Where Tunes is going.
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Brian Rice wrote:
> It sounds like you've completely missed the point. I'm suggesting
> abandoning the *language* idea altogether as a model for Tunes, and you
Hmmm... what do you mean by language?
> state support by proposing your Open Implementation *Language*. That's
> absolutely absurd. Unless your language has no inherent semantic content
> whatsoever, you're just feeding me the same nonsense that I've seen from
> everyone else. It sounds like you have the usual mis-interpretation that
> assumes that Arrow is a language, and not a framework for abstracting
> arbitrary information patterns. I'll even go as far as accusing you of not
> being able to distinguish Arrow from Lisp. If you can't prove that you
> understand the difference, then you merely re-inforce my point.
Well, once you begin to describe such arbitrary information patterns to a
system, you have created a kind of meaning, and it will be easier to
express new patterns which are easily related to the old patterns than it
will be to express new patterns which are difficult to describe in terms
of the old patterns. This is not a problem unique to computer programming