in reply to Re^2: Unparseability is A Good Thing
in thread Unparseability is A Good Thing
I don't agree with this one. An interpreted language can be parsed, by definition. To say something cannot be 'parsed' is to say the program itself is non-deterministic in its syntax (not its outcome).
If I remember where this bandwagon came from, it was someone's project who realized the project was too hard to write perl to run perl. It was not proven that it cannot be done, however often touted.
If I remember where this bandwagon came from, it was someone's project who realized the project was too hard to write perl to run perl. It was not proven that it cannot be done, however often touted.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^4: Unparseability is A Good Thing
by blokhead (Monsignor) on Aug 28, 2009 at 14:01 UTC | |
Re^4: Unparseability is A Good Thing
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 27, 2009 at 21:45 UTC | |
by Zen (Deacon) on Aug 28, 2009 at 13:31 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2009 at 15:38 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2009 at 14:53 UTC | |
by Zen (Deacon) on Aug 28, 2009 at 15:46 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2009 at 16:00 UTC | |
| |
Re^4: Unparseability is A Good Thing
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 26, 2009 at 22:18 UTC | |
by Zen (Deacon) on Aug 27, 2009 at 13:55 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 27, 2009 at 14:12 UTC | |
by Zen (Deacon) on Aug 27, 2009 at 15:31 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 27, 2009 at 16:30 UTC | |
|
In Section
Meditations