> The J "dialect" of APL (http://www.jsoftware.com, essentially the
> continuation of Ken Iverson's development efforts after APL) is a great tool
> for thinking about generalised operations on vectors, matrices, cubes, etc.
There's a Plan 9 port of J 3.02 in /n/sources/contrib/miller/j/8.j
386 e
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:14:30 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> > there has also been a lot of discussion in the past 1-2 months about
> > K, a successor to APL, in #plan9. you might ask there; i may have
> > missed a more recent development.
>
> could someone please explain to the ignorant, what
> is
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:52:35 +0100
Robert Raschke wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> > > there has also been a lot of discussion in the past 1-2 months about
> > > K, a successor to APL, in #plan9. you might ask there; i may have
> > > missed a more recent develo
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > there has also been a lot of discussion in the past 1-2 months about
> > K, a successor to APL, in #plan9. you might ask there; i may have
> > missed a more recent development.
>
> could someone please explain to the ignorant, what
> is in
> there has also been a lot of discussion in the past 1-2 months about
> K, a successor to APL, in #plan9. you might ask there; i may have
> missed a more recent development.
could someone please explain to the ignorant, what
is interesting about apl? the last surge of interest i
recall in the la
i don't believe so. i've made a number of false starts and would like
to return to it some day. there's some very simple interpreters out
there (including one by ken[1] for old unix systems) that might be
worth looking at if you want to work on a port and performance isn't
critical. note that i hav
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 06:18:14PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> it's also interesting to notice that long comments
> are often associated with bugs.
Literate programming is a magnifying glass. It's very easy to use,
but it's not straightforward to use right. My first attempts with
a "creative
Having seen that video, as well as other examples,
I am now more drawn to APL.
Any Plan 9 implementations available?
ak
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:44:20 -0800 Jack Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > the problem i have with "literate programming" is that it
> > tends to treat code like a terse and difficult-to-understand
> > footnote.
>
> And thus, we have literate programming m
> structure, on extremely clever constructions (on the BWK gibe that I
> won't be smart enough to debug it later), and to describe how the code
> segment interacts with others and maps to the problem domain.
it's also interesting to notice that long comments
are often associated with bugs.
- erik
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:34, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> For the task to be done "print the k most common words in a file", the
>> Unix approach and the Unix tools give everything to create a "program"
>> far more rapidly than the from scratch approach adopted by D. Knuth. But
>> because the tools ex
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> the problem i have with "literate programming" is that it
> tends to treat code like a terse and difficult-to-understand
> footnote.
And thus, we have literate programming meets APL. ;)
-Jack
> For the task to be done "print the k most common words in a file", the
> Unix approach and the Unix tools give everything to create a "program"
> far more rapidly than the from scratch approach adopted by D. Knuth. But
> because the tools exist (are already written... but in what language?
> Easi
> But this does not mean that _in general_, literate programming has not
> its strength especially for complex and weaven program... or even for
> writing the tools, the bricks one combines in a pipeline like McIlroy does.
I'll say amen, especially for a system of many little parts. My point
wasn
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:47:37PM -0500, Jason Catena wrote:
>
> Yes, sorry I didn't look it up earlier.
>
> Bentley, J., Knuth, D., and McIlroy, D. 1986. Programming pearls: a
> literate program. Commun. ACM 29, 6 (Jun. 1986), 471-483. DOI=
> http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/5948.315654
[The article
>>> i think one could write quite an interesting
>>> book critiquing modern software development for failing to
>>> stop at good enough.
>>
>> Why would it take a book? DMR [sic] made the point succinctly in his
>> critique of Knuth's literate program, showing how a few command-line
>> utilities d
2009/7/9 Micah Stetson :
>> Why would it take a book? DMR made the point succinctly in his
>> critique of Knuth's literate program, showing how a few command-line
>> utilities do the work of the Don's elaborately constructed tries.
>
> Do you have a URL for this?
I looked this up yesterday, and t
> Why would it take a book? DMR made the point succinctly in his
> critique of Knuth's literate program, showing how a few command-line
> utilities do the work of the Don's elaborately constructed tries.
Do you have a URL for this?
Micah
> Why would it take a book? DMR made the point succinctly in his
> critique of Knuth's literate program, showing how a few command-line
> utilities do the work of the Don's elaborately constructed tries.
because, evidently, one book was not enough.
- erik
Indeed, Voltaire had it right. Better is the enemy... (of my enemy is my
friend??)
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:10 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > I expect to see code immediately, by the way, finished or not, and you
> better be
> > > around to answer my questions.
> >
> > You have something here:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:10 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> > I expect to see code immediately, by the way, finished or not, and you
>> > better be
>> > around to answer my questions.
>>
>> You have something here: these are central software-development tenets
>> of agile/scrum/xp/lean/kanban du jou
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 23:10, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> > I expect to see code immediately, by the way, finished or not, and you
>> > better be
>> > around to answer my questions.
>>
>> You have something here: these are central software-development tenets
>> of agile/scrum/xp/lean/kanban du jour,
> > I expect to see code immediately, by the way, finished or not, and you
> > better be
> > around to answer my questions.
>
> You have something here: these are central software-development tenets
> of agile/scrum/xp/lean/kanban du jour, and help the open-source
> community work. Essentially,
FWIW, Inferno ships with 6[acl], it should port over to Plan 9 pretty easily...
-- vs
> I expect to see code immediately, by the way, finished or not, and you better
> be
> around to answer my questions.
You have something here: these are central software-development tenets
of agile/scrum/xp/lean/kanban du jour, and help the open-source
community work. Essentially, "done" is an e
We all know that Uriel periodically `whines' on this list. Let's
please not exacerbate the situation?
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Uriel wrote:
> There are such people out there, they just think that keeping ultra
> paranoid secrecy and perpetuating the perception that Plan 9 is a
> commercial dead end is somehow a good idea (yea, people are fucking
> nuts, but hey, I guess you have to be fuckin
>
> Another person in Plan 9 has been working on an AML interpreter that
> presents the ADT in a filesystem (at least, that was what I envisioned
> and explained to him). I believe he has also contacted you regarding
> some USB ethernet device, so perhaps you two will want to work
> together to som
2009/7/8 Francisco J Ballesteros :
>>
>> ACPI will never, ever, ever happen, so people better get over it (and
>> if anyone is naive enough to waste their time trying, it will end up
>> as a useless atrocious mess that wont boot even in a 100th of the
>> systems out there, much less suspend or do a
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Uriel wrote:
> There are such people out there, they just think that keeping ultra
> paranoid secrecy and perpetuating the perception that Plan 9 is a
> commercial dead end is somehow a good idea (yea, people are
>
> ACPI will never, ever, ever happen, so people better get over it (and
> if anyone is naive enough to waste their time trying, it will end up
> as a useless atrocious mess that wont boot even in a 100th of the
> systems out there, much less suspend or do anything useful).
>
I've been wasting t
>Before my signature, I'd really like to reiterate that I did not bring
>up amd64 to open a can of worms.
>
>-dho
I just thought I'd ask the question since it came up, as I've been wondering
also.
However, I don't think it needs to be a "can of worms" if we as a community
don't make it into one.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Uriel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
>> 2009/7/8 Uriel :
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell
>>> wrote:
I don't think so. We already have IPv6 support and it's not that bad.
Having more drivers and supported
2009/7/8 Benjamin Huntsman :
>>> Without this getting into a holy war, what Geoff told me was that the
>>> amd64 work was for headless CPU servers, which is only mildly useful
>>> to me anyway.
>>
>>If it was released perhaps somebody would add the missing drivers, who
>>knows...
>>
>>As things st
>> Without this getting into a holy war, what Geoff told me was that the
>> amd64 work was for headless CPU servers, which is only mildly useful
>> to me anyway.
>
>If it was released perhaps somebody would add the missing drivers, who knows...
>
>As things stand, we will never know.
Speaking of t
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
> 2009/7/8 Uriel :
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
>>> ACPI support doesn't need to suspend or do thermal zones. It just
>>> needs to be able to read the ADT and get MP / interrupt routing table
>>> information. This i
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Uriel wrote:
> As for amd64, it is already done, we are just not worthy to have access to it.
Ah! I knew there was a reason!
ron
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:30 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> But don't underestimate the value of the interesting ideas in the
>> linux kernel that get the performance, e.g. RCU. I don't think there
>> are any OSes that have scaled to 4096 CPUs at this point besides
>> Linux.
>
> i thought that massiv
2009/7/8 Uriel :
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
>> ACPI support doesn't need to suspend or do thermal zones. It just
>> needs to be able to read the ADT and get MP / interrupt routing table
>> information. This is doable. Have you ever read any of the ACPI spec?
>> I have.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
> 2009/7/8 Uriel :
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
>>> I don't think so. We already have IPv6 support and it's not that bad.
>>> Having more drivers and supported commodity architectures would be a
>>> good thing. I'd
2009/7/8 Uriel :
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
>> I don't think so. We already have IPv6 support and it's not that bad.
>> Having more drivers and supported commodity architectures would be a
>> good thing. I'd love to do this, but I don't think anybody's going to
>> matc
There are such people out there, they just think that keeping ultra
paranoid secrecy and perpetuating the perception that Plan 9 is a
commercial dead end is somehow a good idea (yea, people are fucking
nuts, but hey, I guess you have to be fucking nuts to use Plan 9, so
who can blame them.)
I have
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
> I don't think so. We already have IPv6 support and it's not that bad.
> Having more drivers and supported commodity architectures would be a
> good thing. I'd love to do this, but I don't think anybody's going to
> match my salary to port dri
> 2009/7/8 erik quanstrom :
> >> I'd love to do this, but I don't think anybody's going to
> >> match my salary to port drivers, do ACPI, add amd64 support for
> >> workstations, etc.
> >
> > i told myself this for years. it turns out to be a mistaken
> > idea. now that i know, i regret the years
2009/7/8 erik quanstrom :
>> I'd love to do this, but I don't think anybody's going to
>> match my salary to port drivers, do ACPI, add amd64 support for
>> workstations, etc.
>
> i told myself this for years. it turns out to be a mistaken
> idea. now that i know, i regret the years i spent doing
2009/7/8 erik quanstrom :
>> But don't underestimate the value of the interesting ideas in the
>> linux kernel that get the performance, e.g. RCU. I don't think there
>> are any OSes that have scaled to 4096 CPUs at this point besides
>> Linux.
>
> i thought that massively parallel harvard-arch mac
> I'd love to do this, but I don't think anybody's going to
> match my salary to port drivers, do ACPI, add amd64 support for
> workstations, etc.
i told myself this for years. it turns out to be a mistaken
idea. now that i know, i regret the years i spent doing
other things.
- erik
> But don't underestimate the value of the interesting ideas in the
> linux kernel that get the performance, e.g. RCU. I don't think there
> are any OSes that have scaled to 4096 CPUs at this point besides
> Linux.
i thought that massively parallel harvard-arch machines had
generally fallen out of
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> I think his lane is that Linux is complex, bloated, poorly designed,
> etc and that FreeBSD would have been a better choice. I have to agree
> with that
well, if they come through on their promise of open source, you might
get to prove your
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:27 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> you say
>
>> I think, Google did not choose Plan 9 due lack of device drivers, poor
>> IPv6 support and confusing redundant fragment of code lurking around in
>> /sys/boot or 9load, but a compared with Linux a compact, clean and
>> much mor
2009/7/8 erik quanstrom :
> you say
>
>> I think, Google did not choose Plan 9 due lack of device drivers, poor
>> IPv6 support and confusing redundant fragment of code lurking around in
>> /sys/boot or 9load, but a compared with Linux a compact, clean and
>> much more efficient FreeBSD could def
you say
> I think, Google did not choose Plan 9 due lack of device drivers, poor
> IPv6 support and confusing redundant fragment of code lurking around in
> /sys/boot or 9load, but a compared with Linux a compact, clean and
> much more efficient FreeBSD could definitely have been a better choice
On 07/08/2009 02:21 PM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:48:58AM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
>>
>> 'nuff said. :-)
>
> Is it my english that is not sufficient ? [Note: it is written "Google
> Chrom
On 07/08/2009 02:37 PM, Richard Miller wrote:
>> So why all is always "Linux
>> based" ?
>
> Because linux has an army of volunteers hacking up drivers for
> everybody's weird undocumented ever-changing hardware.
>
>> "The software architecture is simple - Google Chrome running within a
>> new wi
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> > So why all is always "Linux
> > based" ?
>
> Because linux has an army of volunteers hacking up drivers for
> everybody's weird undocumented ever-changing hardware.
>
> > "The software architecture is simple - Google Ch
> > But if it is just for a terminal, there is a lot of drivers you don't
> > need. (Well, the video card is generally not the easier to correctly
> > drive...)
>
> Exactly. And wi-fi. And ethernet if it's a cheap broadcom chip.
> And sound if it's not usb. And bluetooth so you can use your pho
> It says "linux kernel" with no mention of multi-gigabyes of linux
> libraries and commands. The optimistic interpretation is that they've
> rediscovered Ron's idea of borrowing a linux kernel as a minimal (sic)
> device driver layer to put a sensible OS on top of, and throwing
> everything else
2009/7/8 Uriel :
> My evidence is familiarity with the garbage chrome depends on, you can
> expect Cairo, gtk/glib, dbus and the rest of the freedesktop.org
> 'standard' crap pile at the very least.
>
> And they will need to do flash somehow, so I would not be surprised if
> 'window system' in this
My evidence is familiarity with the garbage chrome depends on, you can
expect Cairo, gtk/glib, dbus and the rest of the freedesktop.org
'standard' crap pile at the very least.
And they will need to do flash somehow, so I would not be surprised if
'window system' in this context simply means 'windo
> You can be sure we wont be so lucky. A huge amount of gnu/gnome guck is
> assured.
Your evidence? "a new windowing system" doesn't sound like gnome to me.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Richard Miller<9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>> But if it is just for a terminal, there is a lot of drivers you don't
>> need. (Well, the video card is generally not the easier to correctly
>> drive...)
>
> Exactly. And wi-fi. And ethernet if it's a cheap broadcom ch
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Richard Miller<9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>> "The software architecture is simple - Google Chrome running within a
>> new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."
>
> It says "linux kernel" with no mention of multi-gigabyes of linux
> libraries and commands. The
> But if it is just for a terminal, there is a lot of drivers you don't
> need. (Well, the video card is generally not the easier to correctly
> drive...)
Exactly. And wi-fi. And ethernet if it's a cheap broadcom chip.
And sound if it's not usb. And bluetooth so you can use your phone
as a mode
2009/7/8 Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com>:
>> So why all is always "Linux
>> based" ?
>
> Because linux has an army of volunteers hacking up drivers for
> everybody's weird undocumented ever-changing hardware.
>
>> "The software architecture is simple - Google Chrome running within a
>> new wind
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:02:59AM +0100, Richard Miller wrote:
> > So why all is always "Linux
> > based" ?
>
> Because linux has an army of volunteers hacking up drivers for
> everybody's weird undocumented ever-changing hardware.
But if it is just for a terminal, there is a lot of drivers you
> So why all is always "Linux
> based" ?
Because linux has an army of volunteers hacking up drivers for
everybody's weird undocumented ever-changing hardware.
> "The software architecture is simple - Google Chrome running within a
> new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."
It says "linux
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:48:58AM +0300, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
>
> 'nuff said. :-)
Is it my english that is not sufficient ? [Note: it is written "Google
Chrome" while I think it should be "Google Chrome OS"]
"The softwa
"The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a
new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."
although most of the technology news reports i've seen today appear not to have
read the googleblog (or at least, not that far into it).
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html
'nuff said. :-)
Arnold
69 matches
Mail list logo
