Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new language, arch, furth, etc.

[Talli Somekh]

Colin, I must admit that I've listened to your complaints about Tom's 
work both on the mailing list and on the irc channel, and they are 
getting tiring mostly because it's not clear you are or are willing to 
listen to Tom's ideas.

Aaron has been as vociferous as you in opposition to this, but said 
he's at least willing to sit back and hear out what the ideas are.

Please, for the benefit of everyone (or at least me), chill out for a 
second and let Tom explain. He's earned that privilege (and plenty 
more), I think

talli

On Jul 20, 2004, at 12:21 PM, Colin Walters wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:12 -0500, Charles Duffy wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 10:59, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > Because it's the same as the existing RFC822-compatible format, so 
> > > there
> > > is no new format being created, and certainly isn't anywhere near
> > > turing-complete.
> >
> > I'm sorry -- languages have to be Turing-complete?
>
> No, but Tom is trying to argue that an new version of such a language 
> is
> needed.
>
> > And RFC822 isn't one?
>
> It is a language.  But it is a very well known one that is already in
> use in arch and works well.
>
> > I thought that Turing-complete was a quality that languages may or may
> > not possess, not a prerequirement for being a language at all.
>
> The point is that Tom's example did not demonstrate the need for a new
> Turing-complete language.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/