Re: [Funge] question + a new weird thing..

[vsync <vs...@bi...>]

"Joshua J. Belsky" <jjb...@uc...> writes:

> So are we working towards Funge-2000 here? Funginium?
> 
> Perhaps we should stand back and see what we can *eliminate* from the Funge
> specification, without taking away any power.

I like this idea, although I would like to point out that before Chris
disappeared, he made the comment that there would _never_ be a
Funge-2000, since the other versions are Befunge-93, Funge-98, etc.,
not Befunge-1993.  If anything, it would be Funge-0 or Funge-100.

Plus, do we really want to put Funge in the same category as things
like Micros~1 Office?  =)

I like Funginum, though.


[...]

> If the idea of removing opcodes from the language bothers people, perhaps we
> could work on two separate languages at the same time. A microfunge could be
> the core language, and should be as small as possible while maintaining
> Turing completeness. Then there could also be a superset of this language, a
> macrofunge as it were, that could include interesting but unnecessary
> commands, such as ']'. Of course, both languages would operate on the same
> topologies, and other such standard things.
> 
> Only one interpreter would be necessary, because the only difference between
> the core microfunge and the macrofunge would be additional commands.
> What do you think?
> 
> -Joshua Belsky

That would be a Good Thing, I think...  Plus we could use the
"microfunge" in embedded systems and such.

-- 
vsync
Beware.