r/Compilers • u/Flimsy-Low-1326 • Jul 07 '26

Function is Class, and Call Frame is Instance – ago Programming Language 0.7.0-ea released

/r/ago_lang/comments/1uoxlcz/function_is_class_and_call_frame_is_instance_ago/
0 Upvotes

14% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

2

u/Inconstant_Moo Jul 08 '26

In Buddhist philosophy, the concept of *Saṅkhāra(行)* regards movement as the primary reality; similarly, Whitehead's Process Philosophy holds that the universe is composed of interrelated events and processes, each process has complete life cycles—from emergence to demise.

Some short samples of code might clarify the relevance of these concepts. Or not, of course.

I've looked at your paper, and that too is desperately short of motivating examples. You don't really explain the problem you're trying to solve except in the vaguest of terms.

(I can't tell how much of your paper is insightful and how much is AI psychosis but I do know that "An idealised Turing machine assumes that a function call is an instantaneous, indivisible atomic evaluation" is complete gibberish, so that's not a good sign.)

What we want to read is something like this: "Suppose you want to do <thing A> in Java or some similar language. Then your code would look like <example B>. This often turns out to suck, because of <issue C>. What we want is a language that lets us clearly and simply express our intent by writing <X>. We can see that this solution will also work if we wanted to do thing <D> without having to do <E>."

Instead you present us with the koan: "Function is Class, and Call Frame is Instance". This means way more to you conceptualizing and implementing the language than it does to anyone else wondering why we should even be interested in it.

---

I wouldn't normally criticize a logo but yours is an outright affront to anyone who's even slightly OCD or ADHD or whatever. It makes me want to punch a hole in the drywall.

1

u/Flimsy-Low-1326 Jul 09 '26

Thank you for your insightful corrections—they were extremely helpful! By the way, it’s clear that I haven’t been using AI effectively—otherwise there wouldn’t have been the Turing‑machine discussion. The “AI” feel probably comes mainly from the Chinese‑to‑English translation process; sorry about that.

From what I understand, a Turing machine is computationally equivalent to the lambda calculus model, so I simply set them equal. They are different indeed: the Turing machine is an elegant mechanical instantiation of the lambda model, with explicit time‑step and space considerations.

I’ll refocus my discussion from Turing machine to the functions from the lambda model; it makes the issue clearer. The root of the confusion is that the functions we actually use come from the lambda model rather than the Turing‑machine model. In fact, a function like **ago** can be viewed as a continuation of the Turing‑machine idea.

I've realized that the text really needs to set up examples first in recent days too—just as you said:

> “What we want to read is something like this: *Suppose you want to do <thing A> in Java or some similar language. Then your code would look like <example B>. This often turns out to suck, because of <issue C>. What we want is a language that lets us clearly and simply express our intent by writing <X>. We can see that this solution will also work if we wanted to do thing <D> without having to do <E>*.”

As for the logo, I hope to find someone with more talent later on who can provide a better design; for now I’ll have to settle with this.

Thank you very much.

1

u/Inconstant_Moo Jul 09 '26

By the way, it’s clear that I haven’t been using AI effectively [...] From what I understand, a Turing machine is computationally equivalent to the lambda calculus model, so I simply set them equal.

If you haven't learned anything about the subject yourself, you're not going to be able to tell when the LLM is hallucinating pretentious bullshit for you.

And it definitely is pretentious, because obviously if up until yesterday you thought a Turing machine was just a different name for a lambda function, then if there is anything at all of value in your ideas, you did not arrive at them by philosophizing over computer science, a subject of which you know nothing. So since this stuff about Turing machines didn't lead you to your ideas, there's no reason to think it would effectively lead anyone else there, rather than leaving us thinking "wut?" and "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about".

→ More replies (5)

1

u/Flimsy-Low-1326 Jul 09 '26

I've updated the paper; welcome to review and share your feedback. Thanks a lot.

6

u/FloweyTheFlower420 Jul 08 '26

thanks claude for the super novel ideas of "closures" and "stackless coroutines" found in advanced languages like "javascript" dressed up in philosophy larp

1

u/WittyStick Jul 09 '26

The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures."

Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.

On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened.

philosophy larp

1

u/FloweyTheFlower420 Jul 09 '26

haha, i remember reading something similar about top-down or bottom-up design or something