Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I hate to say this, but Java was *designed* for embedded programming. 
> 
>   I wonder about their design choices given that it was intended originally
> for *embedded* 

I think the idea was that they were targeting two primary things:

1) Portability, so you didn't have to rewrite your EPG-download code over 
again every time you released a new cable modem in your set-top box, and

2) Reliability, because when you have 100,000 customers, a crash for 1% of 
them once a month is a fatal problem.

I would imagine stuff like codecs would still be native code. It's the stuff 
like user interfaces and interfacing to the provisioning systems you'd want 
to be portable.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> IME, if you don't know this sort of detail, you don't have the real
>> Blah blah blah. Or maybe I'm just a cranky fart who ought to be doing
>> something else.
> 
> that was not me, I swear.

Huh?  What made you think I was saying anything about you in a post 
following up my own post bitching about a topic you haven't discussed?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> IME, if you don't know this sort of detail, you don't have the real
>>> Blah blah blah. Or maybe I'm just a cranky fart who ought to be doing
>>> something else.
>>
>> that was not me, I swear.
> 
> Huh?  What made you think I was saying anything about you in a post 
> following up my own post bitching about a topic you haven't discussed?

oh.  I thought it was someone else posting under your name and calling 
you a "cranky fart".  People are kinda mad around here with me already 
and could be framming me. :P

Though I have to admit when I read your reply to me about smallptGPU 
about "hey, I have an idea" I had a gut instinct of calling you a sad 
old man. :)

Post a reply to this message

On 16-1-2010 20:39, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I hate to say this, but Java was *designed* for embedded programming. 
> 
>   I wonder about their design choices given that it was intended originally
> for *embedded* (rather than desktop) systems. "Embedded system" usually
> implies extremely low amount of RAM and very slow processors (especially
> back when Java was first designed). Even if the Java program could be
> compiled to native machine code for the target system (are there any such
> compilers in actuality, for any embedded system?) which would mostly solve
> the speed problem, it would still suffer from the memory consumption problem.
> 
>   No statically allocatable objects (including no support for arrays of
> objects) and all objects always having dynamic binding means inevitably
> increased memory consumption. (Also constant allocation/deallocation of
> objects induces memory fragmentation, increasing overall memory consumption
> as time passes, unless the system implements some form of memory
> defragmentation scheme, which might be implausible for an embedded system,
> especially at that time.)

When connecting an I2C AD converter to a Lego NXT brick* it appeared 
that Java does not have an unsigned 8bit datatype. Seems rather basic 
for embedded to me. Or am I overlooking something?

Don't know if I mentioned before, but our 1st year students were doing a 
project where they had to build a robot using Lego.
There were 6 teams of two groups. One to build a robot to navigate on a 
6 by 6 meter playfield with 5 barrels and find the barrel with a magnet. 
Then send the coordinates to the other group that had to build a robot 
to retrieve it.

Post a reply to this message

On 16-1-2010 22:08, nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>>> IME, if you don't know this sort of detail, you don't have the real
>>>> Blah blah blah. Or maybe I'm just a cranky fart who ought to be doing
>>>> something else.
>>>
>>> that was not me, I swear.
>>
>> Huh?  What made you think I was saying anything about you in a post 
>> following up my own post bitching about a topic you haven't discussed?
> 
> oh.  I thought it was someone else posting under your name and calling 
> you a "cranky fart". 

I don't think anything remotely like that ever happened here. I mean 
posting under another name. Self-mockery is quite common.

> People are kinda mad around here with me already 

Don't know where you get that impression from. (and that is not ironic 
or sarcastic)

> and could be framing me. :P

What? Don't make yourself more important than you are.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Though I have to admit when I read your reply to me about smallptGPU 
> about "hey, I have an idea" I had a gut instinct of calling you a sad 
> old man. :)

It's kind of a running joke, given that someone without any knowledge of how 
POV works internally suggests that all of POV could be sped up by porting it 
to GPUs about twice a year or so.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The joys of spaghetti code. Structured programming and especially
> modularity is for wimps.

That's right. Because writing utterly incomprehensible code structured 
in the most complicated way possible proves how clever you are, right?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Though I have to admit when I read your reply to me about smallptGPU 
>> about "hey, I have an idea" I had a gut instinct of calling you a sad 
>> old man. :)
> 
> It's kind of a running joke, given that someone without any knowledge of 
> how POV works internally suggests that all of POV could be sped up by 
> porting it to GPUs about twice a year or so.

I'm aware of that which is why I hinted at using it to speed up just 
pov's ray-triangle intersections.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   The joys of spaghetti code. Structured programming and especially
>> modularity is for wimps.
> 
> That's right. Because writing utterly incomprehensible code structured 
> in the most complicated way possible proves how clever you are, right?

No, you're not clever enough while you haven't written a Haskell monoid 
using nothing but closures. :)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> and could be framing me. :P
> 
> What? Don't make yourself more important than you are.

yes, I guess that was a bit paranoid. :P

Post a reply to this message