3 ms·

Okay but why? Sincerely: what is the pragmatic value? [edit: NM, end of the page... > Semantics and correctness of implementation It is not obvious how the M

Okay but why? Sincerely: what is the pragmatic value? [edit: NM, end of the page... > Semantics and correctness of implementation It is not obvious how the Mariposa language could be given a formal semantics. Since there is no specification of its semantics, it doesn't even make sense to ask if the implementation is right or wrong. However, we are sure that the implementation is incorrect for almost any conceivable semantics. It should be understood only as an exploratory game. ]

tincholio 3y ago
Exactly, there's no rationale given, nor any practical example of where this would be useful. Mutability is already a source of complexity, adding time-traveling to it seems like it would just make it worse...
- Terretta 3y ago
  I read the proposal as immutable within a given tick.
- erikerikson 3y ago
  Initially I followed the link wondering if perhaps the author had done something interesting regarding append only ledgers and derivative generation processing semantics (e.g. event 5 modifies event 2, impacting the proper processing of events 3 and 4). After all, the linearity of the character stream is not unlike log offset/ledger row. Frequently these esoteric languages have very interesting purposes.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    I don't know if this is still the case, but I recall needing to run LaTeX twice before it would produce the correct output. Something like this might make it easier to generate documents in one pass.
    - erikerikson 3y ago
      Sometimes LaTeX produced auxiliary files (e.g. for the table of contents) at the end of a compilation that that therefore wouldn't be used until the second pass. Long time since I needed to know that...
alexbezhan 3y ago
It's a toy language. A toy.
dvh 3y ago
To test a Sapir-Whorf theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
- erikerikson 3y ago
  Thanks, I kinda love this explanation
nusl 3y ago
For fun. Fun is a valid reason to do this.

tincholio 3y ago

Exactly, there's no rationale given, nor any practical example of where this would be useful. Mutability is already a source of complexity, adding time-traveling to it seems like it would just make it worse...

Terretta 3y ago
I read the proposal as immutable within a given tick.
erikerikson 3y ago
Initially I followed the link wondering if perhaps the author had done something interesting regarding append only ledgers and derivative generation processing semantics (e.g. event 5 modifies event 2, impacting the proper processing of events 3 and 4). After all, the linearity of the character stream is not unlike log offset/ledger row. Frequently these esoteric languages have very interesting purposes.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  I don't know if this is still the case, but I recall needing to run LaTeX twice before it would produce the correct output. Something like this might make it easier to generate documents in one pass.
  - erikerikson 3y ago
    Sometimes LaTeX produced auxiliary files (e.g. for the table of contents) at the end of a compilation that that therefore wouldn't be used until the second pass. Long time since I needed to know that...

alexbezhan 3y ago

It's a toy language. A toy.

dvh 3y ago

To test a Sapir-Whorf theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

erikerikson 3y ago
Thanks, I kinda love this explanation

nusl 3y ago

For fun. Fun is a valid reason to do this.