Obligatory "ignore this space" : https://sacoronavirus.co.za

If we have a point we must have a circle at Infinity; in other words, we would say that vectors are a better way of doing business, but for the tendency to restrict their use to linear algebra, and to only use Complex numbers when magic is sought.

Taking things on faith might be just the thing for a Random or a Pickle, but those of us who learnt about vectors of intent before our schooling was done found it necessary to go back to first principles and look again at the theory of change.

With change, we must think of cities. We are up there with the worst in terms of the inferring of facts from scraps of information. The fact, however, is that, to us, mathematics without Alchemy is as a piece of glass without silver. Silver without glass requires to be polished. Polish mathematicians got rid of operators by turning everything into functions (a literal is a function with no parameters). Once we reverse the notation we may do away with brackets (doing so with straight Polish requires us to read ahead). Providentially, then, rpn allows us to operate an app which works with a language that is a sequence of literals and operators, which can do any and all evil that a language which is a wedding-cake of syntax sugar can.

Now we must look at sets of identifiers, which are called contexts or frames. As objects we would unlikely find them useful except as their being reference entities. They are lists, which needn't be indexed when our app-tool is only going to be used to call a guy, and that guy called this one. They are lists which need to have rules imposed on them. Firstly, we might think that associating two objects with our dictionary could be a useful feature. But this might make our context dictionary too useful; we'd therefore find ourselves brought to the necessity of indexing the keys and thus making arbitrary rules about the comparing of objects for the sake of efficiency.

Alternatively, we might declare that associative arrays are indistinguishable from objects. But everyone knows that there needs to be a native interface. No-one's dumb enough to think that because there was a Java processor that one day there'll be a Javascript processor.

Responsible programmers don't make changes to a language which will make code that makes use of legitimate side-effects stop working. It's worth noting that a Vbscript routine that makes use of random numbers got silently upgraded: when we put aside the gold we know that every programmer needs to scratch his arse. And we find that, in some countries, the only thing lawyers tell their clients is to go for training on how to swagger. In other words, hindsight is an exact science.

But I don't intend to make a Vbscript compatible language for GNU any more. It may so be that once we give ourselves the project of making a language, making it compatible with this or that language becomes a simple matter. It may so be that hens who feed programmers Einstein backwards want them to think that swaggering husbands and fathers are incapable of comprehending computer theory.

But let's call primary colours, nursery school colours, shall we?

An associative array, or just a Context, may well be used to store a set of colors. But graph theory is like the painting of eggshells; and we prefer to entrust the matter of emptying them, and painting them, to someone else.

Putting Ambergris, Caviar, and the Chinese economic Dilemma aside, the rules for a context, which we call a delta atom, besides that of assignment either appending to the list or replacing an item, includes an arbitrary one which restricts the keys; the rules that make an identifier from a string needn't be detailed, but this rule must be mentioned so that we aren't imposing the requirement to include escaping rules, on whatever makes use of such a list.

And now we come to the meaning of Delta that programmers are more familiar with. Keeping track of every change to a variable brings us to think that perhaps the Halting problem isn't quite correct. Of course, Turing couldn't assess the rule of not modifying code: that would've been a bit unbelievable at the time.

"It just fucking beggars belief that a mathematician is telling us that we must impose rules on ourselves."

How can we hold our heads up high when our mathematicians are behaving like that?