On 14/01/2013 5:46 AM, David Barbour wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2013 10:04 AM, "Ross Bencina" <rossb-lists_at_audiomulch.com
> <mailto:rossb-lists_at_audiomulch.com>> wrote:
>> all general purpose programming languages and modern machine
> instruction sets are Turing complete, apart from having finite
> memory.
>
> An interesting and common point in PL design involves supporting
> universal computation only in the extent - I.e. where the program
> interacts with time or IO. Every subprogram in such a language might
> be guaranteed to complete, perhaps even in real time or bounded
> time.
>
> I believe such languages are superior for live programming, even
> though the programmer never uses TC expressions.
Can you elaborate on this? This sounds interesting but I'm not sure I
follow what you're asserting.
Do you mean that you believe that
a mix of:
(1) TC extents for time and IO, plus
(2) non-TC expressions everyewhere else
is superior for live programming.
superior compared to what? TC expressions everywhere? or non-TC everywhere?
in either case can you elaborate on your reasoning?
and explain your crtiteria for "superior"
In an artistic live coding context the reason I am pushing for TC
languages is purely moral (ok, maybe aesthetic too). But then I have
never programmed in a really expressive non-TC language, only a bunch of
brain-dead DSLs.
Ross.
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 20:50:49 GMT