Re: [lojb

[William Tanksley <wtanksle@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx]

On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 06:45:53PM +0000, dex@SYSLINK.MCS.COM wrote:
> From: dex@SYSLINK.MCS.COM

> > Forth, by its nature (and as its advantage), can't be
> > parsed -- it has no syntax. Someone's written an EBNF
> > parser in Forth which works very well and is very Forthish,
> > but anything the parser can parse is no longer Forth, pretty
> > much by definition :-).

> What's EBNF? 

Extended Backaus-Naur Form. BNF is a formal way of describing some
computer languages; EBNF is used to describe any extension of that to
handle more languages. In this case, the extension is kinda odd, because
instead of adding words and syntax to BNF, this parser adds BNF to Forth.

> > What would a Lojban dialect for Forth look like?

> > Whew. I can't see it working. I'll have to investigate the
> > Logic Programming world to see what they've got -- I know a
> > little Prolog, and I know that Mercury is more modern, but
> > that's the extent of my knowledge.

> There's no need to keep it so close to the roots of Forth. 

Well... If we're going to talk about a Lojbanic Forth (or a Forthish
Lojban), yes there is. Otherwise it's not very interesting.

> I once knew some people who were working on implementing
> LISP in Forth. One application would be robotics; the LISP
> could be used for decision making and it would be easy to
> drop back down to Forth for operation of the more mechanical
> aspects of the machine. 

That's not a bad idea. Of course, for the GC Lisp needs you'd want to
drop to assembly.

> If as Lojbab says Prolog is practically isomorphic to Lojban,
> then something like that would be an obvious choice. If for
> any reason it's a trifle too rigid for the purpose, then it's
> time to drop back to a lower level and fix it where it should be
> fixed, without awkward high-level patches. I don't see any reason
> not to implement something like Prolog in something like Forth. 
> In fact it seems to me I've heard of exactly that begin done,
> too. 

Prolog might be appropriate -- but there's been a lot of progress in the
Logical Programming Languages field since its release, too. Someday I'll
get enough time to actually read up on that -- hopefully after this set of
finals is over.

> Hmmm, how about a humanoid robot whose limbs walk around in
> Forth, with blocks to decide where to go under LISP in Forth,
> and talking to you in Lojban under Prolog, also under the same
> Forth? 

> Okay, easy to say it; so why don't I run off and write the
> darn thing! <g> 

Yeah, sounds great! :-)

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
:-: May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!