- neos - 13 Updates
- new benchmark for my read/write algorithm... - 2 Updates
- neoTUI C++ Cross Platform Text User Interface Library and Application Framework -- Coming Soon! - 2 Updates
- is there any UB in this integer math... - 1 Update
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 25 09:56AM -0800 On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 12:26:41 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > everyone's favourite scripting language and of course it has a nice side > benefit of an explicit separation of concerns: the language and the > implementation. I admire your passion and years of dedication to this vision, and I recognize evolving goals. It's still a big job, and it's im- pressive to see it unfurl. I've been 6.5 yrs on my vision, 3+ years on my CAlive vision, and I still have ~6 yrs ahead for my full vision, with CAlive being released next year sometime. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Feb 25 06:05PM On 25/02/2019 17:56, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > I've been 6.5 yrs on my vision, 3+ years on my CAlive vision, and > I still have ~6 yrs ahead for my full vision, with CAlive being > released next year sometime. Rick, if you want people to take your technical output (including your "vision") seriously the first step is to entirely divorce it from your theistic beliefs: your god has no place in engineering just as your religious spam has no place in this technical newsgroup. You can make a easy start by simply changing the name of "CAlive" to something that doesn't have any "born again" connotations. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Feb 25 02:10PM +0100 >> hardly going to break your resource budget. Off-the-shelf Lua is >> in the same range. > Duktape doesn't have a JIT. True. JIT systems are big and complex, and are tightly tied to specific systems. Are you sure that scripts run from within neoGFX are going to be so big and demanding that a JIT strategy is worth the effort? As you say, I don't know your vision. But it would surprise me greatly if that were the case. And are you convinced that your users would rather wait a few years (this is, I think, being wildly optimistic) for a solid and reliable JIT compiler that will handle a dozen different languages they will never use - or would they prefer a simple working Lua and/or JavaScript interpreter here and now? > Listen David, you are not cognisant of my > vision and you are underestimating my technical abilities. I don't know your vision, or your abilities (judging from what I have seen, they are very good but not super-human). That is why I am asking questions and making suggestions - to be sure that you have considered what makes sense for you and your project. The appearance you have given in this thread suggests that you are /not/ making sensible choices or realistic plans. It may be that you have not made yourself clear, or have some secret methods that we don't know about. I am throwing up questions - only you can answer them. (And you have mostly avoided them so far.) > mistakes. Once the infrastructure for my universal compiler is in > place adding support for a particular programming language would be > almost trivial. This is a functional requirement of my architecture. You are not Rick - that much is true. But there are similarities here - surely you cannot be surprised that people thought your post was a parody of him. Do you have any experience with Ada, Forth, JavaScript, Python and Lua? The Ada language standard, for example, is 832 pages long. That you can describe implementing it as "almost trivial" suggests that either you have many well-hidden talents, or you /don't/ know what you are doing. (Note that I am writing all this because I think neoGFX is a great idea, and would be happy to see it succeed - wild optimism about a one mad universal super-compiler seems a good way to make it fail.) |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 25 10:25AM -0800 On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:05:20 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > Rick, if you want people to take your technical output (including your > "vision") seriously the first step is to entirely divorce it from your > theistic beliefs... We (man) were created to honor God. We (all of us) are supposed to be honoring and acknowledging God in everything we do, and that is true because of who He is and what He's done. That is the guidance of God, the Holy Spirit, and it is beneficial for all. There is another voice teaching otherwise, and you follow that voice. That voice denies God and teaches separation of God from life things. The two cannot be separated. I will likely never enjoy Earthly success on my projects, because my goals are not here in this world, but they are above, to honor God with the fruit of my thoughts, labor, goals, and dreams. I seek to honor God, and my success comes in me maintaining that goal and vision as a voice raised in a room full of successful Leighs who have achieved great success without an acknowledgement of God. That achievement comes here in this world, but it will not endure. And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is. The things we do for Christ endure beyond this world into eternity. The things we do here endure only here. It's a different world-view, a different end-goal, and I still admire you for the devotion to your vision. It's admirable and moving. I have similar goals and I know how hard it is to endure year-in, year-out on the project alone, let alone with people calling you profane names, and mocking and disparaging everything you do and believe in. My pain and loss brings me to tears quite often, but I know the One in whom I trust ... so I proceed. I endure. For Him. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Feb 25 06:31PM On 25/02/2019 18:25, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > And whereas you do not believe there is accountability to God for > each of us, that doesn't change the fact that there is. We have been here before. With the risk of sounding like a broken record: ASSERTIONS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Your beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE. Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 25 10:45AM -0800 On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:31:47 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > beliefs are not evidence; your dreams and similar delusions are not > evidence; your bible IS NOT EVIDENCE. > Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly. The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not know ... from the spirit. People aren't saved unless they seek the truth. You do not seek the truth, but keep gainsayingly re-assert your assertion above. You are unwilling to believe God could exist, that sin is real, that we continue on after we leave this world. That wall you build around yourself keeps you from the knowledge. To be saved you have to have the true inner seeking along these lines: "IF I am wrong, I do want to know the truth." God looks inside of our thoughts and knows our intent, and if we have an intent on knowing the truth, then HE steps into your life, intervening supernaturally, drawing you from within in ways you won't understand or believe, to bring you to the foot of the cross, where you acknowledge your sin and ask forgiveness. It is spirit. It is new life. It is something we cannot understand in our flesh only, and you will never believe me until it happens to you because the flesh only knows what the flesh can know. Millions of Christians change their entire life. It's not due to delusion. It's due to the spirit. The problem is we're still tied to this flesh, and it's hard to follow after the spirit in the midst of the ways of thid world and the people in it. Christians can only teach you the truth. We can't make you believe it. You'll have to want to know the truth even if you have to change your current beliefs. That's something only you can do. God can do the rest, but He honors our choices, even if they send us to Hell. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Feb 25 06:47PM On 25/02/2019 18:45, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly. > The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not > know ... from the spirit. Nonsense. A) Your bible is false. B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true is, given (A), also false. [snip tl;dr] /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 25 10:54AM -0800 On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true > is, given (A), also false. > [snip tl;dr] There have been many people in my life who re-assert without investigation as you do. Breaks my heart every time. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Feb 25 11:01AM -0800 On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 12:16:51 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > But it's even more common for hubris to be mistaken for confidence by > > those who have hubris. > Look at his code and judge for yourself. Leigh's got game. If some one is competent to perform the nearly god-like task he's set himself up for on any reasonable time scale, a person of merely human competence like myself would not be competent to reach that conclusion by examining the evidence. I'm not even competent to judge whether gcc is correctly implemented, an immensely simpler task - I'm not competent to read all of the computer languages it's written in, nor to understand all of the source code languages it's intended to parse, nor to understand all the platforms it's intended to target. If the evidence of his competence is sufficiently simple to evaluate that I am competent to judge it, the judgement is simple - he can't do it. And I'm not particular interested in finding out whether or not his competence is in a range that I am competent to assess. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 25 11:13AM -0800 > If the evidence of his competence is sufficiently simple to evaluate > that I am competent to judge it, the judgement is simple - he can't do > it. And I'm not particular interested in finding out whether or not his competence is in a range that I am competent to assess. There's nothing else to be done then except wait and see. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Feb 25 02:19PM >1) you compared apples with oranges: my projects are serious whilst >Hodgin's are toy; >2) you are underestimating my technical ability. You both do have hubris in common... |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Feb 25 08:27PM In article <3113cc3f-e234-4646-8569-26c67f8b5700@googlegroups.com>, >> Your assertion is, yet again, dismissed accordingly. >The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not >know ... from the spirit. Reality is that which does not go away because you stop believing in it. (This comment will, of course, go completely over RCH's head, but others will get what I'm saying) -- There are many self-professed Christians who seem to think that because they believe in Jesus' sacrifice they can reject Jesus' teachings about how we should treat others. In this country, they show that they reject Jesus' teachings by voting for Republicans. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Feb 25 02:39PM -0800 On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 3:27:28 PM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote: > >The evidence exists, Leigh, but it comes from a place you do not > >know ... from the spirit. > Reality is that which does not go away because you stop believing in it. The flesh and physical reality still exist, but the light of the spirit reveals them for what they truly are. (This reply will not be understood by you because you do not have the spirit to discern spiritual things. All you know is the flesh, so your entire reality lives only there and you can only conclude I am a lunatic, but it's what these lyrics mean below.)below "I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind, but now I see." -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com>: Feb 25 01:27PM -0800 On 2/24/2019 6:06 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: [try to properly quote... Pretty please?] > of the latter doesn't count here any more. > 3. The only case where XADD could make sense is when there is an > active writer and a reader is registering to gain shared ownership. CAS will _always_ fail if the comparand is different than the destination at the point of the atomic operation. This is basically the "strong" version. However, the weak version can fail at any time, even if the compared is the same. Think of a system where something in the reservation granularity gets mutated wrt a LL/SC. A CAS loop can be highly inefficient when compared to a single loopless operation like XADD. I always try to avoid loops when I design sync algorithms. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com>: Feb 25 01:33PM -0800 On 2/24/2019 8:06 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > ... and there are active writers. But if there are active writers > there will be kernel-transisions which are magnitudes slower than > the CAS-loop. So XADD rather don't help here. When can a writer hit a kernel waitset when it can livelock in heavy reader contention? Exactly how many spins do your CMPXCHG loops accumulate before it can get any real work done, under heavy use? You cannot give me an answer. I can wrt XADD. You cannot work your way out of the following: __________________________ Writer A reads your count. Reader B gains read access. Writer A spins on CAS because it failed! Reader B releases read access. Writer A spins on CAS because it failed! Reader C gains read access. Writer A spins on CAS because it failed! Reader C releases read access. Writer A spins on CAS because it failed! __________________________ There are many other examples of CAS failure patterns. |
| Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com>: Feb 25 10:59AM -0800 On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:11:19 PM UTC-2, Mr Flibble wrote: > that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." > "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a > world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." Any news about this project? |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Feb 25 08:24PM On 25/02/2019 18:59, Thiago Adams wrote: >> "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a >> world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." > Any news about this project? Hi Thiago! No progress yet; I might do some work on it after I have implemented at least one language in neos; neoTUI can then benefit from scripting just like neoGFX. /Flibble -- "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Feb 25 01:54PM +0100 On 25/02/2019 11:17, Öö Tiib wrote: >> (though it may mean the bugs get found and fixed faster). > Then I do not understand how the crashes on those bugs that are > reached only on tiny fraction of actual cases turn the software useless. (I am not sure what you are saying here.) > Earlier discovery is still clearly better statistically. Casual incorrect behavior > of unknown nature takes at least ten times more time to be tracked down > and eliminated than crash. I agree. That is why testing is so important. (And also why static testing and compile-time warnings are so useful.) You should put a good deal of effort into identifying problems as soon as possible, before release. But once you are talking about release, the balance changes. Your aim is typically that any bugs in the code should present the least possible problems to the user. That might mean "crash and report" - causing short-term inconvenience with an aim to improvements in the long term. But it might equally mean "Run quickly, ignore potential bugs and hope there are no real effects" to maximise short-term usability of the software. There is no single correct answer. "Run slowly, crash on any possible overflow error but ignore all other errors, and hope that the user reports in a useful manner", or "-ftrapv", is very unlikely to be the best choice. > Reporting crashes is easy to automate. For some kinds of programs, yes. For others, no - it is impossible to automate. You are making sweeping statements generalised from only some possible types of software. > Best would be to report it and roll back to sane situation. We have no > insanity barriers in process and we can not estimate where it started > and to where it has spread. Safest seems to halt the process. My argument is merely that "safest seems to halt the process" is, in many cases, wrong. And even when it might be appropriate, the cost in performance may be an issue (not every system is performance critical, of course). And in general, sweeping generalisations are wrong most of the time. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment