Factor on Win32
Slava Pestov — 2004-12-11 20:14:49
Hi everybody,
Thanks to Mackenzie Straight (eiz on #concatenative), Factor now runs on
32-bit Windows platforms. A few things are missing, such as asynchronous
I/O, the compiler and the FFI, however these will come soon.
You can download it and test it at
http://factor.sf.net/factor-win32.zip. It will be part of the next
release, of course, but that won't be out for a week or so yet.
Feedback appreciated!
Slava
Mackenzie Straight — 2004-12-12 01:01:18
This needs to be run like so: factor factor.image -no-ansi
-no-compile. If you don't use the -no-compile switch, it will crash,
and if you don't use -no-ansi, you'll get escape codes everywhere.
There are some bugs, and the IO code is really slow (the plan is to
rewrite the IO using FFI once the compiler is ported anyway, so it's
not a priority).
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:14:49 -0500, Slava Pestov <slava@...> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Thanks to Mackenzie Straight (eiz on #concatenative), Factor now runs on
> 32-bit Windows platforms. A few things are missing, such as asynchronous
> I/O, the compiler and the FFI, however these will come soon.
>
> You can download it and test it at
> http://factor.sf.net/factor-win32.zip. It will be part of the next
> release, of course, but that won't be out for a week or so yet.
>
> Feedback appreciated!
>
> Slava
>
phimvt@lurac.latrobe.edu.au — 2004-12-17 05:09:58
Some months ago we discussed composition of functions
other than unay functions. I said that it is a messy
subject, because there are always so many different
ways of doing it. In the meantime I found out that
it is not as bad, and that there are indeed obvious
and perfectly clean compositions of n-ary functions.
For n=1 we have unary functions, the composition (f.g)
of two unaries is defined thus: (f.g)(x) = f(g(x))
For n=2 we have binary functions, the composition of
three binaries might be written as(f.(g h)) and defined
thus: (f.(g h))(x,y) = f(g(x,y),h(x,y))
In general, any (positive n), the composition of (n+1)
n-ary functions would be defined as
(f.(g1 g2 .. gn))(x1,x2..xn) =
f(g1(x1,x2..xn),g2(x1,x2..xn)..gn(x1,x2..xn))
This is just a special case of what in recursive function
theory is function composition, specialised to the case
where the colleccting f function has the same number as
arguments as each of the g functions.
It would be of some interest to see whether in the simplest
case for n > 1, the binary case, there is a language waiting
to be invented. The x and y would presumably be complex
structures (stacks?), and the notation might well be the
reverse of what I used above.
Food for thought? Well, maybe a bellyache. Sorry.
- Manfred
phimvt@lurac.latrobe.edu.au — 2004-12-17 05:40:30
For quite some time I have been trying to give a definition
of what it means for a language to be concatenative,but I have
not been able to come up with anything really right.
We have been using the term "concatenative" with some mutual
understanding, just as many kinds of specialising terms in
all sorts of fields are understood by the practitioners. In
computer science we have "high/low level", "procedural",
"object oriented" and many others. Often one has to be satisfied
with a broad understanding, but a rigorous definition is
often preferred. Can we give one for "concatenative"?
Of course what one wants is a definition that covers those
cases that are agreed upon, and excludes others. So the
definition should be neither too narrow (exclude too much)
nor too wide (include too much). Any offers?
I take it that the definition should leave various matters
as irrelevant:
1. the exact style in which definitions/declarations
are written,
DEFINE f == body or "body" f define or similar
But what makes a language concatenative is the style
of bodies.
2. Whether concatenation is written with or without an infix
operator:
pop; dup or pop dup
3. What datatypes it has, whether it is compiled or interpreted,
whether it uses linked lists or consecutive allocation, and so on.
Probably the definition should leave it open whether the
implementation uses a stack of some kind, or even whether
conceptually the language operates on a stack.
So, here is something to dwell on in the many idle moments that
I hope you are able to have during the Christmas break. And also
my best wishes for the new year.
- Manfred
sa@dfa.com — 2004-12-17 13:29:14