Forth, LISP, etc...
Sat, 2 Jan 1999 18:41:44 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, William Tanksley wrote:
> In contrast, I see a different model. Data is pictured in my model as
> being part of a flowing whole. You can't simply pick up the data and drop
> it into a black box without seperating it from the flow; therefore,
> functions can't be pictured as giant black boxes. Instead, functions are
> tools, usually hand tools. You don't pick up the data and bring it to a
> machine; you pick up the tool and hold it up to the data, where it does
> its work.
I'm not sure I understand "hold the tool up to the data". If you mean the
data is persistent, and the tools operate on the persistent data, then
Here is something I wrote today:
Passing an object as an argument to a function doesn't invoke a explicit
transfer of data; it connects an instance of the function to a history of
information flow-- i.e. other functions. An object, then, is a
placeholder, a state. The information contained by the object marks where
the object is in a path of dependencies (a state machine)?
All data is metaprogramming information. Configuration options, data
files, command arguments, input, etc. are all only to select what path of
execution to use.
This probably makes about as much sense as "you hold the function up to
the data" :)
David Manifold <email@example.com>
This message is placed in the public domain.