Brian's Arrow System
Thu, 27 May 1999 15:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Tril wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999, Maneesh Yadav wrote:
> > <Tril, forige the negativness, but I sense a real lack of reality in the
> > above>
> > You have no idea what the components you mentioned are going to look like;
> > yet you have the exact way they're are going to be integrated together?
> Does anybody have a better idea? I don't have THE answer, but I know what
> I am going to do. After I wrote that, I realized that the stuff I was
> talking about may be completely unnecessary. For this reason: If there
> are two systems that are fully expressible, i.e. can express anything, you
> don't need to find a higher model that includes both of them, because they
> are equivalent. If something is in one, it can exist natively in the
> other. What a fully expressible system means is uncertain. Maybe Fare's
> (newest idea for a) paper will help.
> > Now why are you going to bother bootstrapping to a new system when there
> > are plenty of existing (better) ones?
> Obviously they are not what we need. If tunes already existed, we would
> know it, because it would start integrating other projects by the handful.
Let's take this one by one, what is not in a system like say Linux that
you will find in Retro for bootstrapping?
> > Your goign to tie all your code
> > down into some un-advanced Retro API and then make the effort to write in
> > TUNES?
> Not at all. There is no advantage to coding at the retro level compared
> to coding at the posix level or LISP VM level or Smalltalk VM level. If
> we run our HLL on retro it's just to be able to say we wrote the whole
> system, not for any practical reason. I don't care which lower layer is
> used to bootstrap. If my post suggested otherwise I apologize, that was
> just one possible approach.
> > You have not been at all definite in terms of your framework, as
> > some of our conversations of IRC have indicated (that may have changed by
> > now, but somehow I doubt that)...and I would be surprised if you really
> > understood the Arrow system (I certainly don't, but I know what really
> > understanding it (assuming it's worth anything at all) entails); how can
> > you possilby map out a chronology for integration when you have no idea
> > what these things are?
> Brian is working so hard to understand his own system, why would I claim
> to know it better than him? I have given up trying to explain my ideas in
> english and have started programming them. I feel I am a much better
> programmer than a writer. However, I do see a lot of negative comments
> from you. How do these actually benefit the project?
> David Manifold <email@example.com>
> This message is placed in the public domain.