On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
> My intention was to far more specifically ask: why "small
> core, user comprehensible and modifiable, and boot-strapable"
> systems seem to be the province of either latently typed (Smalltak,
> Lisp, Scheme, Icon (?), etc.) or untyped (Fort
ta has used -- see his TCP example).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>
____________
From: Alexis Read
>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing
>Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 3:34:13 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel
> Alan
>
> --
> *From:* Alexis Read
>
> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing
> *Sent:* Sat, June 4, 2011 3:34:13 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel,
> comprehensible, user modifiable systems
>
>
als of New Computing
Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 3:34:13 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel,
comprehensible, user modifiable systems
>>The extreme case of this -- where the variables are actually constrained to
>>the
>>specific values they are
#x27;s always seemed to me that what we really need to be working on is
> something more like "real specifications that execute to produce prototypes
> (and can be debugged) much more than weak schemes that are complex enough to
> introduce severe cognitive load, but aren't compreh
Scott McLoughlin wrote on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:04:20 -0400
> My intention was to far more specifically ask: why "small
> core, user comprehensible and modifiable, and boot-strapable"
> systems seem to be the province of either latently typed (Smalltak,
> Lisp, Scheme, Icon (?), etc.) or untyped (For
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, John Nilsson wrote:
> Is static types really an intensic property of the language? In my mind
> any language can be statically typed. It is just more or less hard to do.
>
Again, please read Gilad Bracha's position paper. He concisely enumerates
the ways in whic
Is static types really an intensic property of the language? In my mind any
language can be statically typed. It is just more or less hard to do.
In any case, does SQL match your definition?
BR
John
Den 4 jun 2011 16:55 skrev "Scott McLoughlin" :
___
f
On 6/3/2011 8:37 PM, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
For many, many moons, I've examined the early Smalltalk
books, small bootstrap Forth systems, Lisp based systems
(implementing a large subset of CL decades ago) and the like.
In recent years, I've taken an interest in type systems and
typed functional
I think you answered your own question. A small core is small since it is
limited to what is required to make it run. This eases development and lets
you focus on what's important and interesting.
On Jun 4, 2011 6:06 PM, "Scott McLoughlin" wrote:
>
> Kind Folks,
>
> I just feel obligated to say t
Kind Folks,
I just feel obligated to say that I had absolutely no intention
of introducing the far too well-worn debate between untyped,
latently typed and manifestly typed languages.
My intention was to far more specifically ask: why "small
core, user comprehensible and modifiable, and boot-str
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Alan Kay wrote:
[...]
> This left the other question and possible motivation for static type
> checking, which was: could the tradeoffs it imposed still wind up helping
> the programmers more than bogging them down?
>
> The extreme case of this -- where the variabl
On 04 Jun 2011, at 16:52 , Scott McLoughlin wrote:
> So I'll rephrase my question in this manner. We can imagine a
> Smalltalk or Lisp or Forth machine. Can we imagine a machine
> predicated on a statically typed language - a Haskell machine, or
> OCaml Machine or whatever - in the same way???
Tw
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
[...]
> So I'll rephrase my question in this manner. We can imagine a
> Smalltalk or Lisp or Forth machine. Can we imagine a machine
> predicated on a statically typed language - a Haskell machine, or
> OCaml Machine or whatever - in the same
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
> Second, I think you have over estimated the nature of my initial inqiry.
> I was just noting that the "transparent, modifiable, boot strapped"
> systems seemed to historically be the province of untyped (Forth) or
> latently typed (Smallta
,
Alan
From: C. Scott Ananian
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 9:56:21 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Static typing and/vs. boot strap-able, small kernel,
comprehensible, user modifiable systems
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Scott McL
First, you have introduced to me to a line of inquiry I had not
fully considered before, the notion of deriving more complex
type systems from simpler typing primitives. Hmmm
Second, I think you have over estimated the nature of my initial inqiry.
I was just noting that the "transparent, modi
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
> For many, many moons, I've examined the early Smalltalk
> books, small bootstrap Forth systems, Lisp based systems
> (implementing a large subset of CL decades ago) and the like.
>
> In recent years, I've taken an interest in type systems
There is a library for java called checker-framework which provides for
pluggable types using annotation processing. Most importantly it is a
framework that can be used by the user to create their own specialized
types.
I have been thinking of using this library to implement a unique constraint
on
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
> What is the relationship, positive and negative, between static
> typing in language design and user-transparent and modifiable
> systems bootstrapped from small kernels?
"Small type systems" aren't very powerful, and tend to grate on the
For many, many moons, I've examined the early Smalltalk
books, small bootstrap Forth systems, Lisp based systems
(implementing a large subset of CL decades ago) and the like.
In recent years, I've taken an interest in type systems and
typed functional languages.
What is the relationship, positiv
21 matches
Mail list logo
