4 ms·
Aw man, no mention of Funciton :) [0] I believe I understand where the designer is coming from. Traditional languages use a 1D syntax to express a structure th
by Timwi 1y ago
Aw man, no mention of Funciton :) [0]
I believe I understand where the designer is coming from. Traditional languages use a 1D syntax to express a structure that is really not 1D (the parse tree). However, I don't think it's really 2D either. If you think about how an interpreter would have to proceed to execute Recto code, it would still parse it into an internal representation and then execute that, and this internal representation no longer uses the 2D layout of the code.
I'm not implying that it's a bad idea or anything. To the contrary, I think Recto is a cool idea. I'm just skeptical that simply making a language syntax two-dimensional automatically makes it easier to understand, code in, collaborate in, or implement a parser/interpreter/compiler for.
[0] https://esolangs.org/wiki/Funciton https://esolangs.org/wiki/Funciton
- Mars008 1y ago> how an interpreter would have to proceed to execute Recto code, it would still parse it into an internal representation and then execute that, and this internal representation no longer uses the 2D layout of the code. Adding parallel execution will make it true 2D at execution time. Even though it's sequential code. More over it can be logically, architecturally 2D while being 1D from interpreter's standpoint. If it uses cooperative multitasking with 1 running task at a time. Or simply 1 core processor.
- Timwi 1y agoThat has nothing to do with the 2D syntax though. That's just a separate language feature. A feature that 1D languages can (and already do) provide just fine.