It's in /n/sources/contrib/miller/resize.c
...
i modified resize to accept the same arguments as resample.
it is blistering on my machine.
If you noticed the code is a bit fussy, it's because it was
written to use on an fpga-based soft cpu (nios2) with no
hardware divide instruction and no
If you noticed the code is a bit fussy, it's because it was
written to use on an fpga-based soft cpu (nios2) with no
hardware divide instruction and no floating point. It should
run pretty effortlessly on your core i7.
it seems significantly less fussy than resample.
evidently, i didn't look
term% time resample -x 1600 -y 1200 glenda.pic /dev/null
36.07u 0.01s 36.21rresample -x 1600 -y 1200 ...
term% time resize -b -s 1600 1200 glenda.pic /dev/null
0.91u 0.02s 1.06r resize -b -s 1600 1200 ...
The -b option is for bilinear interpolation. Without that, it goes
a bit
In article a89e40c6e5a2af85dbd0a...@[192.168.1.2],
Eris Discordia eris.discor...@gmail.com wrote:
I must say that the Lisp version is much simpler and clearer to me, while
the C version is mildly baffling. Does that make me a wizard who can
hardly read simple C code, or is it just a matter of
In article cf1be04bf7455ba985f600b36c9d4...@yyc.orthanc.ca,
Lyndon Nerenberg - VE6BBM/VE7TFX lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
is this english++? i just can't parse it.
If we all ignore him he might go away ...
Pardon? *Never* had an article get erroneously submitted?
One always has the options to
In article 0ef4163eff31942c1dfd704af0f43...@yyc.orthanc.ca,
Lyndon Nerenberg - VE6BBM/VE7TFX lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
relax
If I want platitudes I have the whole rest of the internet to gorge
on. Here we try to do actual content.
But we're not.
And the solution is to listen to you instead?
eris.discor...@gmail.com (Eris Discordia) writes:
As for this direct question:
I must say that the Lisp version is much simpler and clearer to me, while
the C version is mildly baffling. Does that make me a wizard who can
hardly read simple C code, or is it just a matter of what you and I
On Wed Sep 9 04:36:52 EDT 2009, com...@panix.com wrote:
In article 0ef4163eff31942c1dfd704af0f43...@yyc.orthanc.ca,
Lyndon Nerenberg - VE6BBM/VE7TFX lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
relax
If I want platitudes I have the whole rest of the internet to gorge
on. Here we try to do actual content.
if people would leave off moaning about moaning,
we'd clear the space for more moaning about lisp
although the former did have the advantage that the
messages were shorter and didn't quote the bulk of
all previous messages.
anyone written any software recently?
at this point it probably doesn't
anyone written any software recently?
i did. http://9fans.net/archive/
anyone written any software recently?
at this point it probably doesn't matter whether it was for plan 9 or not.
the problem with writing code is that then
everybody will tell you ten ways it sucks.
it's best to keep your code under wraps.
russ, thanks for the archive. it's very useful.
-
anyone written any software recently?
Now you mention it, I've recently written a 'resize' command which is
a bit like resample(1) for impatient people:
term% time resample -x 1600 -y 1200 glenda.pic /dev/null
36.07u 0.01s 36.21r resample -x 1600 -y 1200 ...
term% time resize -b -s 1600
anyone written any software recently?
at this point it probably doesn't matter whether it was for plan 9 or not.
I'll plug, like the conniving commercialist I be:
/n/sources/contrib/akumar/α/gofs
Interfaces coming soon.
ak
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Charles Forsyth fors...@terzarima.netwrote:
if people would leave off moaning about moaning,
we'd clear the space for more moaning about lisp
although the former did have the advantage that the
messages were shorter and didn't quote the bulk of
all previous
anyone written any software recently?
I wrote ssam, a stream interface to sam, and its man page (ssam.1,
from sed.1) for (at least) plan9port. It's still under review.
http://codereview.appspot.com/95076/show
latest ssam is patch set 8
latest ssam.1 is patch set 9
I also have a little script
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Russ Cox r...@swtch.com wrote:
anyone written any software recently?
i did. http://9fans.net/archive/
Thanks. I like the new interface. It makes searching through the
archives a lot easier. I do still kinda sometimes prefer the threaded
view that Google
Abhishek Kulkarni wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Russ Cox r...@swtch.com
mailto:r...@swtch.com wrote:
anyone written any software recently?
i did. http://9fans.net/archive/
Thanks. I like the new interface. It makes searching through the
archives a lot easier. I do still
anyone written any software recently?
i've been; though mostly in rc. in the process i (re)discovered this
idiom:
doing=`{ifs=/ echo `{echo /talking/about/it/is/more/fun}}
echo $doing
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Charles Forsyth fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
anyone written any software recently?
writing a new boot(8) that uses rc(1) to drive the boot process.
iru
anyone written any software recently?
some prototypes for audio servers over 9p for and shim audio device
drivers for various platforms to redirect local audio device requests to
audio servers...
Tim Newsham
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
Skip intoned:
anyone written any software recently?
i've been; though mostly in rc. in the process i (re)discovered this
idiom:
doing=`{ifs=/ echo `{echo /talking/about/it/is/more/fun}}
echo $doing
*=`{ifs=/ echo `{echo /talking/about/it/is/more/fun}}
echo $3 $4 doing that $6 $4 $2
Put
eris.discor...@gmail.com (Eris Discordia) writes:
Let me be a little pedantic.
The 9fans know given the haphazard nature of a hobbyist's knowledge I
am extremely bad at this, but then let me give it a try.
FYI, it's been Lisp for a while.
As long as Britannica and Merriam-Webster call it
On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Paul Donnelly wrote:
or perhaps A-list games programming
The Jak and Daxter series was written in Common Lisp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp
—
Daniel Lyons
Write Haskell as fast as C: exploiting strictness, laziness and recursion
- http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/blog/2008/05/16
From the article
Lesson 1: To write predictably fast Haskell -- the kind that competes
with C day in and out
-- use tail recursion, and ensure all types are inferred as
In article 542783.92348...@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com,
Brian L. Stuart blstu...@bellsouth.net wrote:
KR is beautiful in this respect. In contrast, never managed
bite in Stroustrup's description.
Ok, now I'll get provocative:
hen why do so many people have a problem understanding C?
Are you
In article fe41879c0909050422s77247280y4fcd7d89a621b...@mail.gmail.com,
Akshat Kumar aku...@mail.nanosouffle.net wrote:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Programming languages are just tools, after all.
Considering that Plan 9 has only two inherent languages,
and its users often push for work
In article bb8e3a2e5419e566d0361...@[192.168.1.2],
Eris Discordia eris.discor...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I am sure C
was a lot easier to learn and comprehend than either Pascal
Might depend how you define easier.
What seems to distinguish--pedagogically, at least--C is, as I noted on
that other
Considering that Plan 9 has only two inherent languages,
and its users often push for work to be done in only those,
what is the Plan 9 perspective of languages and tools in
relation to each other?
Is it in agreement with this statement?
It's certainly true that cultures and mindsets build up
On Sep 7, 2009, at 3:05 AM, Greg Comeau wrote:
Some keep saying that we should use more complex languages in
the introductory course because they're in some way easier.
But I've yet to understand their definition of easier.
I've seen this before. It's usually a combo of people
not knowing
i agree the computer industry as a whole tends
to be long on dogma and yet suffers from an accute
inability to recall previous mistakes.
For some reason, the fact that we program rational machines in logic-
based languages deludes us into thinking our experience is the same as
everyone
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rob Pike robp...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you implying Doug McIlroy hadn't been taught about (and inevitably
occupied by) Church-Turing Thesis or even before that Ackermann function and
had to wait to be inspired by a comment in passing about FORTRAN to realize
the
In article 936a4bab-7d9a-4b65-ab6a-c5eea8e43...@storytotell.org,
Daniel Lyons fus...@storytotell.org wrote:
On Sep 7, 2009, at 3:05 AM, Greg Comeau wrote:
Some keep saying that we should use more complex languages in
the introductory course because they're in some way easier.
But I've yet to
This thread has grown into a particularly educational one, for me at least,
thanks to everyone who posted.
Vinu Rajashekhar's two posts were strictly to the point. There _is_ a
mental model of the small computer to teach along with Scheme and there are
ways to get close to the machine from
is this english++? i just can't parse it.
If we all ignore him he might go away ...
relax
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg -
VE6BBM/VE7TFXlyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
is this english++? i just can't parse it.
If we all ignore him he might go away ...
--
Federico G. Benavento
relax
If I want platitudes I have the whole rest of the internet to gorge
on. Here we try to do actual content.
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 05:51:33PM +0100, Eris Discordia wrote:
I don't think we are actually in disagreement here. I have no objections to
your assertion. However, the particular case at hand indicates a different
thing than historians (of computer technology) backporting today's
trivial
in fact, none of the things we take for granted --- e.g., binary,
digital, stack-based, etc. --- were immediately obvious. and it
might be that we've got these thing that we know wrong yet.
I don't think we are actually in disagreement here. I have no objections to
your assertion. However,
There's a talk Doug McIllroy gave where he joked about how he
basically invented (or rather, discovered) recursion because someone
said ``Hey, what would happen if we made a FORTRAN routine call
itself?'' IIRC he had to tinker with the compiler to get it to accept
the idea, and at first, no one
In this respect rating the expressive power of C versus LISP depends
very much on the problem domain under discussion.
Of course. I pointed out in my first post on the thread that [...] for a
person of my (low) caliber, LISP is neither suited to the family of
problems I encounter nor suited
Are you implying Doug McIlroy hadn't been taught about (and inevitably
occupied by) Church-Turing Thesis or even before that Ackermann function and
had to wait to be inspired by a comment in passing about FORTRAN to realize
the importance of recursion?! This was a rhetorical question, of
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Eris Discordia eris.discor...@gmail.comwrote:
In this respect rating the expressive power of C versus LISP depends
very much on the problem domain under discussion.
Of course. I pointed out in my first post on the thread that [...] for a
person of my (low)
I would like to see Haskell fill C's niche: it's close to C's
execution speed now, and pure functions and a terse style gives real
advantages in coding speed (higher-order functions abstract common
patterns without tedious framework implementations), maintainability
(typeclasses of parameters in
Well I can think of 3 operating systems written in Haskell now. One was an
executable specification for validating a secure L4 implementation. One is
hOp, and then there's also House, based on hOp.
Keep in mind that House and hOp both used the ghc runtime (written in C)
as a base. I would
On Sep 6, 2009, at 9:05 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Eris Discordia eris.discor...@gmail.com
wrote:
In this respect rating the expressive power of C versus LISP depends
very much on the problem domain under discussion.
Of course. I pointed out in my first post
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Tim Newsham news...@lava.net wrote:
I would like to see Haskell fill C's niche: it's close to C's
execution speed now, and pure functions and a terse style gives real
advantages in coding speed (higher-order functions abstract common
patterns without tedious
Thanks for the first-hand account :-)
Don't be Whiggish in your understanding of history. Its participants
did not know their way.
Given your original narrative I really can't argue. Maybe, as you note, I'm
wrongly assuming everyone knew a significant part of that which had come
before
Considering that Plan 9 has only two inherent languages,
and its users often push for work to be done in only those,
what is the Plan 9 perspective of languages and tools in
relation to each other?
I guess rc C are meant.
True, I feel to be pushed to these. On the other hand I really like
True, I feel to be pushed to these. On the other hand I really like
rc. Compared to bash/sh/ksh/zsh... I like its simplicity as well as
that it is the only shell in plan9. I use it in linux too (although I
miss some abilities it really should have, like ability to break from
a loop).
i've
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Programming languages are just tools, after all.
Considering that Plan 9 has only two inherent languages,
and its users often push for work to be done in only those,
what is the Plan 9 perspective of languages and tools in
relation to each other?
Is it in
One serious question today would be: what's LISP _really_ good for?
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 07:22:37AM -0400, Akshat Kumar wrote:
Programming languages are just tools, after all.
Considering that Plan 9 has only two inherent languages,
and its users often push for work to be done in only those,
what is the Plan 9 perspective of languages and tools in
Akshat said:
// Considering that Plan 9 has only two inherent languages...
I'm curious which two you meant. Most of the code running on my Plan 9
installations is written in either C or rc. For code I've written running on it,
Limbo is about as high. And of course there's a little assembly down
Let me be a little pedantic.
The 9fans know given the haphazard nature of a hobbyist's knowledge I am
extremely bad at this, but then let me give it a try.
FYI, it's been Lisp for a while.
As long as Britannica and Merriam-Webster call it LISP I don't think
calling it LISP would be
One serious question today would be: what's LISP _really_ good for?
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
I could do a similar thing:
http://www.schnada.de/quotes/contempt.html#struetics
... and leave you wondering (or not). I won't.
Paul Graham's essay/article consists of a success story,
I forgot this: Graham basically accuses programmers who don't find LISP as
attractive (or powerful, as he puts it) as he does of living on lower
planes of existence from which the heavens above of functional (or only
LISP) programming seem incomprehensible. He writes/speaks persuasively,
he's
general-purpose language good for system programming--you seem to call
that being a good OS language--
I take this part back. I mixed your post with Jason Catena's for a moment.
--On Saturday, September 05, 2009 15:14 +0100 Eris Discordia
eris.discor...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me be a little
Oh, yay, a Xah Lee quote, he's surely a trusted source on all things
Lisp. Didja read his page about hiring a prostitute in Las Vegas? Or
the one about how he lives in a car in the Bay Area because he's too
crazy to get hired?
Patience, brother. Search Paul Graham on that page and let your mind
i'm not a lisp fan. but it's discouraging to see
such lack of substance as the following (collected
from a few posts):
Oh, yay, a Xah Lee quote, he's surely a trusted source on all things
Lisp. Didja read his page about hiring a prostitute in Las Vegas? Or
the one about how he lives in a car
Eris,
Using your theories, please explain why Lisp and Plan 9 both hover
around the same level of popularity (i.e., not very, but not dead
either).
—
Daniel Lyons
I forgot this: Graham basically accuses programmers who don't find LISP
as attractive (or powerful, as he puts it) as he does of living on
lower planes of existence from which the heavens above of functional
(or only LISP) programming seem incomprehensible. He writes/speaks
persuasively, he's
I wasn't, in this case at least, implying something not backed by firm
evidence. Conditional branching embodied in actual computers goes back to
Plankalkuel on Z3. The idea is as early as Babbage. It comes as natural
even to first-timers, following much more difficult conception of a notion
so you're saying that the table in this section is wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History_of_computing
if it is and you can back it up, i sugeest you fix wikipedia.
It isn't wrong.
The exact wording from The First Computers: History and Architectures
goes:
The instruction
The instruction most conspicuously absent from the instruction set of the
Z3 is conditional branching. [...] but there is no straightforward way to
implement conditional sequences of instructions. However, we will show
later than conditional branching can be simulated on this machine.
i
Hailed Eris:
I was alluding to the expressive power of C versus LISP considered with
respect to the primitives available on one's computing platform and
primitives in which solutions to one's problems are best expressed.
I think one of the reasons there exists little languages, and cliches
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Jason Catena jason.cat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hailed Eris:
I was alluding to the expressive power of C versus LISP considered with
respect to the primitives available on one's computing platform and
primitives in which solutions to one's problems are best
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:26 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
i'm not a lisp fan. but it's discouraging to see
such lack of substance as the following (collected
from a few posts):
Oh, yay, a Xah Lee quote, he's surely a trusted source on all things
Lisp. Didja read his page
In article 6a3ae47e0909030757n31a8d09aoa2b2d57628a5a...@mail.gmail.com,
Robert Raschke rtrli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Greg Comeau com...@panix.com wrote:
Ok, now I'll get provocative:
Then why do so many people have a problem understanding C?
Please don't
In article d50d7d460909030813u703c1292i6ae7cf10a767f...@mail.gmail.com,
Jason Catena jason.cat...@gmail.com wrote:
If the language can't be explained in 50 pages, it's no good.
If it's not possible to clearly describe the core of a computer
programming language in fifty pages, then it has
In article 561059.20730...@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com,
Brian L. Stuart blstu...@bellsouth.net wrote:
KR is beautiful in this respect. In contrast, I
never managed to
bite in Stroustrup's description.
Ok, now I'll get provocative:
Then why do so many people have a problem understanding C?
KR is beautiful in this respect. In
contrast, I
never managed to
bite in Stroustrup's description.
Ok, now I'll get provocative:
Then why do so many people have a problem
understanding C?
Are you saying that there is a significant number of
people who understand C++ but not C?
Brian L. Stuart wrote:
Just getting something to happen might be training, but it sure isn't
education.
Thats the best one-liner I have ever heard on the subject.
-Jack
Caveat: please add IMH(UI)O in front of any assertion that comes below.
Since education was brought up: I remember I found it seriously twisted
when I was told mathematics freshmen in a top-notch university not
(geographically) far from me are taught not one but two courses in computer
Let me be a little pedantic.
On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Eris Discordia wrote:
Above says precisely why I did. LISP is twofold hurtful for me as a
naive, below average hobbyist.
FYI, it's been Lisp for a while.
For one thing the language constructs do not reflect the small
computer
Hailed Eris:
One serious question today would be: what's LISP _really_ good for?
It's not LISP, but I've found Haskell good for writing terse code that
works. Once you get your code past the type checker, it's likely to
just work for the forseeable future if it's pure. Most tricky code
ends up
This is like saying
agglutinative languages are worse for conquering the world with than
isolating languages because the Ottoman empire fell before the English
empire.
I wish there was a way to record this for the next generation. Perhaps
in a list of worthy sayings and fortune cookies we
In article 1251932394.16936.3741.ca...@work.sfbay.sun.com,
Roman V Shaposhnik r...@sun.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:11 -0700, Brian L. Stuart wrote:
Q: Will C continue to be important into the future?
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: No, I think C will die like
Fortran has
let me explain
In article 3096bd910909020751o12086713m4291e2f1b77da...@mail.gmail.com,
Rodolfo kix k...@kix.es wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, ron minnichrminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: Will C continue to be important into the future?
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: No, I think C will die like Fortran has
I believe
When push comes the shove, these are probably both said in the
same spirit (I doubt Kirk feels C will die, nor Gates that
OS/2 was such (nor that MS products have no bugs))
what spirit is that? the one that says i'm a rational person but
will say irrational things if it helps me sell my
Well, this is probably not a good time to mentioned that lambdas
and closures have been well discussed by the C++ committe with
lots of draft wording for them in a forthcmoing C++ standard.
i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
periodically. it is surprising that
If the language can't be explained in 50 pages, it's no good.
On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:01 AM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:24:50AM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
periodically. it is surprising that this is
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:24:50AM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
periodically. it is surprising that this is being considered seriously
for C.
I'd like to say that my distate for C++ is purely technical, but to be
honest,
In article a879919a-6e6f-4425-a971-62946a07e...@coraid.com,
Brantley Coile brant...@coraid.com wrote:
If the language can't be explained in 50 pages, it's no good.
Well, that rules out C too then! :) (not even considering the library parts)
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
In article 20090903120157.ga1...@polynum.com, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:24:50AM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
periodically. it is surprising that this is being considered seriously
for C.
I'd like
In article ab7093364284b1abf9201ff33cdfd...@9netics.com,
Skip Tavakkolian 9...@9netics.com wrote:
When push comes the shove, these are probably both said in the
same spirit (I doubt Kirk feels C will die, nor Gates that
OS/2 was such (nor that MS products have no bugs))
what spirit is
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Greg Comeau com...@panix.com wrote:
Ok, now I'll get provocative:
Then why do so many people have a problem understanding C?
Please don't seriously say they don't. In fact, these same
arguments are used against C by those who don't care for C.
Go figure? I
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Uriel urie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean HTTP has a small protocol, but if you count all the things you can
do
with REST, then it looks like a lot more.
HTTP might be many things, small is
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Greg Comeau com...@panix.com wrote:
In article 3096bd910909020751o12086713m4291e2f1b77da...@mail.gmail.com,
Rodolfo kix k...@kix.es wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, ron minnichrminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: Will C continue to be important into the future?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM, David Leimbachleim...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean HTTP has a small protocol, but if you count all the things you can do
with REST, then it looks like a lot more.
HTTP might be many things, small is not one of them. That said, your
overall point is correct.
Peace
If the language can't be explained in 50 pages, it's no good.
If it's not possible to clearly describe the core of a computer
programming language in fifty pages, then it has probably been
embellished with features, unnecessary to the language proper, to help
it compete in the lame
KR is beautiful in this respect. In contrast, I
never managed to
bite in Stroustrup's description.
Ok, now I'll get provocative:
Then why do so many people have a problem understanding C?
Are you saying that there is a significant number of
people who understand C++ but not C? The reason
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 02:02:53PM +, Greg Comeau wrote:
In article 20090903120157.ga1...@polynum.com, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
I have the principle that, since a programming language aims to express
clearly what you want to be done, if the author doesn't explane clearly
his language,
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:38 PM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
C shall be the test. If you don't even understand C, explained by KR,
then do something else.
I'm glad this attitude exists, particularly here in the Plan 9
community, where it belongs. But I don't agree. There are many
languages
C shall be the test. If you don't even understand C, explained by KR,
then do something else.
i agree to this completely. after taking a formal course in computers,
if someone cannot read/follow KR C book and cannot write C code, i
would think that the candidate is not good enough.
thanks
Q: Will C continue to be important into the future?
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: No, I think C will die like Fortran has
ron
I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system,
and possibly program, of all time.
(Bill Gates, OS/2 Programmers Guide, November 1987)
... we are all human ...
:-)
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, ron minnichrminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: Will C continue to be important into
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia) A: No, I think C will die like Fortran has
http://developer.nvidia.com/page/cg_main.html
On Wed Sep 2 10:33:07 EDT 2009, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: Will C continue to be important into the future?
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: No, I think C will die like Fortran has
isn't this the same company that claims that the cpu is dead?
it may be true, but given nvidia's propensity to make
claims
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
On Wed Sep 2 10:33:07 EDT 2009, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: Will C continue to be important into the future?
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: No, I think C will die like Fortran has
isn't this the same company that claims
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.netwrote:
On Wed Sep 2 10:33:07 EDT 2009, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: Will C continue to be important into the future?
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: No, I think C will die like Fortran has
isn't this the same company that claims
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
