Re: Python recompile

antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>

On 05/03/2025 23:36, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

[...]

[long list of features]

>
My understanding is that it is missing the two most important
features of a programming language:
>
   (1) a user manual that defines and documents the language
>
   (2) an available implementation so that other people can
       use it to write programs

>
The 1990s version, where it supported a substantial application,
had a 350-page manual.  That one was used by other people to
create add-on products.
>
But it's now a personal tool and I only have reference material
for my own use.

>
If you post some links where I can download a current user
manual and a current compiler or interpreter, I will gladly
withdraw my comment.
>
Otherwise, I stand by my comment, and see no reason to
consider your alleged environment as anything other than
fiction-ware.

>
Bart has a project on github.  In the past he provides part
of source code for his languages.  More precisely, he provided
generated C source code for C compiler, generated C source
code for implementation of his "dynamic" Q language, and
source for compiler of his M language (in Q).  So, those
things existed and run times were consitent with what he
claimed.  AFAICS parts of source we missing, and it seems
that he later removed the sources from github.

The point of my question is not to determine if something exists but
to find out what the purported language is.  I'm tired of hearing
bart brag about his personal programming language but never giving
the specifics of what the language syntax and semantics are.  It's
like listening to a used car salesman who won't let you see the
actual car.