Viewing profile — markvangulik
markvangulik
HN member- Joined
- Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 11
- Public activity
- 24 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About markvangulik
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #17162552
As for SHRDLU, it was built atop a “language”, PROGRAMMAR, if I recall, which was really a big ball of Lisp, so the syntax was basically tons of parentheses with keywords inside th…
-
comment
Comment #17162451
“Implemented in” is the key. If you want, say, a C compiler written in Lisp, you end up writing a compiler. If you want a Haskell compiler written in Lisp, you write another compil…
-
comment
Comment #17156252
I forgot to add the interfaces versus classes, inner classes, and lambda notation, with the tons of trivial FunctionalInterface interfaces to deal with a smattering of the combinat…
-
comment
Comment #17156147
Very true. The core Avail language uses “_=_” for comparison, “_:_” to declare a variable, “_:=_” got assignment, and “_::=_” for constants (think “final”). It also has “_:_:=_” fo…
-
comment
Comment #17156049
I went into this design decision, having looked very closely at the specific success of the SHRDLU system (1971?). Local disambiguation was very effective, and Avail goes even furt…
-
comment
Comment #17155983
Some of the keywords and operators (punctuation) of Avail methods are “completely optional”, in that the caller’s choice to include it or not (or alternative prepositions in some c…
-
comment
Comment #17155895
Perhaps. But wouldn’t you prefer that COBOL become a mere dialect of Avail?
-
comment
Comment #17155875
Right, and that’s why Avail is nothing like that. Kind of the opposite when it gets down to it... Cheesy, closed languages like C forgot that exponentiation was even a thing, or co…
-
comment
Comment #17155748
Well said, that’s exactly right. Most languages lack a bottom type, or screw it up by pretending that “null” fits that role and falsely promises everything that every other type pr…
-
comment
Comment #17155693
It’s a big concern, but technically most of the world doesn’t actually use ASCII. We use shortcuts in IntelliJ (and Eclipse before that), so if you want a right arrow, you type “ri…
-
comment
Comment #17155650
Working on it, sorry about that. We lost some things when rehosting some time ago and have prioritized other things. There is no mailing list any more.
-
comment
Comment #17155637
The core syntax of Avail does have a prose-like feel to it, and that’s intentional. But when you narrow it or extend it for specific linguistic domains (CSV, tensors, business rule…
-
comment
Comment #17155579
We’re working on tools for writing/viewing Avail more easily. Stay tuned, it’ll be worth the ride...
-
comment
Comment #17155555
Yes, that agrees with the shape of Avail’s type hierarchy. There’s a top type and a bottom type, and the latter has no instances.
-
comment
Comment #17155538
Haskell has infinite and recursive constructs, lazily computed. That’s what makes their type system undecidable. Avail is constructivist in that sense, so immutable structures must…
-
comment
Comment #17155443
If you wouldn’t mind, please post a screenshot where you think an example is supposed to be displayed but isn’t. Or mail it to “mark” at the same address as the website.
- comment
-
comment
Comment #17155383
If you grab the development branch, you can use the modular lexers to make that a little bit clearer. If memory serves, “a socket address from and 80” can now be written “192.168.1…
-
comment
Comment #16509681
Slow two days now. Lots of internal errors, no new content since Thursday. I guess they won’t ever add decades overdue Unicode support after all, since ad revenue will be zero pret…
-
comment
Comment #9046673
At this exact moment, Avail can only evaluate expressions left-to-right, except of course for functions (block expressions, using [] notation resembling Smalltalk). However, I'm cl…
-
comment
Comment #9045708
It was intended with humor, of course, but really creating a natural language syntax is a tiny capability of Avail. We're working on the details at the moment, but we're fairly cer…
-
comment
Comment #9044920
Unfortunately there's no guide to walk you through the library. However, we have code level documentation in a live searchable form here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/docu…
-
comment
Comment #9044769
Just to whet your appetite, consider this: Method "_plus_" is [ a : number, b : number | a + b ]:number; Print: 5 plus 6; The entire language is built this way.
-
comment
Comment #9044733
I'm one of the authors. If you're concerned that what we built is a mere natural language parsing engine, have a look here: https://www.availlang.org/about-avail/documentation/faq.…