Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #1374 > unrolled thread

Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-07 03:06 -0400
    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-07 09:44 +0100
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-07 11:38 +0100
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-07 12:21 +0100
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-07 13:47 +0100
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-07 09:55 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-07 19:27 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-07 13:54 -0700
                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-09 13:38 -0400
                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> - 2011-05-10 12:40 -0400
                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-10 20:32 +0200
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2011-05-09 13:42 +0200
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-07 04:26 -0700
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-07 12:13 +0100
    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-07 14:59 -0700
      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-09 14:14 -0400
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-09 20:38 +0100
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-09 13:55 -0700
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-10 09:05 +0100
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Jason Riedy <jason@lovesgoodfood.com> - 2011-05-10 13:24 -0400
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-10 18:41 +0100
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 13:56 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 14:04 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 14:06 -0700
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-11 13:55 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-11 22:15 +0100
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-12 20:52 +0100
                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 20:20 +0100
                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-12 14:55 -0700
                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-13 12:25 +0200
                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 11:18 +0100
                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 13:19 -0700
                        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-14 19:11 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-12 20:08 -0700
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Jason Riedy <jason@lovesgoodfood.com> - 2011-05-12 23:54 -0400
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-12 01:08 -0400
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 09:27 +0100
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-12 05:41 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 13:22 +0100
                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-12 07:22 -0700
                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-12 14:58 +0100
                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-12 09:23 -0700
                      Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 22:59 +0000
                        Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:07 +1200
                          Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:17 +0000
                            Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:20 +1200
                              Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:30 +0000
                                Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:34 +1200
                                  Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-12 16:52 -0700
                                    Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 00:13 +0000
                                      Re: Non-constant initializers kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-05-14 01:54 +0000
                                        Re: Non-constant initializers Columbus sailed the ocean China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-14 01:07 -0700
                                          Re: Non-constant initializers kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-05-14 09:22 +0000
                                            Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 17:14 +0000
                                  Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 00:11 +0000
                        Re: Non-constant initializers Columbus sailed the ocean China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-12 16:15 -0700
                          Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:28 +0000
                        Re: Non-constant initializers Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-12 18:01 -0600
                          Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-12 18:15 -0700
                            Re: Non-constant initializers Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-12 22:56 -0600
                              Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-13 05:18 +0000
                          Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-13 23:57 +0000
              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-12 20:20 -0700
                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 09:48 +0100
                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-13 12:55 +0200
                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 11:25 +0100
                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-13 08:57 -0700
                        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 16:42 +0100
                          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-13 13:17 -0700
                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-13 21:03 +0100
                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-14 06:43 +0200
                              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 06:55 +0100
                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-17 12:59 +0100
                                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-17 12:44 +0100
                                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-17 14:07 +0100
                                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-17 17:20 +0100
                                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-17 15:03 +0100
                              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-14 08:43 +0100
                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-14 09:17 +0100
                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-14 09:04 -0700
                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 17:00 -0700
                        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 16:58 -0700
                          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-14 19:07 -0700
                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-15 09:40 +0100
                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-16 11:05 +0200
                              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-16 06:44 -0700
                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2011-05-19 20:17 +0000
                                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-19 15:20 -0700
                                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-19 18:51 -0400
                                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Petter Gustad <newsmailcomp6@gustad.com> - 2011-05-20 08:01 +0200
                                        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-20 15:09 -0700
                                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-20 08:54 +0200
                                        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-23 11:11 +0100
                                          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-23 18:20 -0400
                                        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-06-03 08:21 +0200
                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-19 13:31 -0700
                              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-16 09:05 -0700
                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-05-16 22:37 +0200
                                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-18 23:16 -0700
                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring ChrisQ <meru@devnull.com> - 2011-05-17 17:10 +0100
                                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-17 17:27 +0100
                                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring ChrisQ <meru@devnull.com> - 2011-05-17 23:08 +0100
                                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom <tggzzz@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-17 22:37 +0000
                                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-18 09:25 +0100
                                        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-18 06:25 -0700
                                          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-18 14:06 +0100
                                          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-18 19:23 +0100
                                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-18 13:48 -0700
                                              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-05-19 00:29 +0000
                                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-19 13:12 +0100
                                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-18 23:27 -0700
                                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-05-19 15:19 -0700
                                      Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-05-20 07:33 -0700
                            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-16 03:14 -0700
                              Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-16 10:43 +0100
                                Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-16 04:58 -0700
                                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-16 12:40 +0100
                          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-15 10:12 -0700
                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 13:22 -0700
                    Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-15 09:02 +0100
                  Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-14 14:02 -0700
            Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-12 20:18 -0700
        Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 14:32 -0700
          Re: Computer arithmetic problems worth exploring "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-05-09 16:08 -0700

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#1640

ChrisQ wrote:
> It may be too expensive to learn many programming languages now. The
> current approach is to learn one general purpose language (ideally to
> fluency), then add libraries to handle the corner and specialist areas...

It might be becoming even worse. There's a fad for everybody and
their dog to develop their own special purpose language; the
giveaways are to watch for DSLs and MDAs (domain specific languages
and model driven architecture, respectively).

Little, if any, consideration is given as to whether the same
benefits could be achieved with special purpose libraries.
I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose libraries.

Please don't misunderstand me: I have a great respect for model
driven development, but only with models that are reasonably well
standardised, well documented, and widely understood.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1644

Tom Gardner wrote:
> ChrisQ wrote:
>> It may be too expensive to learn many programming languages now. The
>> current approach is to learn one general purpose language (ideally to
>> fluency), then add libraries to handle the corner and specialist areas...
> 
> It might be becoming even worse. There's a fad for everybody and
> their dog to develop their own special purpose language; the
> giveaways are to watch for DSLs and MDAs (domain specific languages
> and model driven architecture, respectively).
> 
> Little, if any, consideration is given as to whether the same
> benefits could be achieved with special purpose libraries.
> I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose libraries.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand me: I have a great respect for model
> driven development, but only with models that are reasonably well
> standardised, well documented, and widely understood.

The idea of a language with enough capability to clearly express the
problem, establish the framework, is the right way to go and provides
the most flexibility and reusability. Libraries or other plugin systems
then encapsulate the underlying complexity...

Regards,

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1645

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:NlxAp.594$Ky.379@newsfe24.ams2: 

> ChrisQ wrote:
>> It may be too expensive to learn many programming languages now. The
>> current approach is to learn one general purpose language (ideally to
>> fluency), then add libraries to handle the corner and specialist
>> areas... 
> 
> It might be becoming even worse. There's a fad for everybody and
> their dog to develop their own special purpose language; the
> giveaways are to watch for DSLs and MDAs (domain specific languages
> and model driven architecture, respectively).
> 
> Little, if any, consideration is given as to whether the same
> benefits could be achieved with special purpose libraries.
> I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose libraries.

Rats. I meant 
"I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose *languages*"

> Please don't misunderstand me: I have a great respect for model
> driven development, but only with models that are reasonably well
> standardised, well documented, and widely understood.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1648

In article <Xns9EE8F05AC2F3Btggzzzblueyoundercou@69.16.176.253>,
Tom  <tggzzz@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> Little, if any, consideration is given as to whether the same
>> benefits could be achieved with special purpose libraries.

Actually, far too often, people use special-purpose libraries and
tweaks to existing languages for purposes for which they are not
suitable.  It cuts both ways.

>> I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose libraries.
>
>Rats. I meant 
>"I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose *languages*"

Fair dos.  Then I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special-
purpose libraries.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1664

On May 18, 2:25 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <Xns9EE8F05AC2F3Btggzzzblueyounder...@69.16.176.253>,
> Tom  <tgg...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >Rats. I meant
> >"I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose *languages*"
>
> Fair dos.  Then I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special-
> purpose libraries.

For others with less existing comprehension of the issues, on the one
hand, a special-purpose language is yet another language, requiring
people to learn considerably more in order to program in the
application area under consideration... while a special-purpose
library in an existing language has to fit into the framework of that
language, which can be limiting or inappropriate to a given
application area.

So, if one were to use a special-purpose library for decimal
arithmetic from FORTRAN, one might get code like:

      CALL DADD(A,B,C)
      CALL DFORM(C,CS,'P10.2')
      WRITE(6,11) DFORM

which is less clear than a corresponding code segment for types native
to the language

      C = A + B
      WRITE(6,21) C

Of course, C++ lends itself to extension much more readily than
FORTRAN IV.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1666

In article <9f80bce5-75f1-482c-ab9a-03387417b179@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>For others with less existing comprehension of the issues, on the one
>hand, a special-purpose language is yet another language, requiring
>people to learn considerably more in order to program in the
>application area under consideration... while a special-purpose
>library in an existing language has to fit into the framework of that
>language, which can be limiting or inappropriate to a given
>application area.

Precisely.  My personal decision tree goes a bit like this:

    Does the interface need any semantics concepts that do not
already exist in the language?

    No.  Then provide a library.

    Yes.  Can the language be extended to include them, cleanly
and compatibly?

        No.  Then design a special-purpose language.

        Yes.  Then extend the language.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1670

Quadibloc wrote:
> On May 18, 2:25 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article<Xns9EE8F05AC2F3Btggzzzblueyounder...@69.16.176.253>,
>> Tom<tgg...@blueyonder.co.uk>  wrote:
>
>>> Rats. I meant
>>> "I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special purpose *languages*"
>>
>> Fair dos.  Then I won't bore you with the disadvantages of special-
>> purpose libraries.
>
> For others with less existing comprehension of the issues, on the one
> hand, a special-purpose language is yet another language, requiring
> people to learn considerably more in order to program in the
> application area under consideration... while a special-purpose
> library in an existing language has to fit into the framework of that
> language, which can be limiting or inappropriate to a given
> application area.

With a special purpose language, not only do people have to
learn more before starting, but they won't have the support
provided by environments for widely-used libraries. I never
want to have to go back to exploring a codebase solely by
using 'grep' and 'less'!

What's more, most of the "special purpose" languages I've
had the misfortune of seeing were hacked together over the
weekend by someone that wanted to allow "business people"
to customise the code after it had been shipped. Invariably
as the "business requirements" grew, the language grew like
topsy until nobody understood it. And nobody competent could
be hired to maintain it.

The only difference between the hacked-together languages
and the "professional" "standard" languages is the length
of time before they became unusable.

"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program
contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden,
slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1672

On May 18, 12:23 pm, Tom Gardner <spamj...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program
> contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden,
> slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."

For certain rather high values of sufficiently complicated...

Obviously, though, given that most Lisp implementations resist being
extended to include tacked-on high-speed simple procedural code,
what's needed is a *good* implementation of all of Common Lisp that
can be plugged into C++ as a library, then...

Or someone can just make a new language that's as easy to learn as
BASIC, which combines the ability to handle decimal data types (like
COBOL and PL/I), to perform machine-style operations like bitwise AND
and OR and XOR (like C), to directly specify vector operations (like
APL or FORTRAN 90) with the power of LISP as well (requiring users to
declare variables with special data types, so that this relatively
slower feature won't be used by accident...) and of course with the
ability to overload operators and use header files and the like.

Then everybody can be happy.

Something perhaps like this...

http://www.quadibloc.com/prog/lg00.htm

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1675

On Wed, 18 May 2011 13:48:58 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:

> On May 18, 12:23 pm, Tom Gardner <spamj...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc,
>> informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common
>> Lisp."
> 
> For certain rather high values of sufficiently complicated...
> 
> Obviously, though, given that most Lisp implementations resist being
> extended to include tacked-on high-speed simple procedural code, what's

[Dead horse zone: I won't bother naming all of the popular Common Lisp 
and Scheme implementations that are entirely capable of keeping up with 
most of the simple procedural code out there.]

> needed is a *good* implementation of all of Common Lisp that can be
> plugged into C++ as a library, then...

Like ECL, perhaps?  There are plenty of other lisps that exist primarily 
to be scripting or extension libraries for applications written in other 
languages.  Lots of non-lisps too, of course.  LUA and JavaScript seem to 
be quite popular for that purpose at the moment, as TCL was a few years 
before that.

> Or someone can just make a new language that's as easy to learn as
> BASIC, which combines the ability to handle decimal data types (like
> COBOL and PL/I), to perform machine-style operations like bitwise AND
> and OR and XOR (like C), to directly specify vector operations (like APL
> or FORTRAN 90) with the power of LISP as well (requiring users to
> declare variables with special data types, so that this relatively
> slower feature won't be used by accident...) and of course with the
> ability to overload operators and use header files and the like.

[FWIW: Python seems to tick most of the boxes in your language wish-list, 
at least when extended with the numpy module.  Does have some performance 
issues, though...]

Just out of interest: why is the ability to use header files a good 
thing, as opposed to the sort of automatic interrogation of module 
interfaces from compiled-object meta-data that more modern languages like 
Java allow?  Header files are rubbish: duplication of effort and 
invitation to inconsistency (IMO).

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1689

On Thu, 19 May 2011 01:29:52 +0100, Andrew Reilly  
<areilly---@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Just out of interest: why is the ability to use header files a good
> thing, as opposed to the sort of automatic interrogation of module
> interfaces from compiled-object meta-data that more modern languages like
> Java allow?  Header files are rubbish: duplication of effort and
> invitation to inconsistency (IMO).

Just guessing, but often when people say "header file" they mean  
"interface specification that doesn't also include a truck-load of  
implementation details". They don't always mean "something whose meaning I  
can change by mis-defining pre-processor macros", although C/C++ gives  
them both.

I have to say that header files cost me near-as-dammit nothing in terms of  
either duplication of effort or bugs caused by inconsistency, but then  
again I don't find really powerful editors very useful either. I spend  
most of my programming time just thinking. Even when I'm entering code,  
I'm just thinking out loud. Perhaps I'm odd.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1681

On 5/17/2011 9:10 AM, ChrisQ wrote:
> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>
>>
>> That having been said, there are certainly a lot of things in COBOL
>> not to like, and I am certainly not advocating it for most uses, but
>> saying "never use it" seems, to me, too strong.
>>
>>
>
> It may be too expensive to learn many programming languages now. The
> current approach is to learn one general purpose language (ideally to
> fluency), then add libraries to handle the corner and specialist areas...

I take it that you are implying that COBOL not a general purpose 
language, whereas perhaps C is?

If so, I might offer some counter evidence.

For a long time, perhaps 25 years there were more production programs 
written in COBOL than any other language.

While of course C easily does things are very hard in COBOL, the same is 
true of the converse.  If you want to say, "use a library", then I can 
point out that there are libraries for COBOL as well.  If by general 
purpose, you mean better able to write operating systems, then I 
certainly agree.  But most programs are not operating systems.

Again, I am not promoting COBOL particularly, but decrying those who, 
perhaps out of ignorance of the history, denigrate it for the wrong reasons.



-- 
  - Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1705

On May 19, 12:27 am, Stephen Fuld <SF...@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid>
wrote:

> I take it that you are implying that COBOL not a general purpose
> language, whereas perhaps C is?
>
> If so, I might offer some counter evidence.
>
> For a long time, perhaps 25 years there were more production programs
> written in COBOL than any other language.

And overwhelmingly, those programs were written in COBOL's primary
application area, for which computers were more heavily used than for
other purposes.

COBOL is more poorly suited to being used for other purposes than its
main purpose because of its extreme verbosity, for one thing.

And C++ being object-oriented, even if C is not particularly well
adaptable to other applications areas, C++ would be. I don't say that C
++ is the best foundation for a general-purpose language, but I would
think it has a significant head start over COBOL.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1745

On 5/19/2011 3:19 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On May 19, 12:27 am, Stephen Fuld<SF...@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I take it that you are implying that COBOL not a general purpose
>> language, whereas perhaps C is?
>>
>> If so, I might offer some counter evidence.
>>
>> For a long time, perhaps 25 years there were more production programs
>> written in COBOL than any other language.
>
> And overwhelmingly, those programs were written in COBOL's primary
> application area, for which computers were more heavily used than for
> other purposes.

OK, but many of today's web business applications are just as "business 
oriented".  And many traditional business applications are being written 
in C because they are run on Unix or PC platforms and C is the dominant 
language for those systems.


> COBOL is more poorly suited to being used for other purposes than its
> main purpose because of its extreme verbosity, for one thing.

There are a lot of reasons why COBOL is not suitable for things like 
"systems software", but I don't think extreme verbosity (which is 
certainly very annoying) is one of them.  That is just syntax and there 
are tools that make program entry easier, etc.  The deeper reasons are 
the lack of some capabilities in the basic language (at least up to 
fairly recent versions - I haven't followed the latest COBOL for a long 
time).


> And C++ being object-oriented, even if C is not particularly well
> adaptable to other applications areas, C++ would be. I don't say that C
> ++ is the best foundation for a general-purpose language, but I would
> think it has a significant head start over COBOL.

Interesting discussion.  I think C++ errs in the opposite direction of 
COBOL, that it, it has too high a ratio of special characters to 
alphanumeric characters and its very concision make it cryptic and hard 
to follow.  Also, while you can easily fault COBOL for its lack of some 
features, I think C++ has some features that are too much and hurt its 
usability.  I am specifically referring to multiple inheritance here.


-- 
  - Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1609

On May 15, 4:07 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> Due to the high availability of
> C compilers, and the relative rarity of FORTRAN, so that many people
> are using C when they should be using FORTRAN...

I don't think that the indisputable fact of life you mentioned (many
people are using C when they should be using FORTRAN) had much to do
with relative availability/rarity of C/Fortran  compilers. On Linux
Gnu Fortran is as available as other Gnu compilers. On Windows "out of
the box" you have no compiler, neither C nor Fortran, and both can be
installed at small effort either at small cost or no cost.

Majority of developers that chose C (or C++) over Fortran for numeric
work do it for reasons totally unrelated to availability of compilers.
I'd guess, most of them know very little about Fortran in general and
even less about anything above Fortran77.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1610

In article <6e469fc0-9964-496f-b41d-edc161a82554@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Michael S  <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 4:07=A0am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Due to the high availability of
>> C compilers, and the relative rarity of FORTRAN, so that many people
>> are using C when they should be using FORTRAN...
>
>I don't think that the indisputable fact of life you mentioned (many
>people are using C when they should be using FORTRAN) had much to do
>with relative availability/rarity of C/Fortran  compilers. On Linux
>Gnu Fortran is as available as other Gnu compilers. On Windows "out of
>the box" you have no compiler, neither C nor Fortran, and both can be
>installed at small effort either at small cost or no cost.

That understates the situation!  Fortran is as readily available as
C on the vast majority of systems that the ordinary programmer will
ever come across.

>Majority of developers that chose C (or C++) over Fortran for numeric
>work do it for reasons totally unrelated to availability of compilers.
>I'd guess, most of them know very little about Fortran in general and
>even less about anything above Fortran77.

And very little about C or C++, either, or they would think again!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1612

On May 16, 11:43 am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <6e469fc0-9964-496f-b41d-edc161a82...@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael S  <already5cho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Majority of developers that chose C (or C++) over Fortran for numeric
> >work do it for reasons totally unrelated to availability of compilers.
> >I'd guess, most of them know very little about Fortran in general and
> >even less about anything above Fortran77.
>
> And very little about C or C++, either, or they would think again!
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

I am not sure it would change the outcome.
Let's take you, for example. You know a lot about deficiencies of C
and advantages of Fortran. However, at least according of my mental
image of you, Nick, you are very likely to use C in situations where,
according to John and even yourself,  you "should be using Fortran".
If it's not true my impression of you needs serious correction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1613

In article <992372a1-ab9b-4a96-b651-5618c7013cd1@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Michael S  <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Majority of developers that chose C (or C++) over Fortran for numeric
>> >work do it for reasons totally unrelated to availability of compilers.
>> >I'd guess, most of them know very little about Fortran in general and
>> >even less about anything above Fortran77.
>>
>> And very little about C or C++, either, or they would think again!
>
>I am not sure it would change the outcome.
>Let's take you, for example. You know a lot about deficiencies of C
>and advantages of Fortran. However, at least according of my mental
>image of you, Nick, you are very likely to use C in situations where,
>according to John and even yourself,  you "should be using Fortran".
>If it's not true my impression of you needs serious correction.

Minor correction only.  I also know about the advantages of C and
deficiencies of Fortran.  However, I am not very likely to use C
in preference to Fortran for even semi-serious numeric work,
because it is much harder work.  One-off trivia, I may use Python,
Matlab, Mathematica, Fortran, C or C++ - usually depending on what
I am working with at the time and so have paged into my brain!

Equally, I will avoid pure Fortran for anything where I have to
read non-trivial data formats.  It's horrible for that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1592

On May 14, 6:58 pm, "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <a...@SPAM.comp-arch.net>
wrote:
> Methinks also, if serious, then the FP compare should be a bitmask:

And you have just reconstructed the Mc88K version of comparison.
Integer version conditionally set 10 bits, later expanded to 16-bits.
FP version set 12-bits. These conditional results could be checked
with a bit-test instruction.

Mitch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1575

On 5/13/2011 1:48 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> Andy \"Krazy\" Glew<andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net>  wrote:
>>
>>>> No, actually, it looked like he was  asking leading questions that
>>>> pointed in the direction of getting rid of silent NaNs.
>>>
>>> Yes.  There, I agree with him - but every language that I know of
>>> that has supported IEEE 754 NaNs has got rid of signalling ones,
>>> or deprecated them into near uselessness!
>>>
>>> I can't tell you whether he lost the argument in 1984 or changed
>>> his views, but quiet NaN comparison was one of the things that
>>> made me splutter when I first read IEEE 754.  I then did a test
>>> on myself, and took considerable care coding - but I had still
>>> got 20% of the tests wrong for correct NaN handling!
>>
>> I'm not so sure:  quiet NaNs or the equivalent are necessary for things
>> like spreadsheets, where you still want to put values into cells even if
>> they do calculations like 1/-0(=-inf), or 0/0 or other indeterminate values.
>>
>> There *must* be a not-number value.  Just like null in databases.  Data
>> occasionally is missing.
>
> No, that's completely wrong.  IEEE NaN has totally the wrong semantics
> for missing values, and they are primarily error indicators.  I am a
> statistician by training, and have worked with some of the people
> who introduced missing values into modern computing.
>
> I have a part-written paper that describes something half a dozen
> classes of "Not A Number", and the key factor is that they all have
> different and usually incompatible semantics.

I'd love to see the paper, half written or not.

It sounds like the paper on the 7 different flavors of database null.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1588

In article <4DCEE46F.4020907@SPAM.comp-arch.net>,
Andy \"Krazy\" Glew <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> wrote:
>>
>> I have a part-written paper that describes something half a dozen
>> classes of "Not A Number", and the key factor is that they all have
>> different and usually incompatible semantics.
>
>I'd love to see the paper, half written or not.
>
>It sounds like the paper on the 7 different flavors of database null.

I have sent it, and it almost certainly is.  Indeed, I should be
surprised if my categories and the database categories weren't very
similar!  The problem is caused by the properties of mathematics
and real-world data.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch

csiph-web