🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Giles:
   Type is any static information which the user and/or the compiler
   can use to double check program correctness and enhance
   optimization.  If an attribute of an object (whether it be a
   function or data) is not static, then that attribute is part of the
   _value_ of the object and not part of its _type_.

I have no problems with this definition.

But note that I consider objects to exist independent of identifiers.

   Storage class is often (but not always) desired to be part of the
   type of an object.  J appears not to permit objects to be declared
   to be limited to a specific storage class.  In fact, it's still not
   clear to me that there are _any_ attributes about an object that
   can be statically declared.

Well, in a very real sense, all objects except identifiers are
statically declared.  Also, there is a class of identifiers which may
only be declared once.  Finally, note that a compiler would likely
create an object whose semantics are fixed.

This is independent of issues such as whether or not the compiled
object can be given a new name.

   |> Forcing the programmer to concentrate on machine specific types
   |> is not a good way to encourage robust or portable code.  [...]

   Nor does disallowing the user access to those attributes.  In fact,
   due to the nature of floating-point, _not_ letting the user have
   control over machine specific attributes may make robustness
   unattainable.

What problem are you trying to address, here?

   |> This is a complex issue.  I don't think it's a good idea to
   |> remove responsibility for this complexity from the language
   |> implementor (who concentrates on porting the language to a
   |> specific machine) just to dump it on the programmer (who
   |> concentrates on whatever arbitrary problem domain she's
   |> interested in).  Not if it means the language is less
   |> expressive...

   Expressiveness is just exactly the issue.  J does not let me
   express clearly those constraints that I know when I write the
   code.

It lets me express arbitrary constraints.  Of course, I have the
advantage of having learned the language.

   By the way, why do you assume all programmers are female?

Who said that all programmers are female?

-- 
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>