Autocoding project proposal.

[Peter Hansen]

Timothy Rue wrote:
> 
> On 28-Jan-02 00:32:49 Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
> 
> >Wow!  Revolutionary!
> 
> Since you seem to have the holy grail answer to everything.
> 
> Why are you here in this thread?

Facetiously: I don't know whether those two statements are supposed 
to be related, but if they are, wouldn't the first be the answer to
the second?

Seriously: I'm here to try to figure out what the heck you are
talking about, to show you for the fraud you are *if* this whole
thing is just a bunch of smoke, to hold up a mirror for you to see
how ridiculous your claims are *if* you seriously believe them
to be valid, and generally to try to help ferret out some reality
in the face of the pie-in-the-sky claims you make of having had
a vision that will solve the computing world's ills.

And you didn't even go *near* my serious question in the last
post, did you?  I'll ask again more concisely, with reference
to that post:

If my example "select file... etc" is remotely like the interaction
I believe you expect VIC to handle, then how would you deal
with a slight complication to the requirements like doing a bit
of math?  The commands in your language/shell/whatever do not
themselves include the ability to do any such operations. 

Therefore it seems logical to conclude that all such operations
(since essentially *no* functionality is built into the core)
must rely on external applications.  

Therefore it seems reasonable to claim that by reducing the 
complexity of the world to the Big Nine commands, you have 
in essence built yet another programming language, where 
external applications are the library modules and VIC merely 
dispatches commands to them.

What's the point of that?  Or can you please explain where
I went wrong and precisely (in specific, clear English please)
how VIC is different from this picture?

(And *that's* why I'm in this thread... still.)

-Peter