On 07/16/2011 04:02 AM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> What is the minimal hints the programmer shall give? At least
> predicativity. I wonder what minimum set of keywords could be added,
> say, to C, so that the situation can be greatly improved without the
> burden being greatly increased. [non-pr
On Sat Jul 16 18:07:28 EDT 2011, fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
> > to the actual hardware, then you need to write new compilers and
> > recompile everything every few years.
>
> you do anyway. i don't think i've used a distribution yet
> where the upgrade doesn't include completely-recompiled versi
> to the actual hardware, then you need to write new compilers and
> recompile everything every few years.
you do anyway. i don't think i've used a distribution yet
where the upgrade doesn't include completely-recompiled versions of
everything.
If it wasn't for this cancerous web applications ordeal, I would be happy
with OpenBSD & rio,
and maybe with pure Plan 9 in the future ..
Simon
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:17:14 +0200
> simon softnet wrote:
>
> > Because it's more likely
On Saturday 16 July 2011 21:54:33 erik quanstrom wrote:
> it's interesting you bring this up. risc has largely been removed
> from architectures. if you tie the instruction set and machine model
> to the actual hardware, then you need to write new compilers and
> recompile everything every few ye
> If RISC has succeeded, this is precisely because the elements were
> simple enough to be implemented in hardware, and this simplicity allowed
> to work reliably on optimizations.
it's interesting you bring this up. risc has largely been removed
from architectures. if you tie the instruction se
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:17:14 +0200
simon softnet wrote:
> Because it's more likely that users will settle with linux+some plan 9
> features
> instead of with pure plan 9
Most of us have to anyway.
For now...
>
> Simon
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
> > I don't
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:06:27 +0200
tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> There is an english expression, IIRC: penny wise and pound fool.
Very close: penny wise and pound foolish. (Possibly capitalise Pound to be
correct.)
I had not heard this expression for years. Now you've reminded me of it, I
won
Because it's more likely that users will settle with linux+some plan 9
features
instead of with pure plan 9
Simon
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
> I don't see why anyone combining ideas from Plan 9 into Linux hurts
> Plan 9 as long as Plan 9 continues to exist.
>
> On Sa
I don't see why anyone combining ideas from Plan 9 into Linux hurts
Plan 9 as long as Plan 9 continues to exist.
On Saturday, July 16, 2011, simon softnet wrote:
> Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any way
> ...Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experie
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:27:14PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > The Itanium story, as guessed early by Hennessy and Patterson in
> > "Computer Architecture", shows that efficiency relying on too
> > complex knowledge, asking too much to the programmers and the
> > compilers, is likely to fail.
> The Itanium story, as guessed early by Hennessy and Patterson in
> "Computer Architecture", shows that efficiency relying on too
> complex knowledge, asking too much to the programmers and the
> compilers, is likely to fail.
another way of looking at itanium is that it's like a multicore
process
Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any way
...
Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel user-space
paradigms.
Why do they have to be sucked into the linux world?
Simon
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton wrote:
> > one might find ht
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:47:40PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/porch/
>
> long ago, but I saw it checkpoint between x86 and sparc.
Thanks for the pointer!
At least it shows that it is always useful to write down the
"axiomatics" of one code, since making explicit t
14 matches
Mail list logo
