Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:37 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [ . . . ] I see. I go by Bugs in Writing (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct). The bibles in this situation are The Oxford Style Manual and The Chicago Manual of Style, everything else is mere commentary. :-) Romanian is not English, rules do not transfer ;-) Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma Since when has the Oxford Comma been known as the Harvard Comma. Never. Pah. Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get to decide everything about it. A great feeling! Except when the sub-editors impose the publisher's choices. Of course they always work to either The Oxford Style Manual or The Chicago Manual of Style, so the moral is to buy one of them and work to it. http://www.suite101.com/content/the-chicago-manual-of-style-vs-the-oxford-style-manual-a267432 Also The Oxford Style Manual is smaller and cheaper as well as being better. And of course English, whereas The Chicago Manual of Style is just American English. I shall now duck to avoid the spamming that this troll will invoke. :-) -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message news:inr5cq$m2e$1...@digitalmars.com... On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think the article's title is missing a comma btw. Andrei Where? Where could it ever be? After parallelism. Andrei Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the and is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct. I see. I go by Bugs in Writing (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct). Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get to decide everything about it. A great feeling! Nice to know us programmers aren't the only ones who do serious bikeshedding :)
IDA Pro 6.1 got D support
http://hex-rays.com/idapro/61/index.html + FLIRT: added autodetection of the programs written in the D language + FLIRT: added Digital Mars FLIRT signatures
Re: IDA Pro 6.1 got D support
+ FLIRT: added autodetection of the programs written in the D language + FLIRT: added Digital Mars FLIRT signatures Wow that's really cool :)
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think the article's title is missing a comma btw. Andrei Where? Where could it ever be? After parallelism. Andrei Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the and is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct. I see. I go by Bugs in Writing (awesome book) Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
On 4/10/2011 7:29 PM, Don wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think the article's title is missing a comma btw. Andrei Where? Where could it ever be? After parallelism. Andrei Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the and is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct. I see. I go by Bugs in Writing (awesome book) Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it. Another of my memories from my middle school education. I specifically remember being told not to use split infinitives. Then, a few weeks later we were watching the daily news video that was part of the middle school curriculum at the time and it was mentioned that the Oxford dictionary had voted to consider split infinitives proper grammar. (This was in either late 1998 or early 1999.) All this happened with the teacher in the room watching.
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
dsimcha wrote: On 4/10/2011 7:29 PM, Don wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think the article's title is missing a comma btw. Andrei Where? Where could it ever be? After parallelism. Andrei Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the and is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct. I see. I go by Bugs in Writing (awesome book) Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it. Another of my memories from my middle school education. I specifically remember being told not to use split infinitives. Then, a few weeks later we were watching the daily news video that was part of the middle school curriculum at the time and it was mentioned that the Oxford dictionary had voted to consider split infinitives proper grammar. (This was in either late 1998 or early 1999.) All this happened with the teacher in the room watching. Bill Bryson's 'Mother Tongue' contains an excellent diatribe against that and other silly rules. He asks the question, who originally comes up with these rules? And the answer is, hobbyists. It's quite incredible where some of them originate. Is there a split infinitive in the first sentence below? We must boldly go where none have gone before. We have to boldly go where none have gone before.
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
Am 10.04.2011 00:27, schrieb Torarin: 2011/4/8 dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com: Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and parallelism for D's article contest. It's not an official submission yet, but feedback would be appreciated. http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/ A very good article! And I like that you linked to other articles that go into more detail on relevant subjects. I wouldn't mind a couple more examples. Torarin After all the language bikeshedding I'll add something on-topic to this thread ;) I agree with Torarin: It's a very good article, I like how further explanations are linked and I also wouldn't mind some more examples. Some additional notes: * A link to the std.parallelism docs would make sense * This means that no data that is not either immutable or shared may be transitively reachable via pointers or references passed into a spawned function or passed as a message. is a strange sentence with those two negations in it. * Maybe you could compare std.parallelism to OpenMP in terms of syntax and functionality? That would probably help all the people that are familiar with it. Cheers, - Daniel
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
On 04/10/2011 06:29 PM, Don wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote: On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I think the article's title is missing a comma btw. Andrei Where? Where could it ever be? After parallelism. Andrei Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the and is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct. I see. I go by Bugs in Writing (awesome book) Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it. You may want to reconsider. This is one book that most everybody who is in the writing business in any capacity agrees with: my editor, heavyweight technical writers, my advisor and a few other professors... Besides you can't discount the book on account of one item you disagree with. The book has hundreds of items, and it is near inevitable one will find an issue a couple of them. Andrei
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
On 4/10/2011 8:28 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 10.04.2011 00:27, schrieb Torarin: 2011/4/8 dsimchadsim...@yahoo.com: Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and parallelism for D's article contest. It's not an official submission yet, but feedback would be appreciated. http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/ A very good article! And I like that you linked to other articles that go into more detail on relevant subjects. I wouldn't mind a couple more examples. Torarin After all the language bikeshedding I'll add something on-topic to this thread ;) I agree with Torarin: It's a very good article, I like how further explanations are linked and I also wouldn't mind some more examples. Some additional notes: * A link to the std.parallelism docs would make sense Good idea. * This means that no data that is not either immutable or shared may be transitively reachable via pointers or references passed into a spawned function or passed as a message. is a strange sentence with those two negations in it. Yeah, this could be worded a little better. Will change. * Maybe you could compare std.parallelism to OpenMP in terms of syntax and functionality? That would probably help all the people that are familiar with it. A few others have asked for this, but honestly, I don't know much about OpenMP. I've read a little about it but never actually used it before, so I don't think I could write a solid comparison. Cheers, - Daniel
Re: [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D
On 4/10/2011 8:28 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: After all the language bikeshedding I'll add something on-topic to this thread ;) I agree with Torarin: It's a very good article, I like how further explanations are linked and I also wouldn't mind some more examples. Can you please give some specifics about where more examples would help? I intentionally left out using shared, because it's somewhat complex and buggy and IMHO it's the ugly bastard child of message passing, intentionally limited and meant to be used infrequently in the std.concurrency paradigm.
