Talk:User defined pipe and redirection operators: Difference between revisions
Talk:User defined pipe and redirection operators (view source)
Revision as of 16:56, 16 September 2011
, 12 years ago→comments after writing the J implementation
(→comments after writing the J implementation: WHat would be better?) |
|||
Line 200:
:P.S. What would you change the task to? (It's a collaboratve site after-all) --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
::Overall? I do not know. But I see three different tasks here:
::# Composing operations
::# Syntax declaration
::# Dataflow management
::Of those three, syntax declaration seems the most useless. At the very least, I see no reason to impose "left to right" processing on all languages. So I would be inclined to discard the syntactic requirements.
::Of the remaining two, composition should be trivial, for any language represented here. But that might be worthy of a task, or at least a reference to an existing task. (And we probably do have something like that already posted.)
::That leaves data flow manipulation. But the dataflow used in pipes is something of a hack -- it is neither reliable, nor algorithmically useful. You mostly see it in action because file systems are so slow, but depending on what you are doing you still might need to wait hours before getting meaningful results...
::Of course, composability matters -- it [http://blog.dbpatterson.com/post/10244529137 matters a lot] -- but it's scarce at the OS level, for some operating systems, and is readily available in the context of programming languages.
::Similarly, good data flow also matters... and is also readily available in the context of programming languages (as long as you do not try to make one language behave exactly like another).
::So... personally? I would not bother changing the task -- I would just file it somewhere out of the way. It's not like there's any shortage of problems that need solving. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||