Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26765
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Portable Assembly |
| Date | 2017-06-12 22:42 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ohntot$6ec$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <g3emjcdqj9gsvbunt2b1e5fatsevbmri8m@4ax.com> <ohg14n$5vl$1@dont-email.me> <d6vojctkngntqipi1dctbqdta93bbsitl6@4ax.com> <ohirtc$c3l$1@dont-email.me> <o2kujc1a2deaibdv40ilpc8seanjdn0pok@4ax.com> |
On 6/12/2017 8:27 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 00:39:41 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2017 6:01 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 22:50:31 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>
>> [I was recently musing over the number of SOIC8 devices that could fit
>> on the surface of a sphere having a radius equal to the average distance
>> of Pluto from the Sun (idea came from a novel I was reading). And, how
>> much that SOIC8 collection would *weigh*...]
>
> Reading about Dyson spheres are we? So how many trillion-trillion
> devices would it take?
Matrioshka Brain -- "concentric" Dyson spheres each powered by the waste
heat of the innermore spheres.
I didn't do the math as I couldn't figure out what a good representative
weight for a "wired" SOIC SoC might be...
>> But you can't examine algorithms and characterize their behaviors,
>> costs, etc. without being able to reify them.
>
> To a 1st approximation, you can. E.g., given just an equation, you
> can count the arithmetic operations and approximate the number of
> operand reads and result writes.
Yes, but only for evaluating *relative* costs/merits of algorithms.
It assumes you can "value" the costs/performance of the different
operators in some "intuitive" manner.
This doesn't always hold. E.g., a more traditionally costly operation
might be "native" while the *expected* traditional operation has to be
approximated or emulated.
> Certain analyses are very sensitive to the language being considered.
> E.g., you'll get different results from analyzing an algorithm
> expressed in C vs the same algorithm expressed in assembler because
> the assembler version exposes low level minutia that is hidden by the
> C version.
>
>> You can't just magically invent an abstract language that supports:
>> solve_homework_problem(identifier)
>
> You can invent it ... you just [currently] can't implement it.
Sure you can! You just have to find someone sufficiently motivated to
apply their meatware to the problem! There's nothing specifying the
*time* that the implementation needs to take to perform the operation!
> And you probably even can get a patent on it since the USPTO no longer
> requires working prototypes.
>
>>>> I just can't imagine how you could explain "programming" a machine to a
>>>> person without that person first understanding how the machine works.
>>>
>>> Take a browse through some classics:
>>>
>>> - Abelson, Sussman & Sussman, "Structure and Interpretation of
>>> Computer Programs" aka SICP
>>>
>>> - Friedman, Wand & Haynes, "Essentials of Programming Languages"
>>> aka EOPL
>>
>> All written long after I'd graduated. :>
>
> SICP and EOPL both were being written during the time I was in grad
> school. I had some courses with Mitch Wand and I'm sure I was used as
> a guinea pig for EOPL.
Having not seen SICP, its possible the notes for GS's class found
their way into it -- or, at least, *shaped* it.
> I acquired them later because they subsequently became famous as
> foundation material for legions of CS students.
>
>> Most (all?) of my college
>> CS courses didn't have "bound textbooks". Instead, we had collections
>> of handouts coupled with notes that formed our "texts". In some cases,
>> the handouts were "bound" (e.g., a cheap "perfect binding" paperback)
>> for convenience as the instructors were writing the texts *from*
>> their teachings.
>
> I'm not *that* far behind you. Many of my courses did have books, but
> quite a few of those books were early (1st or 2nd) editions.
Its not just *when* you got your education but what the folks teaching
opted to use as their "teaching materials". Most of my "CS" professors
obviously considered themselves "budding authors" as each seemed unable
to find a suitable text from which to teach and opted, instead, to
write their own.
OTOH, all my *other* classes (including the "EE" ones) had *real*
textbooks.
> I have a 1st edition on denotational semantics that is pre-press and
> contains inserts of hand drawn illustrations.
>
>> Sussman taught one of my favorite courses and I'm chagrined that
>> all I have to show for it are the handouts and my notes -- it would
>> have been nicer to have a lengthier text that I could explore at
>> my leisure (esp after the fact).
>
> I met once Gerry Sussman at a seminar. Never had the opportunity to
> take one of his classes.
Unfortunately, I never realized the sorts of folks I was surrounded by,
at the time. It was "just school", in my mind.
>> I actually considered altering the expression syntax to deliberately
>> render parens unnecessary (and illegal). I.e., if an expression
>> can have two different meanings with/without parens, then ONLY the
>> meaning without parens would be supported.
>
> Indentation sensitive syntax (I-expressions) is a recurring idea to
> rid the world of parentheses.
>
> Given the popularity of Python, iexprs may eventually find a future.
> OTOH, many people - me included - are philosophically opposed to the
> idea of significant whitespace.
>
> If you want syntax visualization, use a structure editor.
Still doesn't work without *vision*!
>> But, this added lots of superfluous statements just to meet that
>> goal *and* quickly overloads STM as you try to keep track of
>> which "component statements" you've already encountered:
>> area = (width_feet+(width_inches/12))*(length_feet+(length_inches/12)
>> becomes:
>> width = width_feet + width_inches/12
>> length = length_feet + length_inches/12
>> area = length * width
>> [Imagine you were, instead, computing the *perimeter* of a 6 walled room!]
>
> ??? For what definition of "STM"?
>
> Transactional memory - if that's what you mean - shouldn't require
> refactoring code in that way.
How many nested levels of parens can you keep track of if I'm dictating
the code to you over the phone and your eyes are closed? Will I be disciplined
enough to remember to alert you to the presence of every punctuation mark
(e.g., paren)? Will you be agile enough to notice when I miss one?
>>> ... identifying required
>>> functionality, designing program logic, evaluating and choosing
>>> algorithms, etc. ... all may be *guided* in situ by specific knowledge
>>> of the target machine, but they are skills which are independent of
>>> it.
>>
>> But I see programming (C.A.E) as having moved far beyond the sorts of
>> algorithms you would run on a desktop, mainframe, etc. Its no longer
>> just about this operator in combination with these arguments yields
>> this result.
>
> As long as you don't dismiss desktops and servers, etc.
>
> [Mainframes and minis as distinct concepts are mostly passe. Super
> and cluster computers, however, are very important].
"Mainframe" is a colloquial overloading to reference "big machines"
that have their own dedicated homes. The data center servicing your
bank is a mainframe -- despite the fact that it might be built of
hundreds of blade servers, etc.
"Desktop" is the sort of "appliance" that a normal user relates
to when you say "computer". He *won't* think of his phone even
though he knows its one.
He certainly won't think of his microwave oven, furnace, doorbell,
etc.
> Despite the current IoT and BYO device fads, devices are not all there
> are. Judging from some in the computer press, you'd think the legions
> of office workers in the world would need nothing more than iPads and
> Kinkos. That isn't even close to being true.
>
>> I.e., there are just too many details of successful program deployment
>> that don't work when you get away from the rich and tame "classroom
>> environment". This is especially true as we move towards scenarios
>> where things "talk to" each other, more (for folks who aren't prepared
>> to deal with a malloc/printf *failing*, how do they address "network
>> programming"? Or, RPC/RMI? etc.)
>
> Again: CS is about computation and language theory, not about systems
> engineering.
>
> I got into it while ago with a VC guy I met at a party. He wouldn't
> (let companies he was backing) hire anyone more than 5 years out of
> school because he thought their skills were out of date.
>
> I told him I would hesitate to hire anyone *less* than 5 years out of
> school because most new graduates don't have any skills and need time
> to acquire them. I also said something about how the average new CS
> grad would struggle to implement a way out of a wet paper bag.
I think it depends on the "pedigree". When I was hired at my first
job, the boss said, outright, "I don't expect you to be productive,
today. I hired you for 'tomorrow'; if I wanted someone to be productive
today, I'd have hired from the other side of the river -- and planned on
mothballing him next year!"
From the few folks that I interact with, I have learned to see his point.
Most don't know anything about the "history" of their technology or the
gyrations as it "experimented" with different things. They see "The Cloud"
as something new and exciting -- and don't see the parallels to
"time sharing", centralized computing, etc. that the industry routinely
bounces through. Or, think it amazingly clever to turn a PC into an
X terminal ("Um, would you like to see some REAL ones?? You know, the
idea that you're PILFERING?")
Employers/clients want to know if you've done THIS before (amusing
if its a cutting edge project -- that NO ONE has done before!) as
if that somehow makes you MORE qualified to solve their problem(s).
I guess they don't expect people to LEARN...
> Obviously there is a component of this that is industry specific, but
> few (if any) industries change so fast that skills learned 5 years ago
> are useless today. For me, it was a scary look into the (lack of)
> mind of modern business.
A lady friend once told me "Management is easy! No one wants to take
risks or make decisions so, if YOU will, they'll gladly hide behind you!"
/Pro bono/ day tomorrow. Last sub 100F day for at least 10 days (103 on Wed
climbing linearly to 115 next Mon with a LOW of 82F) so I'm hoping to get my
*ss out of here bright and early in the morning! <frown>
45 and raining, you say... :>
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Portable Assembly rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 15:39 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-27 21:05 +0000
Re: Portable Assembly Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2017-05-27 21:29 +0000
Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-28 00:36 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-27 21:56 +0000
Re: Portable Assembly Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-05-28 14:36 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 09:53 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-05-27 16:17 -0500
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 00:31 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-27 22:52 +0100
Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-27 21:58 +0000
Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-28 07:37 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 01:28 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-28 07:33 +0100
Re: Portable Assembly rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 03:22 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-28 08:49 +0100
Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-28 15:03 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-05-28 12:26 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 01:04 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 10:43 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2017-05-31 10:19 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-31 01:49 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-05-31 15:56 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 02:33 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-29 23:46 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 13:54 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 15:52 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 02:14 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 17:14 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 03:38 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 18:42 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2017-05-28 18:45 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 20:47 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2017-05-29 18:43 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 10:23 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2017-05-30 16:31 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-29 01:59 +0000
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-29 05:21 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-05-28 22:04 -0500
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 02:57 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 11:00 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-29 15:08 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 15:06 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-29 20:02 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-30 16:53 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-31 11:36 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-01 22:43 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-02 13:27 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-29 13:48 +0000
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 15:46 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-28 23:59 -0500
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 00:23 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-05-27 16:54 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-05-29 17:23 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2017-06-02 17:03 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2017-06-05 15:39 +0100
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-05 18:10 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-05 09:10 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-06 00:24 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 11:05 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-06 07:03 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 16:58 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-06-06 21:26 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-06 16:42 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-06 23:16 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-08 06:38 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-08 15:58 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-06-08 21:34 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-06-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-06-10 15:23 -0500
Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-06-08 14:50 +0100
Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-06-08 17:38 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-06-08 16:37 +0100
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-09 14:14 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-06-09 22:25 +0100
Re: Portable Assembly Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-06-10 09:54 +1000
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-09 00:06 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-09 22:14 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-09 22:50 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-10 21:01 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-11 00:39 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-12 23:27 -0400
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-12 22:42 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 14:24 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-13 21:57 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-06-14 13:26 +0800
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-13 23:58 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 06:48 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-19 16:45 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 15:07 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-21 07:37 -0700
Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-07 09:20 +0200
Re: Portable Assembly Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-06-07 00:30 +0300
Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-07 02:02 -0400
csiph-web