Logico-digital Computing -- Adaptable Interfaces
Adaptable Interface, And Sets Of These
When queried by A,
B responds with an
set of methods
logical-fcn-structure (as in C)
logico (my own term for a visualization I have)
grid (another favorite idea of mine, as it applies)
particular to A, A's type, A's category, A's query, or A's logic; or, the situation S; or to B's such; and various combinations of these.
The geometry of A and B may be a factor.
A and B are objects or geometries of objects, referents to these, or traversals and their points.
Surely some of hthis is in effect done in UNIX and Linux systems programming, as interapp procedures are called and data passed among them.
My concept here takes Java's interfaces idea a deep step further. (I am not aware that from a set of interfaces, Java can provide an adapted set on the fly, at runtime.) Note that Objective-C has a like idea to Java's (object) interface(s) term, protocol(s).
For instance, can Java switch among interfaces (that is, among the interfaces it subscribes to, or in Objective-C, any protocols that the object conforms to), per the circumstances or factors above, and present only the methods in that interface (or, Obj-C the protocol), not other methods, or all methods in an object? And the way I describe things above goes further than that, and looks at things in a multi-aspect sort of way --> multi-faceted.
I like Java. I like it a lot. Java has gone far in the markets and its implementation, and will go further.
I enjoy C, Objective-C, Java, and Smalltalk. I want to further my knowledge significantly and plan to do so. I want also to study Lisp, and perhaps Ada and Julia.
My idea here of adaptable interfaces is a profound concept, visualization, and explication. I have this concept, and its explication; and I don't know if similar work has been done previously.
I plan on a language if I can and may, that is informed by the above and like things, other concepts, and by my own visualization of the no-thing space from Zen Buddhism, as I practice it, see with it, and experience just this dynamic world. I love C's idea of * for pointer; and Objective-C builds upon C and extends it a certain way. Java's use of pointers is implicit, and like Smalltalk, all object references are the implicit pointer. In effect, in its use, Objective-C and its objects don't explicitly reference pointer as * either, but instead refer to objects declared as pointer * structures and objects by the variable name. But let's call my in-process-of-development idea for a language T-OO*, for traversal-object-oriented-* (in direct hommage to C). It is this and many other ideas from sketches over the past few years, and a certain logico-way of thinking I have. By the way, C's use of logical-fcn-structure is its own way of thinking, and is an enduring and dynamite Way To Think (to cite Minsky's term in his book The Emotion Machine).
In one way, one could implement a logical block or terminal block between or among objects that would map things, also; that is a bit different, and I like that idea, too. It may or may not be possible to act as a logical block between objects that would factor such as described herein, but it's not part of interfaces that the object A or B would themselves know directly about, or that's routinely meant in say Java or protocols in Objective-C; unless it's programmed into and part of the language or library or operationals or program design then, that it provides this additionally to whatever it is that A and B bring; and S (which is to me its own thing). And still my ideas also seem to include furtherance and extensiveness on this, and is its own thing, and explicates in a different way, than Java interfaces or Objective-C protocols; and I also like logical blocks and terminal blocks. But that's also just electronics or perhaps UNIX and Linux systems programming -- and of course, the term in UNIX and Linux, terminal shell, has its own various meanings! (Enduring, like, variances of ongoing, like or various, like, terms...!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Consider this prior art, art that extensives and deepens existent art, and state of the art, or explains it, or presents a new view on it, or a new interpretation and view on things, or all of these. It seems clear I've got a distinctive and new angle on things, and a way of viewing and visualizing existent art and new art, and it's also clear that there are some or many who think in such profound ways as to be such important Thinkers and Thoughtful, Dynamic Persons, each distinctive, each a maker of art and science, all of which now is or has been prior art, this participant world, or (inclusive-or) yet to be discovered.
In particular, in this context, the following Inventors, Thinkers, and Dynamic Persons:
Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie (C and UNIX)
AT&T Bell Labs (I think Nokia now has this entity)
Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and the entire Linux and Free, Freedom, And Open Source Software teams (Linux, software, etc.) Holy smoke, is this Oracle Linux box I'm using a mindset to have; stable, extensible, accessible, reliable, wickedly fast.
Alan Kay, Adele Goldberg, and others I have yet to find out about (Xerox PARC, they and their teams the inventors of the graphical user interface, postscript, object-oriented programming, the computer mouse, ethernet, the laser printer, and more)
The inventors of Lisp
Brad Cox and Tom Love (Objective-C)
Sun Microsystems and Oracle (Java, Oracle Database, SPARC, Solaris, and more... I think it was James Gosling who invented Java)
Intel and AMD for their innovations (and Intel in particular for making things accessible, with RISC having its surprising and due place; and Intel also in particular for the integrated iAPX432 and Ada systems of the 1980 timeframe, a brilliant idea that should have gained traction)
The NeXT team (NeXTstep, NeXTstation, NeXTcube, PDO, OpenStep, and d'Ole)
Yes, Microsoft! (For making operating systems that the market insisted on, even though say Windows NT and duration hardware at the time was the way to go, the confetti of Windows 95 gave the management layers at mid-level corporations at the time what they wanted and insisted on...I have ideas for Windows NT Workstation 5.0 that if NTWS had gained traction by popular management insistence, may have found their way, I have no idea, but let's say, if... )
To these, many individuals, and etc., thank you and furtherance.