/prog/ - Programming (textboard)

[144 / 0 / ?]

[1394372688] Too many languages

Anonymous Mon 10 Mar 2014 23:28:00 No.957456 Report

Quoted By:

>>28
No reasoning, yet you haven't shown an actual alternative to C in computer systems programming.
Kneel and repent!

SYMTA> (defun sepplefy (x)
  (if (atom x)
      x
      (case (first x)
        (defun (format nil
                       "int ~(~a~)(~{int ~(~a~)~^, ~}) {~%~{~a~%~^;~}}"
                       (second x) (third x) (mapcar #'sepplefy (cdddr x))))
        (if (format nil "if (~a) {~a;} else {~a;}"
                    (sepplefy (second x)) (sepplefy (third x)) (sepplefy (fourth x))))
        (while (format nil "while(~a){~%~{~a~%~^;~}}"
                       (sepplefy (second x)) (mapcar #'sepplefy (cddr x))))
        (return (format nil "return ~a" (sepplefy (second x))))
        ((+ - * / < > <= >= = ==)
         (format nil "(~a ~a ~a)"
                 (sepplefy (second x)) (first x) (sepplefy (third x))))
        (otherwise (format nil "~a(~{~a~^, ~})" (first x) (rest x)))
        )))



SYMTA> (sepplefy '(defun f(n) (if (> n 1) (return (* n (f (- n 1)))) (return 1))))
"int f(int n) {
if ((N > 1)) {return (N * F((- N 1)));} else {return 1;}
}"

Anonymous

68

Anonymous Fri 14 Mar 2014 16:23:00 No.957640 Report

Quoted By:

>>65

I think what's inspiring about Lisp machines today, and what was lost, is the idea of high level hardware and a high level operating system. Where GC, dynamic type checking, memory bounds checking etc. are part of the fundamental services of the hardware.

What's inspiring about that? I find that disgusting actually, because it disregards the most fundamental and beautiful property of computation, the existence of universal functions.

Anonymous

69

Anonymous Fri 14 Mar 2014 16:44:00 No.957641 Report

Quoted By:

>>68
I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

Anonymous

70

Anonymous Fri 14 Mar 2014 18:24:00 No.957642 Report

Quoted By:

>>69
SUCK MAH DIIIIIIIIIIICK

Anonymous

71

Anonymous Fri 14 Mar 2014 18:41:00 No.957644 Report

Quoted By:

>>67
Yiddish
Shalom!

Anonymous

72

Anonymous Fri 14 Mar 2014 22:57:00 No.957652 Report

Quoted By:

>>66

                               `
>x86
>high level

Nigga, please. x86 was designed when chips had tens of thousands of transistors. There's nothing ``high level'' about it. Block copy and 8-bit BCD aren't high level. Even a Z80 had those. 68k, PDP-11, and VAX were much nicer for assembly programmers to use. x86 was the worst instruction set ever made. Any praise it gets is from people who don't know anything else.
Intel's iAPX 432 was a high level machine but they made instructions bit-aligned. Totally ruined performance. GC microcode and checking the bounds and authorization of every memory access barely mattered compared to having to shift every bit of every instruction in a slow as fuck non-barrel shifter.

Anonymous

73

Anonymous Sat 15 Mar 2014 03:03:00 No.957663 Report

Quoted By:

>>71
Shalom! A good Shabat to you!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Mar 2014 17:51:00 No.957742 Report

Quoted By:

If these were expected services of the hardware, a lot of duplication of effort would be removed (at least from software).

>>84

Are you saying that if I gave you a computer that ran fast, had hardware GC, had run-time bounds and type checking that you'd say ``No thank you! That is quite superflous, I'll stick with my x86!''?

>>93
Notice how there exist both CLR and JVM, each having underwent a number of revisions, with CLR getting user-defined value types and reified generics, while JVM got a JIT compiler iterated through several versions of GC (not to mention third party stuff like Azul's C4). Also, other virtual machines, people don't make them because they have nothing better to do, you know, but because they have ideas how to improve them.

How do you think things would look like with a hardware GC?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Mar 2014 20:53:00 No.957834 Report

Quoted By:

>>97

Hardware with GC, bounds checking and type checking, which dollar for dollar ran programs as fast as hardware today, would be superior to that hardware.

>>120
The idea isn't to have hardware accelerated garbage collection. It's to have hardware garbage collection period. No software would have to implement anything with regards to memory allocation, only the hardware manufacturers.

All programs would be able to allocate memory as they wish knowing that it will be safely deallocated when all hardware type tagged references to that memory disappear.

This also points out that hardware GC has to go hand in hand with hardware type tagging. You can't have one without the other.

Again, the idea isn't optimization. I don't give two shits about optimization (in this context). I care about sitting ontop of sane abstractions and not having every second software vendor reimplementing something that is a basic service to be expected from the hardware or at least the operating system.

Anonymous

123

Anonymous Wed 19 Mar 2014 16:28:00 No.958023 Report

Quoted By:

>>122

`
>22
>dubs

nice :^)

Anonymous

124

Anonymous Wed 19 Mar 2014 20:49:00 No.958028 Report

Quoted By:

>>122

I care about sitting ontop of sane abstractions and not having every second software vendor reimplementing something that is a basic service to be expected from the hardware or at least the operating system.

disgusting stinky NIGGERS

Anonymous

141

Anonymous Sat 22 Mar 2014 20:29:00 No.958185 Report

Quoted By:

>>137

                                  `
>tfw
>you will never have Cudder kidnap you,
>tie you up and torture you
>strap on a dildo and fuck your tight little goy ass
>shove her used tampons down your throat while calling you a filthy goy scum

Anonymous

142

Anonymous Sat 22 Mar 2014 22:32:00 No.958195 Report

Quoted By:

>>141
you seem like a stupid faggot sub goyim that deserves to die

her
what!?

BOYS KIDNAP GIRLS. NOT TRANNIES BOYS!

Anonymous

143

Anonymous Fri 28 Mar 2014 04:03:00 No.958533 Report

Quoted By:

Just got reminded of the Mills architecture by this:

http://jakob.engbloms.se/archives/2004

Now we can argue the commercial viability of this, and how realistic their claimed performance is, but this is what real architecture research looks like.

Note the focus on providing a small set of useful primitives, and a distinct lack of pothead "what if we, like, made a garbage collector, but in hardware?" bullshit.

They're actually pushing stuff over to software - from what I can tell the "Mill CPU" target is basically a VM, and you do an additional compilation pass over the bytecode to adapt it to your specific hardware.

Anonymous

144

Anonymous Fri 28 Mar 2014 04:31:00 No.958534 Report

Quoted By:

check 'em dubz

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

[1394372688] Too many languages