RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Sat, 2 Jan 1999 01:12:18 +0300
> I didn't ask for specifications, but I think that these are too low
> level. In fact, they are implementation specifications. And I think
> that we first need to specify what something should allow us to do
> before trying to see how to implement it. It seems a bit early to talk
> about pointers, memory chunks all that stuff.
> In fact, I think that we should first specify our needs, and then see
> how we can build something that can fullfill them.
congradulations, all, on successfully proving that you know how to chase
your tail like a common dog!
how can you all possibly be more vague? the system you describe is so far
beyond modifying existing systems that by not going beyond the frontiers of
current thinking, you resign yourselves to waiting until someone hands you
the vocabulary to express your system in first-order terms.
LAZY MINDS you have!
the only way for Tunes to justify its own existence is to add to the science
of information systems in general, not endlessly seek to explain itself to
its members, a task which is futile without the proper vocabulary to express
the ideas! and that vocabulary can only come from those with the courage to
push the borders of social progress in information science!
with this mentality, you simply present yourselves as worthless, helpless
how dare you presume to desire to create this thing?
for instance, can anyone PRECISELY explain why Self, Lisp, Scheme, ML,
Modula, Smalltalk, Oberon, or (insert favorite computing interface here) is
not Tunes? Why is it that you can't build Tunes easily within these
systems? Because they do not transcend language, mathematics,
finite-structure models, ... You need a language that can concisely
describe an entire hardware system and its operation, as well as consolidate
redundant information (i.e. reduce information noise in the general sense)
in a systematic way.
and the fewer the implicit concepts, the better!!
the Arrow language does this!!