On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 21:30:52 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>
>> Again: I have a program that will do xxxx when it is released.
>
> I have a made a start on my own universal compiler:
>
> int main(void) { }
>
> It's early days, but it will compile any language when it is released.
> But I would /not/ do what you did in 2021 and describe it as
>
> "my universal compiler that /can/ compile any programming language"
> (emphasis mine)
>
> Will and can are very different.

my universal compiler that can compile any programming language after it
has been released.

/Flibble

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 16:39:33 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:

> On 11/21/22 4:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:42:28 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/21/22 1:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:27:36 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/21/22 12:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 00:47:20 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 20:38:29 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 23:25:17 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So does it exist somewhere other than your head or not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It exists both in code and in my head; it will exist entirely
>>>>>>>>>> in code when 1.0 is released.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah. So it does not exist. Nor did it more than a year ago when
>>>>>>>>> you boasted about what it could do. That's not unexpected of
>>>>>>>>> course because the existence of a universal compiler would be
>>>>>>>>> headline news,
>>>>>>>>> not something to be fudged in this forgotten corner of the
>>>>>>>>> internet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It PARTIALLY exists in the form of open source code on GitHub; it
>>>>>>>> will FULLY exist when 1.0 is released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it can't do now, what you claimed it it could do more than a
>>>>>>> year ago. I can put some code up on GigHub and claim it will be
>>>>>>> able to compile any language, decide halting and compress any file
>>>>>>> when 1.0 is released!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea that software isn't released until it is ready is hardly a
>>>>>> new or novel one. Also, why are you talking about deciding halting
>>>>>> and compressing files? I am not working on neos to do either of
>>>>>> those things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the key is that a program "Doesn't Exist" until it is
>>>>> largely working.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you say "I have", it implies that you actually HAVE (mostly)
>>>>> working code that does that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Code that isn't mostly working should either be referenced as
>>>>> clearly a work in progress (I am working on a xxx), or if you are
>>>>> confident in your ability to complete it, in the FUTURE tense, I
>>>>> WILL Have a program that does xxxx.
>>>>>
>>>>> Present tense "I have a program that does xxxx" means that the
>>>>> program,
>>>>> as it currently exists, actually DOES that function. Maybe not quite
>>>>> to release level of quality, but is functional.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like you code isn't any where near to that level yet.
>>>>
>>>> I have a program that will do xxxx when it is released.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> So you don't have a program that does that NOW, so you don't have a
>>> program that DOES that.
>>>
>>> As I said, keep your tenses correct. It isn't the future, so don't
>>> talk about now as it if was the future.
>>
>> Do you even English? Again: I have a program that will do xxxx when it
>> is released.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> So you don't have a program that does x NOW, so you shouldn't say you
> have a program that does X, as that, because the statement is present
> tense, implies NOW. The Qualifier is important.
>
> Ben was commenting that in the past, you made the statement without the
> future qualifier, and thus adding the qualifier shows backwards progress
> or inaccurate claims in the past.
>
> IF before, you HAD the program that DID x, and now you have a program
> that WILL do x, you have lost progress.

No. Program does x after it has been released.

/Flibble

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

> my universal compiler that can compile any programming language after it
> has been released.

That's a keeper! Thanks.

--
Ben.

On 11/21/2022 5:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>
>> my universal compiler that can compile any programming language after it
>> has been released.
>
> That's a keeper! Thanks.

You must admit that PO has had a deep and long-lasting influence on the
denizens of these newsgroups!
--
Jeff Barnett