Timeline for answer to Old Languages with new implementations by Pavel
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 3, 2017 at 1:28 | comment | added | Nathan Merrill | Another problem is that the submission is untestable without an interpreter | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 23:39 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | (especially since you're essentially making an exception to the much more fundamental rule that languages are defined by implementations, not an exception to the non-competing rule) | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 23:38 | comment | added | Martin Ender Mod | As much as I dislike the non-competing rule I'm strongly against making exceptions like this. The reason why we don't consider specifications to be languages is specifically because it's near impossible to tell whether specifications are unambiguous and whether they are correctly implemented unless the specification is written with mathematical rigour. Implementing an old specification only hides this problem. I'd say either we talk about whether we really need the non-competing rule in a separate meta post or we follow it as Riker says. But exceptions only make things worse. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 22:44 | history | edited | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| S Mar 2, 2017 at 20:46 | history | answered | Pavel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Mar 2, 2017 at 20:46 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Pavel |