A case against standards

Ilmari Heikkinen kig@misfiring.net
Mon Nov 3 14:22:02 2003

Hello Armin and Lynn,

> This is not always possible;  
> optimizations that cannot be undone correspond to the inference engine not
> finding a way to decode it using the available set of operations.  This is a
> useful piece of information in itself, because it can be used e.g. to prevent
> the compiler from doing some optimizations when the user (or some other
> program) wants the ability to inspect the result.

One way might be to have the compiler build two programs, the other the
semantically sparse imperative binary and the other a program to map the
binary to the source code. A debugger made for specifically the program.

On a more general level, I think it's a one-directional mapping problem,
kinda analogous to deriving and integrating in math: deriving loses
information, being a many-to-few-mapping, and integrating "adds"
information, being a few-to-many-mapping. Or R->1, 1->R with
cardinalities. I'm rambling.

Looking forward to the next version of your draft, glad if this exchange
was of any help, I know I came off with a good deal of useful new ideas
and knowledge.

On the ultimate language -topic, I'd rather have a visual language for
programming visuals, an audible language for programming aurals and a
textual language for programming text, than a single megalanguage that
tries to do it all.