Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-10 Thread Bert Freudenberg
On 09.11.2011, at 23:15, Benoît Fleury wrote: Unless I missed it, there is no mention of Dynabook Junior in the last report. Has it been abandoned? replaced? Evolved into Frank. - Bert - ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-09 Thread Steve Taylor
-1 David Barbour wrote: `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this manner. If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something specific and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts interested you? If you're referring to Sean's

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-09 Thread Benoît Fleury
Unless I missed it, there is no mention of Dynabook Junior in the last report. Has it been abandoned? replaced? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Steve Taylor s...@ozemail.com.au wrote: -1 David Barbour wrote: `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread DeNigris Sean
On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually play with it! With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so many talks given about it (~20 this

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread Joel Healy
+1 Joel Healy On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean s...@clipperadams.comwrote: On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually play with it! With every

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread Kevin Driedger
+1 !! ]{evin ])riedger On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy joel.h.he...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Joel Healy On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean s...@clipperadams.comwrote: On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread David Barbour
I would like to see dedicated papers or links on Gezira and Nile - enough to re-implement them in another language. I expect techniques as used in Vertigo [1] or GPipe [2] could put Nile directly on a GPU, via pixel and geometry shaders. This would be a far better proof-of-concept, IMO, than

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread David Barbour
Thanks. On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Driedger linuxbox+f...@gmail.comwrote: Both are available on github. Gizera: https://github.com/damelang/gezira Nile: https://github.com/damelang/nile Perhaps that could get you started. ]{evin On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, David

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread David Barbour
`+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this manner. If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something specific and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts interested you? If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread Dan Amelang
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Can you elucidate the distinctions between Nile and Gezira? Nile is the programming language. Its syntax is a bit like Haskell. The high-level model of computation is a variation of Kahn process networks. The low-level part

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread David Barbour
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Dan Amelang daniel.amel...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Can you elucidate the distinctions between Nile and Gezira? Nile is the programming language. Its syntax is a bit like Haskell. The high-level

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread Andrey Fedorov
there are people who read this list and website who may not feel qualified to participate much but none the less rely on them as a vital source of information Fellow lurker here. Thanks for pointing that out! Still, e-mails that say simply +1, me too, or I agree are a pain to receive on

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread Julian Leviston
Whether I use one or two thousand words to clothe my meaning is relevant? I put just as much consideration into writing +1 as I did in writing this email. I could therefore also summarise your emails below as -1 for the entire amount of meaning that it contains. Allow me to expand on my +1:

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread David Barbour
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Joel Healy joel.h.he...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, I did not realize that you owned this topic. I wasn't even aware that you started this topic. If I infringed on your intellectual property rights, I apologize. I have offered no pretense of owning the topic, and

Re: [fonc] new document

2011-11-08 Thread Casey Ransberger
+1 is a low-bandwidth way to express yes, let's explore what this person is talking about some more because this is interesting. If it's a problem, maybe the rule should be to place [+1] before the subject line. But that's going to split the thread in lots of mail readers... Especially when

Re: [fonc] New document, Appendix II Maru sample

2011-11-08 Thread Kurt Stephens
See: http://code.google.com/r/kurts68-maru/ or the original repo: http://code.google.com/p/maru/ On 11/8/11 8:09 PM, David Girle wrote: I am trying to learn a little about Maru, so (jumping in the deep) I took the FFT code out of the Appendix II of tr2011004_steps.pdf and attempted to run it