@wistahe First thoughts I get after reading that:
1. This reminds me of another set of quadrants:
@wistahe First thoughts I get after reading that:
1. This reminds me of another set of quadrants:
@wistahe Basically, functions are synchronous single return, generators are synchronous multiple return, promises are asynchronous single return and observables are asynchronous multiple return.
@wistahe 2. When we write tests, we are essentially describing our goals. It's just that without a 4th quadrant language, we are also forced to describe how to get there.
@wistahe I hadn't thought of it in terms of quadrants before, but the idea of giving a computer a goal and skipping the "how" has been on my mind before.
What surprises me is that only this 4th quadrant would require an AI but the 3 others don't. We have "execute mechanism" languages like C and "evaluate consequent" languages like SQL, yet somehow, "execute consequent" requires an AI.
@wistahe Another thing that occurs to me about this is my constant bother with the fact that crossing the boundary between SQL databases and programs is so clumsy and unnatural. They tried to "fix" that problem with NoSQL databases, but that turned out to be a bad idea. What interests me is that this lies at the exact intersection that the missing 4th quadrant does.
@wistahe Perhaps the this discomfort stems from the very fact that it straddles the 4th quadrant. Integration between systems is what most software actually does.
@wistahe If you could state your goal in terms of what a constellation of systems should accomplish, what's left for the compiler to do is figure out the glue code.
Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.