Anyone have thoughts to share? I'd love to read others' experiences
but there isn't much coming up with searches or on redditt ...
I was happiest with the VM I implemented. Sadly, I wasn't able to
solve any of the scenarios, but my VM ran damn fast. That didn't seem
to matter so much this year as
I implemented the VM in C, it was pretty obviously geared towards
such an implementation and it took all of an hour. Then I interfaced
with it via the FFI. Why use just one language when you can use two? :)
I wasn't able to make any time on sunday though so didn't end up
submitting a final entry
I spent too much time reading the files, until today, when Minh Tuh pointed
me the right direction on reading the floats...
Anyway, I will still keep trying until Xmas :-)
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 15:40, Justin Bailey jgbai...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone have thoughts to share? I'd love to read
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:40:28AM -0700, Justin Bailey wrote:
Anyways, for those who care, the heart of my VM implementation was a
monadic fold over the program, with a mutable array representing the
machine's memory, all inside ''runSTUArray.'' I used a simple data
type to represent the
I was excited when I read about the VM - I'd imagined all sorts of
cool things, like assembler, linker, compiler (for something C-like),
maybe even debugger... And what a disappointment it was when I
understood that nothing of this kind is needed.
On 29 Jun 2009, at 22:55, John Meacham
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:51:43PM +0400, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
I was excited when I read about the VM - I'd imagined all sorts of cool
things, like assembler, linker, compiler (for something C-like), maybe
even debugger... And what a disappointment it was when I understood that
nothing
On 30 Jun 2009, at 00:03, John Meacham wrote:
The fact it didn't have any
looping meant that it wasn't even fully turing complete and you
probably
couldn't speed it up much anyway, it already had an intrinsically
short
running time.
Exactly! That's an ideal situation, you don't have to
