Comment by jorkingit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jorkingit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

getchar does take a continuation of sorts (as in continuation passing) which is passed the input. In one my initial drafts, getchar was a special form that would accept input at the point of evaluation, which was really funny and unpredictable.

putchar I feel kind of weird about, it acting as an identity function with a side effect is kind of weird; I'm not sure changing it to take a second argument as a continuation would make it better or worse.

Regarding the de Bruijn indices, I don't think there's a huge distinction between writing 3 vs writing ---: it would still form a single lexical token, so I feel like --- is just more noise.

Perhaps a de Bruijn index register you could move around and dereference? e.g. from index 1, index 3 is >>*, then index 2 from there is <*. But that feels less functional, because you're now imperatively manipulating some hidden state.

Entirely agreed that it's nothing but more noise, but isn't that exactly how BF is? Why ----- instead of 5-? Well, because BF of course. The point of the exercise (IMO) is having the bare minimum in parsed characters to achieve the turing tarpit.

I quite like the movable register idea but as you say that's no longer a "BF except lambda calculus" it's some other esolang at that point.

I think my objection about the lack of continuations was misplaced given that appears to be a BF take on the lambda calculus rather than a BF take on scheme.

You can always write it in continuation-passing style if you really want continuations! It's not pleasant but none of this is supposed to be ;-)

Agreed on having too many characters though, I don't like that having numerical indices makes the syntax whitespace-sensitive, too.

And once I figure out how to write hello world, those character literals are gone!

Maybe my brain just isn't functioning right now but I don't think writing in CPS is the same as having access to first class continuations? But as previously noted I think that was a misplaced request on my part to begin with.

It should be! e.g. if every function takes a continuation as its final argument, then:

  call/cc& = \f. \k. f k k

Then in f you can invoke the continuation k as many times as you want, but that does involve a whole program transformation to CPS.

My line of thought had been that doing so doesn't restore execution context. But it dawns on me that without the ability to mutate variables that doesn't have the same relevance.

Still, doesn't it throw the de bruijn indexes off? Or am I wrong about that as well?

Lambda calculus makes my head hurt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com