anyone wanna listen?
>> 
>> -Wm
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>