First just want to say thanks for continuing to take the
time to provide feedback. Often I'm blunt but that's just
for sake of time and very appreciative of the time you have
been taken to reflect on this.
You keep saying that "Tree Languages are the future"
but I don't see any impressive examples of it.
Binary notation as an idea was worked through for ~250
years before we had very impressive examples of it in
computers, so I'm pretty happy with the examples so far
given that I'm ~10 years in, and ~4 years since publication.
So just at a high level the short term game common in the
rest of tech isn't something I'm interested in playing.
Beyond what's out there, I've seen the results from
thousands of experiments in everything from assemblies to
compiler compilers to declarative data notations, and from
software to hardware and everything in between, so the
amount of data I have dwarfs what everyone else has seen.
While I totally get that it's not raining buckets now, and
in fact people feel barely a drizzle, I have quite a dataset
that there are big clouds on the horizon.
Is that iris grammar document in designer a good example?
It's mildly neat. Here's how we used an early version of
that a couple of years ago to publish synthesized data for a
GWAS EOPEC study
(
https://github.com/breckuh/eopegwas/blob/master/mockData/cli...).
Tree Notation will become the standard way to describe data
schemas and make synthesis a breeze.
outweights the ugly formatting
The formatting can be described as this: minimal. In fact,
the most minimal. If you think minimal is ugly, than we
probably won't come to an agreement. Keep in mind though
that you can write code to project Tree programs in whatever
way you want. I won't disagree with the statement "Tree
Notation doesn't work as well with my existing tools as
other langs", but if you go back to stuff from 2017 and look
at the trajectory, you'll see that Tree notation tooling has
improved remarkably and in a couple more years you'll see
stuff that just isn't possible with 1-D langs.
doesn't map well to any programming language
Do you know Lisp? Tree Notation maps to S-Expressions
without parens.
un-nesseary restricts the data that can be represented.
From the paper (2017): "Prediction 1: no structure will be
found that cannot serialize to TN."
your existing grammar programs "nice looking".
To each their own. I think in the long run simplicity lasts. Also, the bigger idea isn't Tree Notation, but the idea of 2-D and 3-D languages
https://longbets.org/793/