Teach Andrew Porter Language Design and Compiler Theory

[rancid sparrow]

Not easy to answer

[meager marten]

you're demanding faith, but you're not god

[knotty glen]

yeah what im a calvinist

[meager marten]

us mortals have to trust our senses

[rancid sparrow]

That makes no sense. Reason is not faith.

You just meditate on things, and the intellect tells you what's true about it. Not much to it.

[meager marten]

sometimes, "the intellect" tells you false things

[meager marten]

but you're asking people to believe you without reason

[rancid sparrow]

No, it never fails. Ideas can be false, but it always gives what is possible, else that would be like saying a cause can produce what it can't effect.

[meager marten]

ok, this is your problem

[rancid sparrow]

Well anyways, good night. Apologies for any cold hard sentiment that might have come across in my words.

[meager marten]

i keep saying this

you literally believe that your intellect is infallible

we've all heard long screeds touted as ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE TRUTH!! by crazy people

you gotta set yourself aside from those people by providing something other than just megatons of words

like the Wright brothers

when people didn't believe them they just ascended into the sky

or Moses parted the red sea in front of nonbelievers, if that's more relatable to you

[knotty glen]

aquinas wrote disputations which was a format that included objections to his thesis and responses to those objections

im noticing a total lack of those in Porter’s exposition

[steep belfry]

@rancid sparrow you may just be better off explaining your idea to ChatGPT, because I don’t think anything you’re saying makes any sense to anyone here. ChatGPT has a lot of time set aside to talk with u, and if u believe it made a mistake, it will almost always believe you’re correct. if you are looking for any factual information though, I don’t think ChatGPT will help you

[knotty glen]

this thread has over a 1000 messages

most threads in this channel have 5-20

[meager marten]

then again, most threads begin with a question and end with the question being answered

it's difficult to pin down what the question is

how to revolutionise c++ in a god-honouring way?

how do i convince everyone that i'm right about everything by definition

how do i create the one true programming language without learning any new skills or creating a new language

how do i write c++ in a way that reflects universal truth when i don't believe in empirical knowledge

Larry Wall is devoutly Christian and a student of linguistics

he created the programming language Perl based on his own beliefs about both, using concepts like huffman-coding and verbiage like "bless"

[knotty glen]

Ruminations on Language Design and God by abcq2

[gusty obsidian]

im bout to stop studying to read this thread 😂

[knotty glen]

reading this thread counts as studying

[rancid sparrow]

Unfair comparison. He didn't have to deal with people who deny basic realities about themselves, including things that they can sense.

Like the fact that any being with an intellect, though he make mistakes in the reasoning process, is capable of knowing he made a mistake, and correcting it.

Like the fact that I and every other such being like myself has free will which is the capacity to contradict what is necessary meaning you can't set a deterministic rule or in simple terms make a computer program that will always predict my next move.

Like the fact that we observe there is man, and there is woman, according to what literally every person from the dawn of humanity has ever been born as is what he is.

and so forth.

Pretty sure if he were alive today, he'd probably say, "Nah, I'm out"

[hexed mirage]

Wow, just... wow

Are you saying that unironically, or are you joking?

It's a trivial binary question, you don't need a paragraph to answer it

I just need a single word

[rancid sparrow]

Why would I be joking?

No, I'm not joking.

[hexed mirage]

Cause that would show you have a bit of self-awareness

But if you're serious, fucking yikes

I mean, you did pretty much called yourself a being with no intellect

[rancid sparrow]

Ok, but... you do realize that with that and everything else I said about the intellect (or just, y'know, everything that you could reason about it for yourself 😉 ) concludes that the intellect is infallible in spite of mistakes that we make?

[quick plinth]

is this saying it's impossible to make a mistake and not know it?

or that if you make a mistake and don't know it then you're not an intellect?

[rancid sparrow]

How in the world do you even reason that from what I just said 😐

[hexed mirage]

It's literally the words you said dude

[rancid sparrow]

You can make a mistake and be unaware of it. You can eventually be made aware of it and recognize the fact of its falseness.

[hexed mirage]

Re-read the whole thread and realize your mistake then

It's extremely obvious, you should be able to spot it yourself

[rancid sparrow]

Obvious to you, not to me. Individuals are not aware of what they do as being wrong without it being demonstrated to them.

Every man thinks himself to do rightly.

[hexed mirage]

The jokes write themselves lmfao

[rancid sparrow]

You clearly have no interest in helping me. You're more obsessed with the idea of egging me on to amuse yourself it would seem. You can't just plainly tell me what the issue is. You have to be all mysteriouslike.

[hexed mirage]

You want me to spell it out?

[rancid sparrow]

Yes!

[meager marten]

can you please elaborate on this? i am just dying to hear more about this

[rancid sparrow]

Maybe if it were under different circumstances such as pursuit of the truth, then sure, by all means, but quite frankly, you don't seem intent on finding it. You haven't convinced me given how you've responded to me before.

[hexed mirage]

This whole thread, the full 1000 messages of it, are all due to your complete and willing inability to accept the fact that you do not have a single fucking clue what you are talking about when it comes to designing a programming language, your stubborn refusal to listen to what people say, and your very annoying habbit of farting way above where your hole is (that means you're acting extremely pretentious).

I don't even need to be a mind reader to know what your response to this will be, you're as predictable as a broken record

[rancid sparrow]

Completely unfair. If I was actually already capable of expressing my ideas well to others, then you would be saying otherwise.

And yeah, I suppose if I wrote as many pages as the summa to prove myself, that would help.

[hexed mirage]

Knew it 🙂

Broken record, incapable of accepting the fact that you're wrong

[rancid sparrow]

Henceforth I'm not responding to any such responses that involve telling me what I do or do not know. I know what I know, and know what I do not know. I will not elaborate further. Believe what you want; I don't care. You'll shut up quite quickly when the demo is available.

I was trying to stay quiet about this whole thing until then, but I never expected to be answering so much in a question about trying to use C++ to do so.

Like no one understood what I was saying until I unironically explained the metacompiler to Curly

[scenic juniper]

You are arguing for the validity of reasoning while presupposing its principles; it's, ironically, circular logic. In fact, most of your conclusions do not even follow the premises you've established, which by themselves can be denied with a bit of epistemology. In due honesty, all of this convo definitely amounts to nothing.

[hexed mirage]

Woah, no one understood the problem until you explained what the problem is??

I'm shocked

[heavy apex]

this is one of the help threads of all time

[hexed mirage]

It amounts to create a legendary meme deserving of being put alongside the other great trolls of tccpp

[rancid sparrow]

Ok, I'm done with this. I'm moving on from any of that stuff. The heck do you expect me to do when you can literally try it (your intellect) to prove my point; you do nothing; and then say "Proof? Haha lol! Circular logic!" Like this is literally what I mean when I say denying basic realities that no one had to deal with not even a few centuries ago.

[next whale]

because socrates will rise from his grave and ask you to explain the what if of your javascript code

[rancid sparrow]

I mean if you deny the very principle of reason itself as being infallible, then imagine that: you can't prove to such a person that formal proofs amount to anything but subjective ramblings, destroying the very notion of mathematics, the syllogism, and even the scientific method itself because it relies on a priori understanding to be able to interpret empirical data correctly! So I'm done. You don't want to think for yourselves? Be my guest. I'm not wasting my breath anymore here.

[meager marten]

we're 1000 messages deep, somehow i doubt you're actually gonna exit here

[scenic juniper]

Don't fault me when you seem to mimic Descartes's thesis (poorly) without being able to counter his critics throughout history. And don't try to sound like you are on the high horse here, I didn't try to offend you and yet you made a caricature out of my comment.

[meager marten]

you don't actually have to accept the notion of reason a priori, nor do you have to uphold reason as infallible, to discover things through reason

first, the notion of "truth" is not something that can be discovered "a priori" or "from pure reason"

the statement "it is raining" is true if and only if it is raining

there is no difference within-the-statement between "it is raining" (true) and "it is raining" (untrue)

the truth or untruth of the statement exists only as a relationship to the referent

it is possible to discover, empirically, that some method of producing statements produces true statements

[rancid sparrow]

You'd get pretty frustrated and distraught if you met resistance every which way you turned also.

[meager marten]

a syllogism is empirical knowledge about operations on statements

[meager marten]

the hell are you talking about

[next whale]

so were the wright brothers, until they flied

[meager marten]

if discord is stressing you out then just log off like you said you were going to

[next whale]

if you don't provide any backing for outlandish statements, they will just remain stupid ramblings

[rancid sparrow]

Literally the only constant in all of this has been SlyBach. He has literally done everything that I have said which I complain that you guys whom I've been speaking to mostly have not. He has not presumed a single possible interpretation of my words naively to be certain without further analysis of the other possibilities; he has charitably interpreted all of it; he has analyzed my texts and listed the many possibilities of what I mean and been clear and explicit about the ambiguities with them; and he has certainly been the wiser in all of this compared to me. It's pretty obvious this is a man of reason. For all of this I am genuinely thankful.

[hexed mirage]

A man of reason, someone with great patience, with time to spend, or simply trying to get his foot in the door

[rancid sparrow]

Ok, but why did no one believe until they flied then? That's stupid. Just listen to reason. But I guess that's asking too much for beings of reason who have intellects.

[knotty glen]

good morning chat

[rancid sparrow]

I'm on about the fact that it seems like everything I try to use to prove, as lengthy as the reasoning already is, requires yet as much reasoning for each individual point and word within it. Literally resisted at every definition and point of reasoning. Reistance at every turn.

[scenic juniper]

You wouldn't have received so much resistance and aggressive remarks (because there was), if you weren't so insistent on trying to prove your philosophical standpoint without acknowledging other people's perspectives as valid, and coming off as pretentious in a tumultuous environment when you are supposedly asking for help. How do you expect people to react when 90% of what you said is "you don't understand me" and "you're wrong"?

[rancid sparrow]

And for sure it doesn't help if people misinterpret what I say

[knotty glen]

@rancid sparrow the bible says that knowledge is vanity of the soul

i think you have spent more time focusing on medieval philosophy than on jesus

[scenic juniper]

Cool this thread off and get back into the objective questions SlyBach and lapinozz made to you if you have any hope of proceeding before a mod closes this.

[meager marten]

can you please just say something overtly transphobic and get banned

[rancid sparrow]

The worst part is when people draw naive conclusions and assume that when I say so, "you don't understand me" somehow implies "you're wrong" or the opposite when all they mean is what they mean in themselves: that you don't understand me (no one is denying that here), but "you're wrong", well that's again my own fault for not knowing how to talk to people then I guess. If I say "This is the truth" because I know it is, that implies you're wrong; and if I blatantly say "You're wrong", I'm demonized.

[meager marten]

this whole "no one understands me because the world is gone insane and they reject reason and even the pope is a heretic" thing is wearing thin, can you just say something bigoted like a normal christian

[knotty glen]

@rancid sparrow i would recommend you see a therapist about this compulsive behavior

idk maybe thats a little extreme but

[rancid sparrow]

draw naive conclusions and assume that when I say so, ...
case in point

In any case, yeah, I'd like to get back on topic

[knotty glen]

its one thing to be devoutly religious, its really another thing to be emotionally distraught that people dont subscribe to your personal favorite scholastic philosophy

[hexed mirage]

Gotta bait him into it, too bad he hasn't checked my profile

[knotty glen]

can we archive this chat when all is said and done

instead of just deleting it

[hexed mirage]

it'll always live rent-free in my heart, cause this is gold

[knotty glen]

strange way of getting “Jesus” into your heart, but hey if it works, it works

[rancid sparrow]

So anyways I'm going to get back to work on that... stuff that you guys have no clue about for now.

[hexed mirage]

suck harder, it's not obvious enough

[meager marten]

and there's basically no chance that "work on" means you're gonna write code that compiles or anything

[knotty glen]

Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the meek and you are not being very meek rn Andrew

[meager marten]

just spend another 7 years convincing yourself that you're infallibly correct about everything because you derived it from first principles

and break down pissing and crying when you have to talk to a real person and they aren't instantly blown away by your amazing perfect logic

must just be because they aren't listening

[knotty glen]

evil character arc beginning

[quartz wharf]

could you explain it to me?

the stuff

[somber lake]

Still haven't answered my practical question...

And it's quite simple

[rancid sparrow]

Please repeat. Load of messages since.

[rancid sparrow]

When I get a chance, sure 😅

[somber lake]

This

@rancid sparrow

[rancid sparrow]

Honestly hard to say. I'm more focused on lingual entities themselves (types, lvalues, rvalues, etc.) than constructs I can build myself within it ("utility functions", methods, etc.).

I'm also trying to avoid the use of anything that isn't part of the language itself.

[hexed mirage]

what does that mean?

no extensions? No libraries?

[somber lake]

STL is pretty much part of the language

[quick plinth]

I'm still rather confused. Are you getting to write said compiler or the "dictionary" that defines c++ in your language?

[rancid sparrow]

Well, there's the language, and then there's things that are not of the language itself. Anything that is built on the language and not built into the language is not of the language.

[somber lake]

Now I really don't understand what you want. I thought you wanted hints on how to emulate the logic of your language with C++ code. I gave you a very practical and straightforward example but you can't even tell me if that would help or not?

[rancid sparrow]

The compiler.

[hexed mirage]

thank you for this completely worthless explanation, really worth my time

[somber lake]

Ok but it's still part of the language

[hexed mirage]

I couldn't be more clear by what I meant with my question, and I know I am right

[rancid sparrow]

Well that is what I want, but I don't want it to be contingent on having to learn things like a standard library. By from scratch I mean from scratch

[quick plinth]

The std library is part of the same standard document. It's part of the language

[rancid sparrow]

I mean so are all the stdlib.h files for C but I don't need them to implement anything.

[somber lake]

That would only be more complicated...

[rancid sparrow]

Dunncare

[hexed mirage]

and fucking stupid tbh

[rancid sparrow]

Opinion noted

[hexed mirage]

like why even use C++ if you're not going to use a good 75% of it?

[somber lake]

Ok then consider my answer but replace std::vector with your own implementation...

If that's what you want...

[hexed mirage]

there are a lot of things you simply cannot do without the STL

[rancid sparrow]

That works

[somber lake]

Alright

Problem solved

Close the thread

[rancid sparrow]

Cool. Now I just need to figure out how to convert my C project into a C++ project.

[hexed mirage]

well, if you are to not use any C++ feature, just compile the files as C++

[somber lake]

Just start from scratch

@rancid sparrow does that mean you won't be using std::string? Or printing to the console?

How are you planning to do I/O?

[rancid sparrow]

That's the one exception in order to save time, but I already have that available as a C header, and I can just import those in from C++ from what I heard about extern in C++.

I'll be doing that from scratch even, however, once I'm bootstrapped with the metacompiler.

[somber lake]

Wdym from scratch?

[quick plinth]

This is going to ultimately lead to a custom OS, isn't it?

[somber lake]

On which nothing is actually executed, only abstract concepts

[rancid sparrow]

The whole project is a metacompiler, programming language, and yes, and execution environment or kernel upon which will be an OS because ultimately those would be the eventual bottlenecks to our creative freedom as well. My man literally makin me spill all the beans...

[quick plinth]

Don't worry. I'm not interested in stealing your ideas.

[rancid sparrow]

I'm not so concerned about that as much as I've just not been bothered to literally just mention stuff while no one is interested in it, and while I have little to show except for some design documents, hence why the plan (that went south here) was to just wait until the public compiler demo was ready.

[somber lake]

@rancid sparrow anything else we can help you with?

[knotty glen]

we?

[quick plinth]

That's not even the bottleneck in any real project though

Determining requirements (what the software should do) is the longest drawn out part and the hardest to nail down

[rancid sparrow]

Multithreading is stupid, and having to require anyone to use it to implement parallelism is equally stupid. It's a serious bottleneck that requires a fundamental change, but obviously MSFT, Apple, and the Linux Foundation aren't changing that any time soon requiring recompiling the world. It's a needless complexity that no programmer should have to be burdened with if he doesn't need to be. All the kernel should be is an abstract hardware interface, and the OS should just be a means to allow software to run side-by-side without one software interfering with the operation of another software.

[hexed mirage]

wow that's like terry on crack

except terry actually did make something

[rancid sparrow]

Likewise also is the OSI model just pointless complexity as well.

Implementation details made into a standard model.

Literally all that networking is: source, destination, connection. That's it. There's your OSI model version 2.

[somber lake]

The STL has functions that will run in parallel transparently

[rancid sparrow]

Yeah, sure, but you're still dealing with the implementation overhead of <insert OS here> because MSFT doesn't care about its products and their quality.

And I guess the rest couldn't be bothered to sit and think about what parallelism actually is and provide an API and library for implementing it (among other things having the same issue).

Took threading and ran with it

[quick plinth]

I don't even know what you're getting at

[somber lake]

@rancid sparrow do you still have a question relevant to the thread's original purpose?

[rancid sparrow]

I'm explaining my motivations for actually making a kernel and OS and what I mean by "bottlenecks"

[rancid sparrow]

Seems not.

[somber lake]

Then close the thread

[knotty glen]

this whole thing reminds me of the debate between Bertrand Russel and a Jesuit priest named Frederick Copleston, on whether or not God exists

[somber lake]

@rancid sparrow and feel free to ping me in DM if you get closer to a full example and you still want some help with it

[rancid sparrow]

Will do. Thanks 🙂

[scenic juniper]

Nobody has succeeded in trying to visualize the implementation of what you want to do so far, or accepted the reasons you've provided as to why it would matter. I don't think it gets deeper than that. The endpoint of all this is: build an example, as lapinozz said.

[quick plinth]

You want to rewrite the world because you don't understand it

[knotty glen]

Copleston basically won the debate simply because he was willing to use simple terms for his argument, that anyone could understand, whereas Russell insisted on using very obtuse and technical language that only philosophers would understand and refused to define them

[scenic juniper]

The time has come for the /solved?

[knotty glen]

please lets archive this

[somber lake]

Let it rest

[knotty glen]

Requiescat in Pace

[rancid sparrow]

I mean I did that a while ago. ~~Blame Sly for ressurrecting it ~~

[scenic juniper]

lol, didn't even realize. Well then, that's all folks!

[rancid sparrow]

Aight, I'm going to cease posting here. The mods can choose to archive this or something I guess lol

[knotty glen]

great chat yall

now lets wait for the Kantian to show up and ask how to make the perfect transcendental language

[steep belfry]

lmao

[somber lake]

I think if <@&847915341954154536> could archive now it would be perfect

[gentle notch]

threads get archived automatically after x amount of inactivity

[knotty glen]

we need this in some kind of hall of fame

[somber lake]

And there's no way to close it but always keep it visible right?

For posterity

[knotty glen]

this is the story of how we all got converted to catholicism and found Jesus

[steep belfry]

this isn’t a thread it’s a whole book

[gentle notch]

i mean, we can lock it

what's the reason we'd do that though?

[somber lake]

Because the question has been answered and I don't think there's more to say other than toxic shit

Like mocking etc

[gentle notch]

well, if there's toxic shit happening here, point me to it and i'll consider if moderator action is necessary

we don't normally just lock threads simply because the discussion has run its course

[knotty glen]

its toxic but only mildly

its like halfway between banter and shitflinging

[gentle notch]

well, i don't see much happening here now

[knotty glen]

yeah

[gentle notch]

i guess we'll just leave it be then

unless someone can point me to something they think requires moderator action

[ocean girder]

there's no way that someone could possibly have anticipated how this conversation would go 😛

[gentle notch]

oh certainly not

lol

i see what happened here. i guess we can lock it so that not more people are tricked into wasting their time…

[ocean girder]

can we give its own website

a la timecube

Henceforth I'm not responding to any such responses that involve telling me what I do or do not know. I know what I know, and know what I do not know. I will not elaborate further. Believe what you want; I don't care. You'll shut up quite quickly when the demo is available.