Killing parens won't make you an adult :-)
Killing the paren(t)s is the hobbyist(eenager)'s radical response to
existential why's that arise as the world of exper(adul)ts opens up before
them and regularities in there are found to be essentially conventional
rather than rational or natural.
> So when you say that it works with Snow Leopard too, are you meaning that
> this works *on* snow leopard with something like FUSE 9p via plan 9 from
> user space?
imap4d and upas/fs are running on a regular plan 9 install.
apple mail is running as normal. there is no 9p required
on the mac.
wh
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:16 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> i've pushed an update of my nupas contrib
> package to sources. imap successful in use
> with apple mail (snow leper, too), iphone,
> outlook, opera, ff, upas/fs.
>
> note on installing:
> as devon pointed out, installation is still a
> big
i've pushed an update of my nupas contrib
package to sources. imap successful in use
with apple mail (snow leper, too), iphone,
outlook, opera, ff, upas/fs.
note on installing:
as devon pointed out, installation is still a
big pain.
1. move /sys/src/nupas -> onupas
2. contrib/install qu
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 the joke. In HPC circles, people have been
> > predicting
> > the death of fortran
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jonathan Cast wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 13:02 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> > And if you prefer a plea to authority over logic, I haven't said
> > anything that Simon Peyton Jones hasn't himself said about Haskell.
>
> Well, I disagree quite strongly about
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 13:02 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
> And if you prefer a plea to authority over logic, I haven't said
> anything that Simon Peyton Jones hasn't himself said about Haskell.
Well, I disagree quite strongly about Simon Peyton Jones about a number
of things. Which I think I in
> The test subject is a desktop PC, it has SATA primary harddrive and
> IDE master optical drive (according to the BIOS).
>
> I tried to install with the regular CD (Aug. 15), it detected the SATA
> harddrive only. I also tried Erik's 9atom.iso, it detected the IDE
> drive only, so it booted the L
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Cast wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:27 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> >
> http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/archive/SweeneyHPG2009/TimHPG2009.pdf
> >
Hi,
The test subject is a desktop PC, it has SATA primary harddrive and
IDE master optical drive (according to the BIOS).
I tried to install with the regular CD (Aug. 15), it detected the SATA
harddrive only. I also tried Erik's 9atom.iso, it detected the IDE
drive only, so it booted the Live CD
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:11 PM, 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 the joke. In HPC circles, people have been
> > predicting
> > the death of fortran fo
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:27 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/archive/SweeneyHPG2009/TimHPG2009.pdf
> >>
> > on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one
> > 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 the joke. In HPC circles, people have been
> predicting
> the death of fortran for 30 years. Fortran has continued to
> grow and
> thrive. The predicti
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:29 AM, ron minnich 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 the joke. In HPC circles, people have been predicting
the death of fortran for 30 years. Fortran has continued
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > > on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one
> > > > cannot do CSP without pure functional
> > > > programming.
> > >
> > > (p ⇒ q) ⇏ (¬p ⇒ ¬q)
> > >
> > >
> > That's interesting because pure functional programming doesn't exist at
>
> > > on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one
> > > cannot do CSP without pure functional
> > > programming.
> >
> > (p ⇒ q) ⇏ (¬p ⇒ ¬q)
> >
> >
> That's interesting because pure functional programming doesn't exist at all
> in the strictest sense on a computer. One MUST be able to cause side
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> >> http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/archive/SweeneyHPG2009/TimHPG2009.pdf
> >>
> > on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one
> > cannot do CSP without pure functional
> > programming.
>
> (p ⇒ q) ⇏ (¬p ⇒ ¬q)
>
>
That's
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> Clarifying context: this was at a hpc clusters conference -- their view of
> fortran is not your view of fortran.
>
> Having supported Fortran for MPI implementations before, I know what you
mean :-)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 2
>> http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/archive/SweeneyHPG2009/TimHPG2009.pdf
>>
> on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one
> cannot do CSP without pure functional
> programming.
(p ⇒ q) ⇏ (¬p ⇒ ¬q)
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:20:52 PDT Roman V Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 10:04 +0200, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> > Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
> > support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and
> > anonymous functions to C (a
> Found the reference:
>
> http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/archive/SweeneyHPG2009/TimHPG2009.pdf
on p. 43/44 i believe it is claimed that one
cannot do CSP without pure functional
programming.
the thread library is clearly better than i thought.
it can turn ordinary c into a functional programmi
Clarifying context: this was at a hpc clusters conference -- their
view of fortran is not your view of fortran.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2009, at 9:29 AM, ron minnich wrote:
Q: "Will C continue to be important into the future?"
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: "No, I think C will die like Fortran
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Bakul Shah
> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:33:13 CDT Eric Van Hensbergen
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Bakul
> > Shah>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > An intriguing idea that can point toward a synth fs interface
> > > to a dbms or search results But
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Robert Raschke wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
>> 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 h
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> 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
I use chibi at work; s'not bad considering the size, & certainly better than
tinyscheme. I currently use a custom dialect for new stuff, but the old is
either Chibi or Gauche.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:13 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:
>
>> O
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:33:13 CDT Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> >
> > An intriguing idea that can point toward a synth fs interface
> > to a dbms or search results But I don't think this would
> > be a lightweight interface.
> >
>
> The fac
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
c
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:32:53 BST Eris Discordia
wrote:
> Although, you may be better off reading SICP "as intended," and use MIT
> Scheme on either Windows or a *NIX. The book (and the freaking language) is
> already hard/unusual enough for one to not want to get confused by
> implementation
Hi,
as you may know, the Introduction to OS
Abstractions book (aka 9intro)
is avail in pdf in various
places from the web. It will continue that way, btw.
But, as some asked for that and I think it's nice,
it's also available at lulu.com. This is the url.
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-bo
>
>
> One again, have you tried Cilk for exactly this kind of thing? I'd
> be curious to know your opinion on how what you see in SL compares to
> it.
>
>
Nope, but it sounds interesting.
> > Blocks themselves are really not terribly useful, you need the
> > libdispatch library to make the real v
> (Dave Kirk, Nvidia) A: "No, I think C will die like Fortran has"
http://developer.nvidia.com/page/cg_main.html
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 08:07 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
> Has anyone actually looked at the spec
Yes. Well, I know I did ;-)
> I've actually looked at these, and used em a little bit. They're not
> at all as bad as I once thought they could be, and the reason they're
> there is to work with a
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 10:04 +0200, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and
> anonymous functions to C (and it's derivatives).
They are NOT closures in my book. They lack le
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Eris Discordia
> wrote:
> > Although, you may be better off reading SICP "as intended," and use MIT
> > Scheme on either Windows or a *NIX. The book (and the freaking language)
> is
> > already hard/unusual enou
Has anyone actually looked at the spec or is this just armchair philosophy?
I've actually looked at these, and used em a little bit. They're not at all
as bad as I once thought they could be, and the reason they're there is to
work with a concurrency framework onto which blocks can be scheduled to
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 minnich wrote:
> Q: "Will C continue to be important into the future?"
> (
Q: "Will C continue to be important into the future?"
(Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: "No, I think C will die like Fortran has"
ron
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Eris Discordia wrote:
> Although, you may be better off reading SICP "as intended," and use MIT
> Scheme on either Windows or a *NIX. The book (and the freaking language) is
> already hard/unusual enough for one to not want to get confused by
> implementation quirks.
2009/9/2 Uriel :
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
>> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
>> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and anonymous
>> functions to C (and it's derivatives). Full details with examples are
2009/9/2 erik quanstrom :
>> problem ended up being that I'd have to rework a lot of the slab
>> allocator, or do checks on every memory allocation, and I didn't want
>> to do that. More detailed info for those who care:
>
> could you use plan 9 terminology?
Probably not. Plan 9 uses a slab alloca
Hi kix (Anant),
I don't like it, but the question is: do you need it?
If you can do the same code with 8c, without much efford, then
probably you don't need it.
kix
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
>
> problem ended up being that I'd have to rework a lot of the slab
> allocator, or do checks on every memory allocation, and I didn't want
> to do that. More detailed info for those who care:
could you use plan 9 terminology?
>
> Lemma: In order to avoid overcommitting, we must impose limits on
> > Exactly two years ago you started a thread about
> > memory overcommit. If I remember correctly, plan9
> > overcommits vm. Few weeks later the Go program
i thought this was common knowledge, and so i ommitted
recounting the discussion. since it's not common knowledge
i'll recount.
plan 9 ove
2009/9/2 Andrés Domínguez :
> 2009/9/2 erik quanstrom :
>>
>> aside: from the overcommit vm discussion.
>> in http://9fans.net/archive/2000/06/634 rob
>> says that plan 9 doesn't overcommit vm.
>> what's the history here?
>
> Exactly two years ago you started a thread about
> memory overcommit. If
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and anonymous
> functions to C (and it's derivatives). Full details with examples are in the
> linked articl
> number of schemes > 4
>
> http://www.plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Contrib_index/
One that's not in the contrib tree is s9fes (Scheme 9 From
Empty Space).
BLS
Perl people love closures. It's one of their common programming techniques.
Closures in C? Way to screw its clarity and closeness to the real (or
virtual) machine. And in the end closure or no closure doesn't change how
the binary looks but allows programmers to pepper source with brain-teasers
Although, you may be better off reading SICP "as intended," and use MIT
Scheme on either Windows or a *NIX. The book (and the freaking language) is
already hard/unusual enough for one to not want to get confused by
implementation quirks. (Kill the paren!)
--On Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:
>IMHO, I'd say C is C and I think it's better to leave
>it as it is. If you want a language with extra features you can
>probably find one.
the blocks thing only works (apparently) by having two (visible) classes of
function pointers.
ugh. `clang' is apparently not just the name of the frontend
Same here.
- Original Message -
From: "Francisco J Ballesteros"
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] "Blocks" in C
IMHO, I'd say C is C and I think it's better to leave
it as it is. If you wan
IMHO, I'd say C is C and I think it's better to leave
it as it is. If you want a language with extra features you can
probably find one.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
> support for "blocks" in C [1].
number of schemes > 4
http://www.plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Contrib_index/
maybe one is what you are looking for
there is also a gsoc project, search 9fans for more details
http://9fans.net/archive/
xiangyu wrote:
HI,everyone:
Has anyone ported scheme into plan 9 ? or is there som
2009/9/2 Andrés Domínguez :
> 2009/9/2 erik quanstrom :
>>
>> aside: from the overcommit vm discussion.
>> in http://9fans.net/archive/2000/06/634 rob
>> says that plan 9 doesn't overcommit vm.
>> what's the history here?
>
> Exactly two years ago you started a thread about
> memory overcommit. If
HI,everyone:
Has anyone ported scheme into plan 9 ? or is there some scheme
implementation existence on plan 9 ? i want to learn SCIP
recently ,but i can't find a scheme in plan 9 . so ask ..
looking forward for the answer as soon as possible...
thanks first.
2009/9/2 erik quanstrom :
>
> aside: from the overcommit vm discussion.
> in http://9fans.net/archive/2000/06/634 rob
> says that plan 9 doesn't overcommit vm.
> what's the history here?
Exactly two years ago you started a thread about
memory overcommit. If I remember correctly, plan9
overcommits
Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and
anonymous functions to C (and it's derivatives). Full details with
examples are in the linked article. I think the feature is quite
elegant and might be use
58 matches
Mail list logo