3 ms·
I'm not disputing the idea that the standard library's reliance on a feature will force its support, I'm disputing the idea that jets are a workable solution to
by Rusky 11y ago
I'm not disputing the idea that the standard library's reliance on a feature will force its support, I'm disputing the idea that jets are a workable solution to anything at all.
And no matter the form you turn a language into, it's still a language. Speech and text are generally considered equivalent in that sense, for example- it's the abstract form that matters here.
- derefr 11y agoYes, Nock is a "language" in at least one sense. But you're arguing that it's a "language" (n., 1. linear encoding of semantic information) and then using that to argue that it's bad, because it's not a very good "language" (n., 2. method for sequential communication of thoughts between humans.) A Smalltalk live-image, a core-dump of a process, an SQLite database, etc. are all "languages" by definition 1, but obviously not "languages" by definition 2. Nock's ISA is more like those: a format for machines to generate and other machines to consume, and for humans to use tools to introspect; not a format targeted at direct human production or consumption, even through a 1:1 mapping ala disassembly.
- Rusky 11y agoNope. I'm not arguing Nock is bad because it's hard for humans to understand- live images, core dumps, databases, etc. are great. I'm arguing Nock is bad because it relies on jets, which are nonsense.