Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

On 2/28/2012 10:33 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote: On 28 February 2012 16:41, BGB wrote: - 1 order of magnitude is gained by removing feature creep. I agree feature creep can be important. But I also believe most feature belong to a long tail, where each is needed by a minority of users

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

there a gain? but, anyways, even 1 Mloc would put it within the abilities of a single human to understand, provided it is still understandable... Loup. BGB wrote: On 2/27/2012 10:08 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: Structural optimisation is not compression. Lurk more. probably will drop this,

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_source_coding_theorem Julian On 28/02/2012, at 3:38 PM, BGB wrote: granted, I remain a little skeptical. I think there is a bit of a difference though between, say, a log table, and a typical piece of software. a log table is, essentially, almost

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

inute than a person does in 1 day. "damn, this transmission is smooth, it is easy riding traveling 75mph on the freeway while pulling a trailer... on my bicycle...". Chuck On Feb 27, 2012, at 2:20 PM, BGB wrote: On 2/27/2012 1:27 PM, David Girle wrote: I am interested in the em

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

On 2/27/2012 1:27 PM, David Girle wrote: I am interested in the embedded uses of Maru, so I cannot comment on "how to get from here to a Frank-like GUI". I have no idea how many others on this list are interested in the Internet of Things (IoT), but I expect parts of Frank will be useful in that

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

On 2/27/2012 10:31 AM, David Harris wrote: Alan --- I appreciate both you explanation and what you are doing. Of course jealousy comes into it, because you guys appear to be having a lot of fun mixed in with your hard work, and I would love to part of that. I know where I would be breaking

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

On 2/27/2012 10:30 AM, Steve Wart wrote: Just to zero in on one idea here Anyway I digress... have you had a look at this file?: http://piumarta.com/software/maru/maru-2.1/test-pepsi.l Just read the whole thing - I found it fairly interesting :) He's build pepsi on maru there

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

On 2/26/2012 11:43 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: Hi, Comments line... On 27/02/2012, at 5:33 PM, BGB wrote: I don't think it was a prank. It's not really hidden at all. If you pay attention, all the components of Frank are there... like I said. It's obviously missing cert

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

On 2/26/2012 8:23 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: I'm afraid that I am in no way a teacher of this. I'm in no way professing to know what I'm talking about - I've simply given you my observations. Perhaps we can help each other, because I'm intensely interested, too... I want to understand this stuf

[fonc] OT? S-Exps and network (Re: Error trying to compile COLA)

On 2/26/2012 11:33 AM, Martin Baldan wrote: Guys, I find these off_topic comments (as in not strictly about my idst compilation problem) really interesting. Maybe I should start a new thread? Something like «how can a newbie start playing with this technology?». Thanks! well, ok, hopefu

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

ybe I will go back into lurk mode now... Julian On 26/02/2012, at 9:25 PM, BGB wrote: On 2/25/2012 7:48 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: As I understand it, Frank is an experiment that is an extended version of DBJr that sits atop lesserphic, which sits atop gezira which sits atop nile, which sits

Re: [fonc] Error trying to compile COLA

On 2/25/2012 7:48 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: As I understand it, Frank is an experiment that is an extended version of DBJr that sits atop lesserphic, which sits atop gezira which sits atop nile, which sits atop maru all of which which utilise ometa and the "worlds" idea. If you look at the h

Re: [fonc] One more year?!

On 1/22/2012 10:29 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: On 23/01/2012, at 4:17 PM, BGB wrote: as opposed to either manually placing samples on a timeline (like in Audacity or similar), or the stream of note-on/note-off pulses and delays used by MIDI, an alternate idea comes up: one has a number of

Re: [fonc] One more year?!

On 1/22/2012 8:57 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: On 23/01/2012, at 2:30 PM, BGB wrote: little if anything in that area that generally makes me think "dubstep" though... (taken loosely enough, most "gangsta-rap" could be called "dubstep" if one turns the sub-w

Re: [fonc] One more year?!

On 1/22/2012 7:16 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: Below and mile off-topic... On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: On 23/01/2012, at 8:26 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote: Below. On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:26 PM, BGB wrote: like, for example, if a musician wanted to pursue various

Re: [fonc] One more year?!

On 1/22/2012 5:11 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: On 23/01/2012, at 8:26 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote: Below. On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:26 PM, BGB wrote: like, for example, if a musician wanted to pursue various musical forms. say, for example: a dubstep backbeat combined with rap-style lyrics sung

Re: [fonc] One more year?!

ditional notions of an artist). " How do artists and scientists work? The same On Jan 22, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote: On 22 January 2012 21:26, Casey Ransberger <mailto:casey.obrie...@gmail.com>> wrote: Below. On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:26 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@

[fonc] misc: bytecode and level of abstraction

I don't know if this topic has probably been already beat to death, or is otherwise not very interesting or relevant here, but alas... it is a question though what is the "ideal" level of abstraction (and "generality") in a VM. for example, "LLVM" is fairly low level (using a statically-type

Re: [fonc] One more year?!

On 1/21/2012 11:23 AM, Shawn Morel wrote: Reuben, Your response is enlightening in many ways. I think it re-inforces for me how computer science is really more of an "automation pop culture." As a society, we've become engrossed with product yet we spend only a few minutes at most usually play

Re: [fonc] One more year?!

On 1/21/2012 8:11 AM, Peter Franta wrote: VPRI answer to their Government and Private Funders, not those of us who have the fortune to observe as they go. It is my understanding the deliverable is not a "product" but "lessons learned" to go and do it for real! Not ideal for us but then they're

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

On 1/18/2012 10:19 AM, Devon D Sparks wrote: There's a trend in architecture schools to offload the form-finding "creative burden" to computers with the use of shape grammars. Though they're a driving force in many departments, some will admit behind closed doors that they're also a bit of a re

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

On 1/17/2012 9:50 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: There are different kinds of art, just like there are different qualities of everything. I think you may find on closer inspection that there can be things that are intrinsically beautiful, or intrinsically awe-inspiring to humanity as a whole. I d

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

On 1/17/2012 5:10 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: game art doesn't need to be particularly "awe inspiring", so much as "basically works and is not total crap". It can't be awe inspi

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

On 1/17/2012 10:58 AM, karl ramberg wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Loup Vaillant > wrote: David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, karl ramberg mailto:karlramb...@gmail.com>

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

orry if all this is a bother to anyone, being solidly not really about programming per-se... From: BGB To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012, 3:31 Subject: Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds 8< these would generally be created manually, by

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

similar, with its inherent pros and cons). I guess it may ultimately be a bit of a "wait and see" thing. On 17/01/2012, at 2:31 PM, BGB wrote: On 1/16/2012 6:47 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: Top post. Heightmapping can go a really long way. Probably not news though:) I am sti

Re: [fonc] Inspired 3D Worlds

surprised about how much of a world can be easily written with code rather than mapping. A map can be simplified by marking regions up with code and using libraries of procedures. Code can sometimes be simplified by having it read a simple map or image. Remember, the basic role of programming is to a

Re: [fonc] test

On 1/9/2012 3:25 PM, Kim Rose wrote: (nothing...) ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc BTW: a bunch of spam has appeared again on the wiki. not much else interesting on my end, mostly fiddling with stuff. pr

Re: [fonc] OLPC related

On 11/14/2011 4:42 PM, Max OrHai wrote: Criticism of the OLPC project is easy to find, so I won't repeat much of it here, except to say that I find their whole model obnoxiously paternalistic; it's based on centralized government-controlled institutions (that is, schools), government and NGO su

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/29/2011 6:46 AM, karl ramberg wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:06 AM, BGB wrote: On 10/28/2011 2:27 PM, karl ramberg wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:36 PM, BGBwrote: On 10/28/2011 7:28 AM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote: On Thursday 27 Oct 2011 11:27:39 PM BGB wrote: most likely

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/28/2011 2:27 PM, karl ramberg wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:36 PM, BGB wrote: On 10/28/2011 7:28 AM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote: On Thursday 27 Oct 2011 11:27:39 PM BGB wrote: most likely, processing power will stop increasing (WRT density and/or watts) once the respective physical

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/28/2011 7:28 AM, K. K. Subramaniam wrote: On Thursday 27 Oct 2011 11:27:39 PM BGB wrote: most likely, processing power will stop increasing (WRT density and/or watts) once the respective physical limits are met (basically, it would no longer be possible to get more processing power in the

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/27/2011 5:35 PM, David Goehrig wrote: probably: sharp rise... plateau... collapse... dark ages then begin. As probably the only Late Ancient / Early Medievalist on this list, I feel a need to correct this myth of the Dark Ages (which can be squarely blamed on Edward Gibbon, and his per

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/27/2011 8:33 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:53:24AM -0700, BGB wrote: from what I read, IBM was using a digital crossbar. It sounds like Kwabena Boahen (Carver Mead's school) is on the right track http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~strom/onr_workshop/boahen.pdf the group

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/27/2011 10:10 AM, Steve Dekorte wrote: BGB wrote: Leitl wrote: John Zabroski wrote: Kurzweil addresses that. As far as I know Kurzweil hasn't presented anything technical or even detailed. Armwaving is cheap enough. yep, one can follow a polynomial curve to pretty much any

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/26/2011 6:06 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:00:36AM -0400, John Zabroski wrote: Kurzweil addresses that. As far as I know Kurzweil hasn't presented anything technical or even detailed. Armwaving is cheap enough. yep, one can follow a polynomial curve to pretty muc

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/25/2011 11:41 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:17:24AM -0700, BGB wrote: I was not arguing about the limits of computing, rather, IBM's specific design. it doesn't really realistically emulate real neurons, rather it is a Real neurons have many features, ma

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

nobody is as passionate and willing to argue about the subject as Ray. Cheers, Z-Bo On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:44 PM, BGB mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 10/14/2011 9:29 AM, karl ramberg wrote: Interesting article : http://www.itnews.co

Re: [fonc] IBM eyes brain-like computing

On 10/14/2011 9:29 AM, karl ramberg wrote: Interesting article : http://www.itnews.com.au/News/276700,ibm-eyes-brain-like-computing.aspx Not much details, but the what they envisions seems to be more of the character a autonomic system that can be quarried for answers, not programmed like today'

Re: [fonc] Lessons from COLA

On 9/28/2011 7:43 PM, Erick Lavoie wrote: I've found the vision of a simple, open and evolutionary adaptable programming language substrate, as described in Albert [1], tantalizing. I especially like the idea of dynamically evolving a language 'from within' a fluid substrate. I am left wonderin

Re: [fonc] Google "Dash" and Harmony projects

On 9/12/2011 10:22 AM, John Zabroski wrote: A leaked Google memo from November 2010 [1] is being circulated around the Internet, outlining Google's supposed technical strategy for Web programming languages. Ironically, I saw this leak via a Google Alert keyword search. It has propagated to a

Re: [fonc] Re: a little more FLEXibility

s there any way I can somehow get a job or make money?", ... Cheers Steve On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:09 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 9/5/2011 11:55 AM, Alan Kay wrote: I hate to be the one to bring this up, but this has always been a feature of a

Re: [fonc] Re: a little more FLEXibility

editor, with those of immediate evaluation (and allowing more convenient ways to deal with longer multi-line commands)/ F# REPL in Visual Studio also supports this. Pretty nice feature. On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:01 AM, BGB mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote:

[fonc] Re: a little more FLEXibility

On 9/4/2011 11:38 PM, Michael Haupt wrote: Hi Jecel, Am 02.09.2011 um 20:51 schrieb Jecel Assumpcao Jr.: Michael, your solution is a little more indirect than dragging arrows in Self since you have to create a global, which is what I would like to avoid. ah, but instead of Smalltalk >> #at:p

Re: [fonc] OT: Quake-derived engines...

.. granted, yes, even for all it has done, Quake has still fallen short, and lacks much "common content" beyond its original (and still technically proprietary) game data. most later open-source efforts have thus been very fragmentary, still often have to recreate all their data from t

Re: [fonc] OT: Quake-derived engines...

On 8/24/2011 1:00 AM, Julian Leviston wrote: Hi, On 24/08/2011, at 5:36 PM, BGB wrote: ok, yeah, this is a little awkward, as my way of seeing things I think tends to be a little more "here and now", like the "pink plane" in the video linked to with Alan talking about th

Re: [fonc] OT: Quake-derived engines...

posed to know the answer before posting a question...). however, yes, holistic thinking is a difficult area (vs seeing things as their various independent aspects, or breaking reality down into little pieces for weighting and analysis). so, pardon as I sometimes "fail to see the forest for

Re: [fonc] OT: Quake-derived engines...

st contain assorted comments with little apparent relation between them. On 24/08/2011, at 2:38 PM, BGB wrote: sorry, I don't know if anyone here will find any of this interesting. removed, as apparently it was not interesting. ___ fonc ma

[fonc] OT: Quake-derived engines...

sorry, I don't know if anyone here will find any of this interesting. I just recently ran across a project (Xonotic) which shows something interesting: Quake1 derived projects are apparently still ongoing, and managing to deliver reasonably good looking games (sort of surprising, really, as I

Re: [fonc] The Language Barrier

On 8/23/2011 7:54 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote: Here's another citation: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~harel/papers/LiberatingProgramming.pdf yep, because I think CiteSeer often won't let one read the articles (wel

Re: [fonc] Messages

On 8/20/2011 9:25 AM, John McKeon wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Julian Leviston > wrote: On 21/08/2011, at 12:22 AM, John McKeon wrote: On Saturday, August 20, 2011, Alan Kay mailto:alan.n...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > (For example) > Try

Re: [fonc] OOP

On 8/19/2011 10:28 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, BGB wrote: if a message is equivalent to a method call, then it is equivalent to a method call... Yes. But it's hard to make a point with a circular argument. keep in mind that this statement has one of mul

Re: [fonc] OOP

On 8/19/2011 7:41 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:33 PM, BGB wrote: 'Messaging' is a problem child of its own. It forces us to write highly stateful applications, in order to coordinate or orchestrate multiple devices. Resulting applications are neither resilient

Re: [fonc] OOP

On 8/19/2011 4:11 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, DeNigris Sean wrote: After reading many of the LISP suggestions (thanks), the primary features seem to me to be: I'm not sure where, if at all, security comes in Security was, quite understandably, not a major desig

Re: [fonc] OOP

On 8/19/2011 11:05 AM, DeNigris Sean wrote: Alan, I'm thinking more deeply about computers and language and have realized that, after programming for 15 years, I still have no idea what I'm talking about :) just offering my opinions here. but, yeah, maybe many of us don't really know what we a

Re: [fonc] Extending object oriented programming in Smalltalk

On 8/18/2011 11:08 AM, Chris Warburton wrote: On Thursday 18 August 2011 18:15:03 Alan Kay wrote: Another more trivial but telling point is that John did not like the use of S expressions for programming -- he invented them to have a way to represent collections and to serve as an internal form

Re: [fonc] Extending object oriented programming in Smalltalk

se my writing style as being overly verbose and/or nonsensical, when often this is me trying to make sure to express enough details to where any relevant context/... is not absent. (just saw Alan's comment. yes, this clarifies things somewhat.) Monty On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:33 AM,

Re: [fonc] Extending object oriented programming in Smalltalk

On 8/17/2011 6:41 PM, Alan Kay wrote: Take a look at Landin's papers and especially ISWIM ("The next 700 programming languages") You don't so much want to learn Lisp as to learn "the idea of Lisp" now, I am wondering some what is exactly "the idea of Lisp"? putting the phrase into Google do

Re: [fonc] Extending object oriented programming in Smalltalk

On 8/17/2011 2:15 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: May I join in :-) ? This is my first post here, so hello everybody. In one sentence, I like computing (that's introduction). On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, BGB wrote: I once had a good experience using Scheme, which has influenced most of my later ef

Re: [fonc] Extending object oriented programming in Smalltalk

I once had a good experience using Scheme, which has influenced most of my later efforts (despite me generally switching to a more traditional C-family-like syntax, invoking many accusations of "blub" and similar). I also found Self an interesting language to look at. Lisp-style syntax does h

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

On 8/15/2011 3:06 AM, Chris Warburton wrote: On Friday 12 August 2011 21:23:23 BGB wrote: newer Linux distros also seem to do similar to Windows, by default running everything under a default user account, but requiring authorization to elevate the rights of applications (to root), although

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

On 8/12/2011 4:58 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:23 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: also, security-check models are well proven in systems like Windows and Linux... It is true that there are success stories using checked permissions.

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

On 8/12/2011 9:23 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:44 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: but, whether or not they use it, or care that it exists, is irrelevant... Then so is the language. by this criteria, pretty much everything is irrelev

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

On 8/12/2011 12:26 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:22 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: if the alteration would make the language unfamiliar to people; It is true that some people would rather work around a familiar, flawed language than accept an im

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

On 8/11/2011 8:16 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: the big problem though: to try to implement this as a sole security model, and expecting it to be effective, would likely impact language design and pr

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

e expected values. On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 19:06, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 8/11/2011 12:55 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM, BGB mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: not all code may be from trusted sources. consider,

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

On 8/11/2011 12:55 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: not all code may be from trusted sources. consider, say, code comes from the internet. what is a "good" way of enforcing security in such a case?

Re: [fonc] misc: code security model

ers is http://bracha.org/newspeak-modules.pdf because it addresses the issue of the top level namespace of a language without making it globally accessible. may have to read this... could be interesting. Monty On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM, BGB wrote: well, ok, this is currently mostly ab

[fonc] misc: code security model

well, ok, this is currently mostly about my own language, but I figured it might be relevant/interesting. the basic idea is this: not all code may be from trusted sources. consider, say, code comes from the internet. what is a "good" way of enforcing security in such a case? first obvious thi

Re: VR "for the rest of us" (was Re: [fonc] Re: SecondPlace, QwaqLife or TeleSim? Open ended, comments welcome)

On 8/9/2011 5:37 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: ideally, we should probably be working with higher-level "entities" instead of lower-level geometry. I agree with rendering high-level concepts ra

Re: VR "for the rest of us" (was Re: [fonc] Re: SecondPlace, QwaqLife or TeleSim? Open ended, comments welcome)

On 8/9/2011 1:44 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Steve Wart > wrote: 3D design is extraordinarily expensive to develop properly That is not an essential property of 3D design. We could have an ontology / 'markup language' just for building a

Re: [fonc] Re: SecondPlace, QwaqLife or TeleSim? Open ended, comments welcome

On 8/8/2011 6:55 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Giulio Prisco > wrote: SecondPlace, QwaqLife or TeleSim? Open ended, comments welcome. http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2011/08/secondplace-qwaqlife-or-telesim.html I almost missed t

Re: [fonc] Physics and Types

On 8/6/2011 7:27 PM, Simon Forman wrote: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Alan Kay wrote: That was my thought when I first saw what Seymour Papert was doing with children and LOGO in the 60s. I was thinking about going back into Molecular Biology, but Seymour showed that computers could *really*

Re: [fonc] Physics and Types

On 8/5/2011 12:46 PM, Wesley Smith wrote: typically, vector multiplication is treated as either dot-product or cross-product (with cross-product only existing in certain numbers of dimensions, such as 3 and 7, and "sort of" in 2). This is exactly why I said "vector algebra considered harmful".

Re: [fonc] Physics and Types

On 8/5/2011 11:56 AM, Wesley Smith wrote: vectors are nice though. for example, in the book I had, some aspects of the topic were expressed in terms of a mess of trigonometry which wouldn't really work correctly in 3D. some of these topics were fairly simple/elegant-looking if expressed with vect

Re: [fonc] Physics and Types

On 8/5/2011 6:13 AM, Ondřej Bílka wrote: On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 03:43:04AM -0700, BGB wrote: On 8/4/2011 6:19 PM, Alan Kay wrote: Here's the link to the paper [1]http://www.vpri.org/pdf/rn2005001_learning.pdf inference: it is not that basic math and physic

Re: [fonc] Physics and Types

On 8/4/2011 6:19 PM, Alan Kay wrote: Here's the link to the paper http://www.vpri.org/pdf/rn2005001_learning.pdf inference: it is not that basic math and physics are fundamentally so difficult to understand... but that many classes portray them as such a confusing and incoherent mess of not

Re: Thread Clarification (Re: [fonc] Physics and Types)

On 8/4/2011 1:35 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: it is a straightforward interpretation of scope: both lexical and dynamic scope cross code boundaries with no effects on their behavior. this makes an

Re: Thread Clarification (Re: [fonc] Physics and Types)

On 8/4/2011 7:55 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:53 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: if the parent thread sees its "thread-local" variable change when a child-thread assigns to it, this is a problem. it is a natural result though of

Re: Thread Clarification (Re: [fonc] Physics and Types)

On 8/4/2011 1:06 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:10 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: The new thread should inherit the entire dynamic scope - logically, a local copy thereof. If there are object references mixed in, then the new t

Re: Thread Clarification (Re: [fonc] Physics and Types)

On 8/3/2011 9:43 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:24 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: If you have dynamic scope, you do not need TLS. some people could potentially get annoyed or complain about having to re-declare their thread-loca

Re: Thread Clarification (Re: [fonc] Physics and Types)

der what we can do with SIMD, DSP, and FPGA, for example. or even a GPU... BGB Wrote: another idle thought is if a language that already has dynamic scope actually needs TLS as well. the issue is that having both could be needlessly redundant. If you have dynamic scope

Re: Thread Clarification (Re: [fonc] Physics and Types)

On 8/3/2011 1:04 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: On 3 August 2011 21:04, BGB wrote: sorry, just trying to clarify a few points... ... sadly, the "async" modifier was used in the first incarnation of BGBScript (2004-2006), but was never fully reimplemented when the language wa

Thread Clarification (Re: [fonc] Physics and Types)

sorry, just trying to clarify a few points... On 8/3/2011 9:57 AM, BGB wrote: in my own language, there is the "async" modifier which can (theoretically) be used for a lot of this: "async function foo(x, y) { ... }" where calls to foo implicitly create their own thre

Re: [fonc] Physics and Types

On 8/3/2011 7:32 AM, Chris Warburton wrote: On Tuesday 02 August 2011 00:43:57 BGB wrote: On 8/1/2011 3:24 PM, Simon Forman wrote: On 7/27/11, Chris Warburton wrote: (maybe relevant but no really to comment). Another reason I would argue against something like types based on Physics is

Re: [fonc] Physics and Types

On 8/1/2011 3:24 PM, Simon Forman wrote: On 7/27/11, Chris Warburton wrote: (maybe relevant but no really to comment). Another reason I would argue against something like types based on Physics is that Physics tries to work out the inconceivable ways that the Universe actually behaves by s

Re: [fonc] HotDraw's Tool State Machine Editor

On 7/30/2011 8:32 AM, Alan Kay wrote: By the way, a wonderful example of the "QWERTY phenomenon" is that both the Greeks and the Romans actually did calculations with an on-table or on-the-ground abacus that did have a zero (the term for the small stone employed was a "calculus") but used a muc

Re: [fonc] Simple, Simplistic, and Scale

On 7/30/2011 8:19 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:40 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: one could have a stack machine, implemented in terms of lists of cons-cells, and this still works. the stack can in-fact be mapped purely to machine regis

Re: [fonc] Simple, Simplistic, and Scale

On 7/30/2011 1:50 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:44 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: it is a generalized issue of API designs, or more correctly, the common lack of good external APIs. Ah. I suppose, if someone manufactured a gun that shot both

Re: [fonc] Simple, Simplistic, and Scale

On 7/29/2011 12:36 PM, Paul Homer wrote: There is nothing simple about simplification :-) In '07 I penned a few thoughts about it too: http://theprogrammersparadox.blogspot.com/2007/12/nature-of-simple.html good thoughts... sorry I don't have a more in-depth response. (hopefully no-one is

Re: [fonc] Simple, Simplistic, and Scale

On 7/29/2011 7:06 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: Linden Labs tried to do similar with Second Life, but it hasn't really caught on very well in-general. however, most prior attempts: VRML, Ad

Re: [fonc] Simple, Simplistic, and Scale

On 7/29/2011 1:05 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:12 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: nothing interesting to comment/add... Snow Crash: "dot pattern from space -> brain-damage Ah, yes, that wasn't the bit I wanted to create from

Re: [fonc] Simple, Simplistic, and Scale

On 7/28/2011 8:19 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: striving for simplicity can also help, but even simplicity can have costs: sometimes, simplicity in one place may lead to much higher complexity somew

Re: [fonc] HotDraw's Tool State Machine Editor

On 7/28/2011 9:57 AM, Alan Kay wrote: Well, we don't absolutely *need* music notation, but it really helps many things. We don't *need* the various notations of mathematics (check out Newton's use of English for complex mathematical relationships in the Principia), but it really helps things.

Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On 7/27/2011 5:47 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: note that my definition of "fitness" also includes marketing forces and economics. for example, something can have be more "fit" bec

Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On 7/27/2011 1:52 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think "fitness" and "merit" are some often misunderstood ideas. People understand just fine that a solution of technical merit can fail due

Re: [fonc] Why Bytecode is a Bad Idea for Distribution

On 7/27/2011 9:35 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:41 AM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: a non-turing-complete IL is too limited to do much of anything useful with WRT developing "actual" software... You aren't alone in holding this

Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On 7/27/2011 6:37 AM, David Goehrig wrote: On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Casey Ransberger mailto:casey.obrie...@gmail.com>> wrote: Worth pointing out that server side JS dodges this "problem." Now that Node is out there, people are actually starting to do stuff with JS that doesn't run on

Re: [fonc] Why Bytecode is a Bad Idea for Distribution

On 7/27/2011 2:12 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:14 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: one can support ifdef blocks in the IL, no real problem there. Those seem like a problem all by themselves. Definitions are inflexible, lacking in domain of langu

Re: [fonc] Why Bytecode is a Bad Idea for Distribution

On 7/26/2011 8:34 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:28 PM, BGB <mailto:cr88...@gmail.com>> wrote: why do we need an HLL distribution language, rather than, say, a low-level distribution language, such as bytecode or a VM-level ASM-like format, or

<    1   2   3   4   >