isn't "what the thing can do" trivially equivalent due to turing completeness?
so instead of cat(X), d6bee5a3-1236-4174-9fbd-6844a446460c(c28f8392-9785-4ea3-b4f7-fe5b6892a5e7)?
-
-
If you can get a computer to build a graph for you and manipulate nodes, why not? Why must text be the lowest common denominator?
-
so there is another tool that uses human-readable names?
-
I see your point. I'm not saying names are irrelevant. Just hugely overemphasized to the point of eclipsing other possibilities.
-
I can agree that semantics are often under-emphasized :)
-
OK, so just to jump in briefly here, this was the point of my post: "syntax doesn't matter" is an overreaction…
-
I in fact stated that "language == syntax" is a novice confusion…
-
but syntax design is also an important part of language design, and should not be ignored.
-
the best solution (to this & every problem) is to say that every part matters and then stress out constantly
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.