Re: xl, xxl, and mxl

Tom Lord <lord-1tv/[email protected]> writes:

> Some people add all that up and say: "Ok, we want a general language
> (permits divergent computations) ... and just have to be careful how
> we use it."
>
> XL fans say: "Ok, we want a non-general language (kinda) --- just so
> long as we can write in it, say, 99.999% of the 99.999% of desirable
> programs."
>
> See?!?    (It's new to me, too, but pretty vivid.   I'm searching for
> ways (and suspecting that "code" is the best way) to communicate it.)
>

OK. And how do you prove that XL avoids divergent behaviour altogether
while retaining the ability of expressing that 99.999 x 99.999 % of
all programs? (i'm not doubting it, i'm just curious... provided i've
really seen :-)

> Another way to see XL is to view it as hardware design, extended to
> the point where the hardware being constructed is thoroughly
> virtualized.
>

I had got a totally wrong understanding of what xl is. I lose track of
the furth/xl thread on gnuarch ml at some point which left me with the
(false) impression that XL was just a configuration language for GNU
Arch based on furth (as an aside, Tom, i'd appreciate a quick note on
how pika fits in the picture (if it fits at all)).

>
> I don't quite follow what you are trying to say but it sounds
> completely wrong.
>

Nevermind. Besides being poorly expressed, the idea was based on my
(mis)understanding of xl&co. (which led me, btw, to not fully
understand what Jeremy was talking about on previous posts).


>     > in short, i want _abstraction_. and Make users need it, too. 
>
> Make keeps getting pushed in that direction.   It's only compatability
> with legacy foo that keeps it from pushing more agressively.
>

Just curious again: is package-framework your attempt to push on that
direction or do you have other plans for a building tool?

Thanks for your feedback,
jao
-- 
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
   -Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)