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

[Hendrik Boom]

kkkOn Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:14:53PM +0200, Massimo Dentico wrote:
> 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
> "blessing".
> 
> Again, here is the thread readers can check:
> 
> http://lists.tunes.org/archives/tunes-lll/2005-April/thread.html
> 
> 
> 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
> now?
> 
> 
> >... 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.
> 
> 
> Regards.
> 
> --
> Massimo Dentico
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>