OT: GCed Forth-like language, proof checking and machine code generation (was: migrating to mediawiki)

Massimo Dentico m.dentico at virgilio.it
Fri Oct 21 13:14:53 PDT 2005

First of all: my apologies to Hendrik Boom for giving him the
wrong impression that people on this (zombie) project can be
interested in his work. Only *I* am interested.

Brian Rice wrote:

> ...someone brings up their project to us thinking that they'll
> gain volunteers or our "blessing" or something. In fact, that
> seems to be the only thing that most people consider this list
> worthwhile for.

Not fair and, frankly, ridiculous: he has found us, has written
asking for information about the outcome of a past discussion and
then I have replied with some information and ideas. Now, after
months, he is just informing us about his progress.

He is not certainly waiting for volunteers nor he needs our

Again, here is the thread readers can check:


And just that I'm here:
 Brian Rice wrote:
>>> Most TUNES members really do not follow what is
>>> actually going on in the wide world of computer
>>> science. That's worthless for this project, since
>>> the point is to provide a common convergence goal.

Part (most?) of what is actually going on in the wide world
of computer science is total crap. Digging into this garbage
to find interesting things and occasionally a pearl is an
ungrateful task.

> We, as TUNES project members, should not endorse or pay any mind to  
> projects which attempt to become new "metarecursive lumps" except via  
> providing a migration path for existing software via multiple paths -  
> we need software that ties things together, ...

This is void of content: I remember to have asked you about the
meta-translator subproject (without which this "software that ties
things together" will be yet another "interoperability" and "back
compatibility" idiocy). In your opinion, it was "too difficult for
us right now" or something like that. How is it more attainable

> ... not a new pile of research legacy code.

He never said that. I understood it will be a new system.

> Forth dialects definitely LOSE on this front.

For bootstrapping purpose and for formal manipulation,
a Forth-inspired language is better than, say, using C
as intermediate code: people first struggle with its
syntax... when they come to its semantics they undertsand
that the beast is not really so simple as someone imagine.

> I see more interesting stuff pass by on Lambda the Ultimate
> in a week...

I respect some LtU contributors, but I find depressing when
they take seriously crap like XML/XPath/Xsomething or the worst
parts of C++, just to name 2 examples.


Massimo Dentico

More information about the TUNES mailing list