3 ms·

You should make a Long Bet for it. Every lambda calculus, including yours, corresponds to a Cartesian closed category. Your system is not at all as new as you

You should make a Long Bet for it. Every lambda calculus, including yours, corresponds to a Cartesian closed category. Your system is not at all as new as you think; what you are actually inventing are new ways to write down parsers, akin to the many other ways that folks are trying to write down programs in JSON or XML or YAML. The only advantage that you've got at this point is a 2D addressing scheme, you might think, but E had that in the late 90s: http://www.erights.org/elang/kernel/LiteralExpr.html http://www.erights.org/elang/kernel/LiteralExpr.html

breck 7y ago
> You should make a Long Bet for it. Second time I heard this suggestion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20504193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20504193), thanks! Done. http://longbets.org/793/ http://longbets.org/793/ - “In 2027, at least 7 out of the top 10 TIOBE languages will be Tree Languages AND/OR 0 out of the top 10 languages on 2017's list will be in the Top 10 in 2027. ” > Your system is not at all as new as you think I agree. It's mildly new. Tiny tiny little details that make a big difference in practice. To get here I had to stand on the shoulders of giants: built the largest DB of computer languages in the world (over 10k languages with over 1k columns). > but E had that in the late 90s Great reference, thanks. E and Kernel-E are great, but the devil is in the details. There are a tremendous amount of tiny little details in Tree Notation and Tree Language that compound to make this something new. You can't take anything out of Tree Notation without losing something important. Everything else you can add via a Tree Language. That makes this closer to binary, imo. There are at least a dozen things that could be taken out of Kernel-E, which itself is a subset of E.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  What exactly makes Tree Language any different from the context-sensitive encoding of code in binary?
  - breck 7y ago
    Abstraction. Scope. (also, usability?) Interesting question though. Can you elaborate?

breck 7y ago

> You should make a Long Bet for it. Second time I heard this suggestion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20504193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20504193), thanks! Done. http://longbets.org/793/ http://longbets.org/793/ - “In 2027, at least 7 out of the top 10 TIOBE languages will be Tree Languages AND/OR 0 out of the top 10 languages on 2017's list will be in the Top 10 in 2027. ” > Your system is not at all as new as you think I agree. It's mildly new. Tiny tiny little details that make a big difference in practice. To get here I had to stand on the shoulders of giants: built the largest DB of computer languages in the world (over 10k languages with over 1k columns). > but E had that in the late 90s Great reference, thanks. E and Kernel-E are great, but the devil is in the details. There are a tremendous amount of tiny little details in Tree Notation and Tree Language that compound to make this something new. You can't take anything out of Tree Notation without losing something important. Everything else you can add via a Tree Language. That makes this closer to binary, imo. There are at least a dozen things that could be taken out of Kernel-E, which itself is a subset of E.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
What exactly makes Tree Language any different from the context-sensitive encoding of code in binary?
- breck 7y ago
  Abstraction. Scope. (also, usability?) Interesting question though. Can you elaborate?