Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what would happen if you instead had
a vast number of very simple proto-processors connected in a vast
network. [But I'm guessing the first thing that'll happen is that the
data is never where you want it to be...]
You're not thinking of
Achim Schneider wrote:
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what would happen if you instead had
a vast number of very simple proto-processors connected in a vast
network. [But I'm guessing the first thing that'll happen is that the
data is never where you want it to be...]
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what would happen if you instead had
a vast number of very simple proto-processors connected in a vast
network. [But I'm guessing the first thing that'll happen is that
Hi
How would a Haskell compiler look like that targets a FPGA? That is,
compiling down to configware, not to a RTS built on top of it.
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/reduceron2/
Thanks
Neil
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would a Haskell compiler look like that targets a FPGA? That is,
compiling down to configware, not to a RTS built on top of it.
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/reduceron2/
I'm only on page 5 and already drooling.
fact n = 1 (n (==)) 1
On 2008-05-18, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(did you look at the C implementation?)
I can't read C. (FWIW, I think I did briefly stare at the sources, but
eventually gave up because I simply had no clue what's going on.)
It's worth learning. It's still the only widely used
On 2008-05-18, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Go read KR[1]. It shouldn't take more than a week's worth of spare
time.
HELL NO!
There's a reason why my lecturer always refered to it as Knall Rauch
C (Bang and Smoke C).
Get the Harbison
