Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread Tony Garnock-Jones
On 30 July 2013 16:22, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, what if it could fall back to the suboptimal but conceptually simpler Occam's explanation? This is something

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread John Pratt
Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not existing programming languages and paradigms. Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not your troubleshooting for your current job. Use the list for what it's said to be for. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread smt2
John - that discussion strikes me as perfectly suitable for this list. And your comment doesn't. - Original Message - From: Fundamentals of New Computing To:Fundamentals of New Computing Cc: Sent:Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:49:35 -0700 Subject:Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread Alan Kay
This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc. Cheers, Alan From: Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread John Pratt
Dick around with kids toys and make ugly crap, Kay. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Alan Kay wrote: This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc. Cheers, Alan From: Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Sent:

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread John Pratt
Your list is utterly useless, you have no chance of doing anything. If there is no Steve Jobs, it is just kids toys and mamby pamby construvist learning bullshit. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Alan Kay wrote: This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc. Cheers, Alan

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread John Pratt
I want to expose Alan Kay's cynicism in the statement you'll rule the world with the iPad This is actually his cynicism toward's Steve Jobs' will to power and is not well-intentioned. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Alan Kay wrote: This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc.

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread Jason Ives
John, I really don't think this list is for you. Jason On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:51 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that Alan Kay is a passive-aggressive twerp who can't reply directly to people. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: Below.

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread John Pratt
It's true, I actually do things. On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Jason Ives wrote: John, I really don't think this list is for you. Jason On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:51 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that Alan Kay is a passive-aggressive twerp who can't reply

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread David Barbour
I'm confused about what you're asking. If you apply an optimizer to an algorithm, it absolutely shouldn't affect the output. When we debug or report errors, it should always be in reference to the original source code. Or do you mean some other form of 'optimized'? I might rephrase your question

Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback

2013-07-30 Thread Dirk Pranke
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote: Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often there's a hook to log the crash somewhere. I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of some algorithm, and