Sun Jan 28 14:43:30 GMT 2007


EDIT: i clearly didn't get it here.. much of the monad stuff i talk
about is not what you find in Haskell. the thing is: a stack that's
threaded through a computation behaves a bit like a monad. it solves
some same practical issues, especially if you start to use syntax
transformations that can convert pure functional code to code that
passes a hidden top element. but it doest have the power of a generic
bind operation. i talk about this later though.

i think i finally start to get the whole monad thing. in layman's
terms: it is centered around splicing together (using 'bind')
functions that take a simple object to a container.

.in what i'm trying to accomplish, this is just compilation: take in
some code and output an updated state.

maybe i should give up on the whole CAT thing after all, and
concentrate on using scheme and some special structures to actually
create a proper language and macro language. i already have a way to
write concatenative code in scheme without too many problems (see

the layer is probably just not necessary.. scheme is more powerful,
and everything i now do in CAT i could try to move over to a virtual
forth: write everything from the perspective of the forth
itself.. something like: 'spawn this process on the host'.

another thing that's wrong with CAT is the lack of decent data
structures. it's overall too simple for what i'm trying to do: proper
code generation on top of a simple basic language.

let's go back to my recently restated goals for BROOD:

* basis = forth VM on a microcontroller for simplicity
* write cross compiler in a language similar to forth
* use as a FP approach for the compiler language

the middle one can take on different forms. i still think it is very
beneficial to have an intermediate language to express forthisms. but
this language can just be embedded in scheme stuff.

so let's just start to build the thing, right?