 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> This is what happens when you have support for dozens of versions of a
>> program in your file format. Not unlike C++. "How about defining a
>> source input format that can't be checked for syntactic correctness
>> without a potentially infinite storage space?" ;-)
>
> It's incredible how you find ways to bash C++ in every possible context.
Oh come on. I'm poking at you. :-) C++ is just generally easy to poke
at. Any sufficiently crufty specification is going to have
under-specified parts to it.
Making something too simple can be just as annoying. My latest annoyance
at Erlang:
To receive a message, you write
receive guard1 -> value1; guard2 -> value2; ... end.
That means when you get a message, it matches against each guard in turn
until it finds one that matches. If it finds it, it calculates the
associated value and consumes the message. If there's no match, it
leaves it in the queue and idles until another message comes along.
Because of this, each [guard] has to not have any side-effects. In
practice, this means you can only call certain built-in functions the
compiler knows have no side effects (is_integer(), list_length(), test
for equality, etc).
Sadly, the "if" statement (and "case" statement, slightly different)
also use guards.
if guard -> value; guard -> value; ... ; true -> value end
(the last if you want to guarantee a match, like "else").
The sad part is that it's the same guard, hence no side-effects, hence
no user-defined functions. If you have three methods that might match,
increasingly more expensive to calculate, and you want to know which it
was, you can't write
if my_cheapmatch(X) -> cheap;
my_medium(X) -> medium;
my_expensive(X)->expensive;
true -> nope
end
You have to write
C = my_cheapmatch(X),
if X -> cheap;
true -> M = my_medium(X),
if M -> medium;
true -> E = my_expensive(X),
if E -> expensive;
true -> nope
end
end
end
Kind of deeply nested for such a simple concept, and afaict there's no
real reason to prohibit side-effects in the if statement since (unlike
receive) it doesn't get retried in any sense.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
> My home server has close on 500GB of drives and is over half full.
> Assorted downloads, pdfs, Virtual PC images, ripped CDs (mine), Ripped DVDs
> (mine), backups of the other machines
> It adds up
Wait, back up... virtual PC images?
OK, that'll do it by itself. The default install of Windoze XP eats well
over 1 GB of space. Add Office for an additional 1 GB of space gone. It
wouldn't take very many PC images to fill even the most cavernous disk...
BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
>> My current motherboard doesn't even *support* more than 4 GB of RAM.
>> Although I guess RAM is much cheaper now than it used to be.
>
> Most of the higher end ones support 8GB
When I bought mine, it *was* high-end. Brand new chipset, supporting the
new socket-939 standard for the then-new Athlon64 series, allowing you
to break into this new-fangled "64-bit computing" thingy that everybody
was so excited about.
Jesus, my PC is old. o_O
>> Dual-core is becomming common, but I don't think I've met anybody yet
>> who can afford quad-core.
>
> Hi Andrew. Nice to meet you.....
> Or did you mean meet in person?
That can be arranged. ;-) Or... I like to delude myself that it could
be. I think that would be kinda neat anyway...
> The quad core 2.4GHz is around R2000, the quad 2.66 is R4500. (The dual core
> 3.0 is R1800, Dual core 3.16 is R2500)
> I'll leave you do do the curency conversions if you like (current exchange
> rate - R16.1 = 1 pound)
Doesn't mean you can buy it for that over here. E.g., Adobe Acrobat
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> In which universe is a machine with a 200 GB HD and more than 1 GB of
>>> RAM considered "moderate"? That sounds pretty high-end to me...
>>
>> My 3+ year old desktop is slightly higher spec'ed than that.
>> High end today is quad core processor, 4 GB+ memory and 1/2 TB disk
>> space.
>
> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
Storing patient ECG data.
And one of my former PhD students has also some use for it (can't
remember if I already mentioned that, so excuse me if it is old news)
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2008/january/udm.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>>
> Storing patient ECG data.
Yeah, that'll do it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
Video editing. It's not even enough for serious work on that field.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It would *hardly* be the first time a superior technology has vanished
> for reasons unrelated to technology... sadly... :-(
I think the lack of ability to do multiuser work and the lack of ability
to get beyond TV resolution were at least as deadly as Commodore marketing.
These improvements were added after it was too late.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Or how about PNGs from every single POV-Ray animation you do,
>> including test renders? :)
>
> Well, given that a typical PNG file is between 1 KB and 500 KB,
> that's... A LOT OF FREAKIN' FRAMES!!
You never did big renders, with frames +1MB?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
> Video editing. It's not even enough for serious work on that field.
Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly - video data typically eats a
few GB per minute. So why do you need 1,000 GB? That's, like, several
*hours* of video data. You'd have to be producing a feature film or
something to need more, surely?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Like... what? Storing the entire season of Friends in uncompressed RGB
> format? Even that surely wouldn't come close...!
You would be surprised. Say you have (oh, I don't know) a program that
listens to 70 radio stations in a city, and you want to save a week
worth of audio for some reason. Calculate out what 70 channels of
CD-quality uncompressed audio comes to.
> Oh, no, for a business it wouldn't be. I was thinking more for the
> casual comsumer.
Right.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
Sigh.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
