Sleeping? Language Design.

[David E. Manifold]

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Fare Rideau wrote:

> Again, this is not gratuitous criticism. Anyone who's passionate about
> language design should be able to do something original; the problem is
> that something that's original with respect to a primitive notion of
> computing is most likely to be a long-known thing; if you want to be
> original with respect to modern, elaborate, notions of computing, do
> learn them. We're in 1998, not in 1968. Don't do 1968 computing!

Ahh, but we aren't inventing any new concepts.  I see Tunes as simply a
unification of many existing concepts.

Yes, I do intend on incorporating "notions" from both old and new
languages into the Tunes metalanguage.  But you have found most of the
concepts yourself and put them on your web page!

My reasoning for not looking into new languages is that I'm not really
designing a language.  I'm just describing the way we talk about
languages.  Anyone can do that, but it requires a little abstract
thinking (something I enjoy).

The actual language features can be added after I initiate the framework
(consisting of the most abstract concepts).

At this point, it is my opinion that there is plenty of work I can do on
Tunes that doesn't require me to learn any new languages.  The features
from your web pages should be enough.

My main concern is that Tunes proceed immediately.  Learning a language
would seem to slow me down.  If learning a language will ever help Tunes
speed up, I would be willing to do it.  But in general, I don't believe in
duplication of work.  You have done fine work on your web pages for Tunes,
and I see no reason to duplicate the research.  I'm sure you and the list
can be a fine advisor for any questions I may have about languages and
language features.

David E. Manifold <dem@pacificrim.net> http://www.pacificrim.net/~dem/