Tim Bunce - Life: Enhancing your frame of reference

My 2c, lightly held. I've had several previous exchanges on this sub about this topic. Here's one I think might be of help to you which included stuff like this (I've added **emphasis**): >Text processing is hard. Simultaneously, it's what every beginning programmer wants to do -- manipulate a string -- because it's something easy to do. These are at horrible odds with each other. ... I don't think the first iteration of my language is even going to have a concept of a character. A graphene cluster is a decent approximation of a user perceived character, but still falls apart in certain cases. **The only thing that's always correct is treating strings as opaque blobs.** ---- Note that…

Well, like life and the universe, it does sound simple and straightforward if you sufficiently abstract away from reality to keep things simple and straightforward. That can sometimes be *better* than reality, if what you want to do is, say, just get something done like, say, win a battle by moving flags (<-- trust me, just click the link). But life and the universe is actually infinitely complex, so if instead you take all the concrete details of reality into account, like non-deterministic processes (think internet traffic) or compassion (which is kinda incompatible with killing people just because you're emperor; did you click the link?), it's pretty complex, as you say. > I'll make m…

> C++ ... no meta object system at all ... I hear ya. After decades of tinkering with a wide range of programming languages I decided to focus on Perl 6 a few years ago and it's predicated on having what for fun I'll call a metallic metacircular metaobject protocol that has such a stark contrast with the "OO" in C++ that it's funny. > Neither language permits the sending of unanticipated messages - there is no doesNotUnderstand message handling facility. Right. We're agreed that the big idea is a sufficiently generalized messaging perspective. > Both C++ and Java are cargo cult object languages. They have the appearance of OO without the underpinnings required to do real OO kinds of thin…

> good to see a clarification. I came close to saying nothing. The fact I have posted proves your point. I was free to say nothing (analogous with not contributing or refining a PR) but I decided to engage instead despite not finding the absurd caricature and sarcasm in your comments particularly appealing to work with. But it also proves the opposite. I was genuinely close to not commenting and indeed I only decided to comment when /u/ClownPFart chimed in with what I consider a balanced comment. They noted that you might be "failing to see the amount of people it turns off contributing to your project". The equivalent in this thread would be you failing to interpret my silence as valid d…