to brian

[William Tanksley]

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Tril wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2 wrote:

>Let's say the TUNES project is an idea, a goal to strive for.  We (you, I,
>and Fare) are working together on our TUNES ideal from different
>directions.  We should try to create a common terminology, to describe our
>common ideal.  I'm not sure how we can create the terminology now.  Maybe
>we need to learn more about the system, through our implementations,
>first.  Or we can work on it through the discussion list.

I think this is a great point.  I'm working on Dolphin, which I'm certain
is not Tunes.  Perhaps when I'm finished I'll have a better idea what
Tunes IS, and I'll be able to help.  You guys will have found a little
more about what Tunes is.

>> Keep in mind that
>> my objects are not computational objects in the conventional sense, but
>> mathematical (logical?) objects within a temporal context (an inadequate
>> description, I know, but perhaps you will get the gist of it).

>No, I don't :)  What do you mean "temporal"?

I would imagine that he means that some mathematical evaluations are not
possible (or some expressions are not present) at certain times.  "Time"
is, of course, a series of computational states, with the states
distinguishable by the computations possible uniquely to each state.

This is one core idea of Evolving Algebras.  Another one is nesting: a
single state is represented by a single expression, BUT that expression
might not be simple, in the sense that it might itself have multiple
states.  If you're willing/able to accept/understand the state expression,
you don't need to prove/compile the substates.

>> We
>> should develop a VM which will represent in itself with an (eventually
>> appropriate) structure of objects (remember that I mean to have each
>> structure an individual object as well).  

>There are some grammar problems with this sentence, which makes it even
>harder to decipher than it would have been with good grammar.  fix?

He's saying that the virtual machine will be able to be represented via
its own machine language.  Like metacompiling a Forth.

I don't like the concept implied by Virtual Machine.  I prefer thinking of
something else -- perhaps a Machine Model.  Virtual Machine implies that
the user's machine is trying to be something it's not.  Machine Model
implies only that the programmer is assuming that the user's machine can
do certain things.  This seems more Tunesish, if you will.

>David Manifold <dem@tunes.org>

-Billy