 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
>>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
>>> I'm talking about?
>
>> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
>
> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
> >>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
> >>> I'm talking about?
> >
> >> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
> >
> > Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
> No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
Now you are taunting me.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Contrast with something that generates machine code natively, which
> might output code that your C compiler would never output, for example.
>
> If your front-end outputs C, you're never going to out-perform the C
> code it generates. If your C compiler can't take advantage of the GPU to
> do math or can't hook into interrupt vectors directly or ..., then your
> language isn't going to do better.
It is very difficult to write compilers that generate optimized native
code as good as the ones already provided by mature C compilers that
have been around for ages.
Larceny is the only free Scheme implementation that tries to generate
native code directly (or .NET bytecodes) and is written by one of the
top Scheme implementers around. It generates native code that is a good
deal faster than JIT-compiled like in mzscheme or ikarus, but still much
slower ones by Gambit or Stalin, both of which generate C code.
BTW, if you look at C code so produced, it hardly looks like C at all.
Like:
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_pcase9,___G_pcase9)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_peek_2d_char,___G_peek_2d_char)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_peek_2d_eof_3f_,___G_peek_2d_eof_3f_)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_peer,___G_peer)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_permanent_2d_close,___G_permanent_2d_close)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_permissions,___G_permissions)
from Gambit. Truly insane. But the good thing is that code is now
portable to different 32-bit platforms as long as there's a C compiler.
Would it be worth the pain generating assebly not as optimized as a C
compiler?...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> It is very difficult to write compilers that generate optimized native
> code as good as the ones already provided by mature C compilers that
> have been around for ages.
It depends on the language, of course. I'd hate to (for example) try to
compile FORTH into C code instead of native code. Smalltalk would be likely
as difficult. And both the JVM and the .NET system would seem to do a not
bad job. Plus, of course, anything on a new chip is not going to have code
as good.
Sure. Using C as an intermediate language for another language that's
basically C-ish is probably a good idea. I was merely arguing that the idea
that "my language runs as fast as C code" is not obviously true from the
fact that it uses C as an intermediate language. Using C as an intermediate
language doesn't make it trivial to run as fast as hand-rolled C.
> Would it be worth the pain generating assebly not as optimized as a C
> compiler?...
You're arguing against a position I never held.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
>>>>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
>>>>> I'm talking about?
>>>> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
>>> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
>
>> No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
>
> Now you are taunting me.
Not intentionally. But ... I think we're done. If you haven't understood
what i'm saying, I'm not going to be able to clarify it. And since you're
mocking me, it's clear you no longer really care to communicate on the subject.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escreveu:
>> Clever people realize not having 3 or 4 common keyboard shortcuts is a
>> lame excuse for not learning the other 80 or so specific features and
>> shortcuts a software might provide.
>
> It's not just the shortcuts, it's things like using the space bar to
> open the context menu, the context menu not following the same UI rules
> as standard, not using standard dialog boxes (did you ever try to save a
> file to a network share in Blender? I tried to type in the path and it
> asked me if I wanted to make a new folder called "\\san1\$scott"!).
Probably mapping to a unit first would work, but yeah, sucks to be in
Windows when most open-source projects are born in *nix. :)
Windows programmers have a closed-source mentality that was never like
in *nix. They are too busy with their closed-source work projects to
bother to contribute with open-source code and, thus, wanting to run
most free stuff today is a world of pain on Windows because it is very
unlike *nix.
> Fixing these things would take little resources and would generate far
> fewer complaints from new users.
Yeah, I wonder why -- having so many Windows users and some of them
surely being programmers -- no one has bothered to patch it yet.
> I don't care about learning specific shortcuts for obscure operations,
> or learning how to use new features, but having to re-learn shortcuts
> for save,load,copy,paste,undo,redo, learning a new menu system, and a
> new file open/save dialog box is an unacceptable waste of my time and
> memory.
It's still too little to bother, I guess. You talk like as if pressing
space and being presented with a graphical menu that works like any
other graphical menu you ever saw is the end of the world. I guess
people just learn the software way of doing things and get work done
rather than fight the software for being so unlike the rest available
for the platform. Those fighting it surely already migrated to
something else...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>>> Warp wrote:
> >>>>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
> >>>>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
> >>>>> I'm talking about?
> >>>> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
> >>> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
> >
> >> No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
> >
> > Now you are taunting me.
> Not intentionally. But ... I think we're done. If you haven't understood
> what i'm saying, I'm not going to be able to clarify it. And since you're
> mocking me, it's clear you no longer really care to communicate on the subject.
If it sounds like I'm mocking, it's completely unintentional.
I never said I don't understand your point. I said that you are not
aknowledging that you understood mine (ie. that there are some basic
differences between vi and other more "normal" text editors, and that
that was what I was talking about).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>
> Which country is she from?
Maybe Geekland?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If it sounds like I'm mocking, it's completely unintentional.
So a sarcastic hyperbole of something you think I said isn't mocking? I'll
try to keep that in mind.
> I never said I don't understand your point. I said that you are not
> aknowledging that you understood mine
I understand yours *now*. I was disputing that your point was so obvious
that one must be stupid or lying to misunderstand it the way you first
phrased it. I even agreed with you right at the beginning that vi's command
mode is unintuitive, especially if you don't know vi is modal.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:22:39 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>
> Which country is she from?
The US, western Pennsylvania, to be precise. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
