4 Jun
2013
4 Jun
'13
12:43 a.m.
We're doing NetBSD and 80386 again? Evil cabal responsible for crimes
against computing again?
Jason Thorpe and others were talking about fundamental problems continuing
80386 support, what, almost a decade ago (no...the 80386 is not simply an
older 80486)? They announced the intention to drop support in 2007, and
dropped it in 2009. It was not a secret and it wasn't a smug "buy
bigger/faster/stronger" dictate; they still support VAX and a pack of
ridiculously obscure mc68k boxes, after all.
80386 support died because no one stepped up to support it, even though
proposals were made as to how to do that. Based on that, the core
developers made a decision about how to allocate scarce resources, and in 4
years the world has somehow failed to end. If a single person had stepped
forward to take on 80386 as a distinct port, it could still be in there.
It not like ns32k or mc88k, where getting things going means recreating
GCC support, figuring how to jump to ELF, etc. And yet, since 2009, no one
has picked up 80386, which pretty much tells you how really important it is
in the grand scheme of things.
KJ
4 Jun
4 Jun
9:57 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 06/04/2013 12:43 AM, Ken Seefried wrote:
It not like ns32k or mc88k, where getting things
going means recreating
GCC support, figuring how to jump to ELF, etc. And yet, since 2009, no one
has picked up 80386, which pretty much tells you how really important it is
in the grand scheme of things.
One would reasonably think so, but it generally doesn't work out that way.
Embedded systems...say, the big graphical display and user interface on a
hospital ventilator/respirator (and I use this specific example because it's
a real-world system developed right up the road from me) aren't in a
situation where the developers run out and re-flash all of them whenever a
new Linux kernel is released. I'd also bet (but don't know for a fact) that
Boeing doesn't do that with their seat-back display systems in 767s either.
Most production environments...be it full-blown computers in a datacenter
or the Linux machine that runs a hospital respirator...don't just jump to a
new OS release as soon as it's announced. Some (many!) NEVER upgrade to a
new OS release. There is almost never a compelling reason to do so, that
would justify the time and expense to do so.
There is another factor. It turns out that most embedded projects that use
the 80386 are done in big companies, usually because they hire based on
resume' keyword searches, low stated salary requirements, etc. In other
words...people who aren't experienced enough to know why it's probably not a
good idea. Those guys either get promoted into middle management where they
can't do any more damage (and is probably what they wanted anyway), and then
someone else takes over. When that new person digs into the system, it's a
"big complicated unfamiliar mess", and that makes it even less likely that an
OS upgrade will happen simply because a new OS release has come available.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
10:11 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Jun 4, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
There is another factor. It turns out that most
embedded projects that use
the 80386 are done in big companies, usually because they hire based on
resume' keyword searches, low stated salary requirements, etc. In other
words...people who aren't experienced enough to know why it's probably not a
good idea. Those guys either get promoted into middle management where they
can't do any more damage (and is probably what they wanted anyway), and then
someone else takes over. When that new person digs into the system, it's a
"big complicated unfamiliar mess", and that makes it even less likely that an
OS upgrade will happen simply because a new OS release has come available.
Correction: they get promoted to middle management where upper management
THINKS they can't do as much damage. I've seen plenty of damage done by
bad engineers promoted to middle management, where they insist on running
Linux on a massive processor when you could do the same with a tiny loop
on a tiny ARM. Bad engineers should be fired and made to find out what
it is that they actually want to do, like running a bakery or coaching
sports teams. I'm genuinely serious about that; most of the bad engineers
I've met just haven't had their heart in it.
- Dave
11:16 a.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On 06/04/2013 10:11 AM, David Riley wrote:
I've seen that here and there as well, and now that you mention it, these
types of people do seem to be a lot more common than the engineers who love
engineering but just aren't good at it. The "I do this all day at work, I
don't want to even THINK about it after 5PM!" types.
I thank them for my income. =)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
There is
another factor. It turns out that most embedded projects that use
the 80386 are done in big companies, usually because they hire based on
resume' keyword searches, low stated salary requirements, etc. In other
words...people who aren't experienced enough to know why it's probably not a
good idea. Those guys either get promoted into middle management where they
can't do any more damage (and is probably what they wanted anyway), and then
someone else takes over. When that new person digs into the system, it's a
"big complicated unfamiliar mess", and that makes it even less likely that an
OS upgrade will happen simply because a new OS release has come available.
Correction: they get promoted to middle management where upper management
THINKS they can't do as much damage. I've seen plenty of damage done by
bad engineers promoted to middle management, where they insist on running
Linux on a massive processor when you could do the same with a tiny loop
on a tiny ARM. Bad engineers should be fired and made to find out what
it is that they actually want to do, like running a bakery or coaching
sports teams. I'm genuinely serious about that; most of the bad engineers
I've met just haven't had their heart in it. 
11:56 a.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
I've seen that here and there as well, and now that you mention it, these
types of people do seem to be a lot more common than the engineers who love
engineering but just aren't good at it. The "I do this all day at work, I
don't want to even THINK about it after 5PM!" types.
I've found that people that get into engineering or programming to chase
the paycheck are universally bad at it. If you don't have a passion for
the field, you'll never be more than mediocre at it.
I've been programming since 1983. Not because I think it'll bring me fame
and fortune, but because I can't NOT write software. I know that I'm not
the best programmer out there, but I also know that the number worse at it
than I am vastly outnumber those that are better than I am. :)
g.
-- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
3:22 p.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
From: geneb
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 8:57 AM
I've found that people that get into engineering
or programming to
chase the paycheck are universally bad at it. If you don't have a
passion for the field, you'll never be more than mediocre at it.
I've been programming since 1983. Not because I
think it'll bring me
fame and fortune, but because I can't NOT write software. I know that
I'm not the best programmer out there, but I also know that the number
worse at it than I am vastly outnumber those that are better than I
am. :)
I'd never thought about that. Yes, I make (part of) my living as one of
the last active PDP-10 programmers in the world, but "I can't NOT write
software" strikes a chord I wasn't aware of till you said it.
During the years I was at that parochial school in New Haven CT pursuing
a graduate degree in linguistics, I had no access to computers. (Not
uncommon in 1975.) I read the article on implementing Conway's Life on
the Altair in _Popular Electronics_, ran off to the Engineering Library
(where they had back issues of _SciAm_), and paid good money to make a
xerographic copy Dewdney's columns on the game.
I proceeded to write a program to play the game on a 360-architecture
computer (my only architecture at the time) in OS/360 BAL, and desk-
checked it for correctness of implementation. When I went to Chicago to
continue my graduate studies--still in linguistics, mind you--I got a
job as the evening help desk at the Comp Center, and typed my program
(not particularly bit-efficient, so quite long) into the 370/168.
It ran.
I started doing Lisp implementation when I worked at Stanford, as well
as becoming a TECO programmer for EMACS. I had written a PDP-10
disassembler at Chicago which we used at XKL 20 years later.
I have to write software. Damn.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
5:54 p.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:
checked it for correctness of implementation. When I
went to Chicago to
continue my graduate studies--still in linguistics, mind you--I got a
job as the evening help desk at the Comp Center, and typed my program
(not particularly bit-efficient, so quite long) into the 370/168.
It ran.
I started doing Lisp implementation when I worked at Stanford, as well
as becoming a TECO programmer for EMACS. I had written a PDP-10
disassembler at Chicago which we used at XKL 20 years later.
I have to write software. Damn.
Thanks for pointing that out.
You're quite welcome. :)
I need to get myself up to that museum one of these days. I think I'd
openly drool. *laughs*
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
6 Jun
6 Jun
6:44 p.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On 6/4/13 2:54 PM, "geneb" <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:
We have towels. :-)
checked it for correctness of implementation.
When I went to Chicago to
continue my graduate studies--still in linguistics, mind you--I got a
job as the evening help desk at the Comp Center, and typed my program
(not particularly bit-efficient, so quite long) into the 370/168.
It ran.
I started doing Lisp implementation when I worked at Stanford, as well
as becoming a TECO programmer for EMACS. I had written a PDP-10
disassembler at Chicago which we used at XKL 20 years later.
I have to write software. Damn.
Thanks for pointing that out.
You're quite welcome. :)
I need to get myself up to that museum one of these days. I think I'd
openly drool. *laughs*
7:16 p.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On 06/06/2013 06:44 PM, Ian King wrote:
A towel will likely be insufficient for my first visit.
"Maybell! Fetch the basin!"
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
I need to get
myself up to that museum one of these days. I think I'd
openly drool. *laughs*
We have towels. :-)
7 Jun
7 Jun
10:18 a.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 06/06/2013 06:44 PM, Ian King wrote:
A towel will likely be insufficient for my first visit.
"Maybell! Fetch the basin!"
*ROFL*
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
I need to
get myself up to that museum one of these days. I think I'd
openly drool. *laughs*
We have towels. :-)
10:17 a.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Ian King wrote:
On 6/4/13 2:54 PM, "geneb" <geneb at
deltasoft.com> wrote:
Of this I have no doubt. :)
Is that classic computer user group still holding meetings there?
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:
We have towels. :-)
checked it for correctness of implementation.
When I went to Chicago to
continue my graduate studies--still in linguistics, mind you--I got a
job as the evening help desk at the Comp Center, and typed my program
(not particularly bit-efficient, so quite long) into the 370/168.
It ran.
I started doing Lisp implementation when I worked at Stanford, as well
as becoming a TECO programmer for EMACS. I had written a PDP-10
disassembler at Chicago which we used at XKL 20 years later.
I have to write software. Damn.
Thanks for pointing that out.
You're quite welcome. :)
I need to get myself up to that museum one of these days. I think I'd
openly drool. *laughs*
1:41 p.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of geneb
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:17 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX
Systems
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Ian King wrote:
No, when we opened to the public it became difficult finding enough space for them. The
Seattle Retro Computing Society is now meeting at the "Black Lodge Research
hackerspace in Redmond", per their website. -- Ian
On 6/4/13 2:54 PM, "geneb" <geneb at
deltasoft.com> wrote:
Of this I have no doubt. :)
Is that classic computer user group still holding meetings there?
I need to get myself up to that museum one of these days. I think
I'd openly drool. *laughs*
We have towels. :-)
2:39 p.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Ian King wrote:
Of this I have no doubt. :)
Is that classic computer user group still holding meetings there?
No, when we opened to the public it became difficult finding enough
space for them. The Seattle Retro Computing Society is now meeting at
the "Black Lodge Research hackerspace in Redmond", per their website.
-- Ian
Ahh, ok. Thanks. I wasn't aware they even had a website yet. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
I'd openly
drool. *laughs*
We have towels. :-)
4 Jun
4 Jun
11:59 p.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
[...], but
because I can't NOT write software.
[...] "I can't NOT write
software" strikes a chord I wasn't aware of
till you said it. 
5 Jun
5 Jun
3:27 a.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Tue, 5 Jun 2013, Mouse wrote:
The best painters are the ones who paint because they can't help
themselves. The best authors are the ones who can't not write. The
best musicians can't help playing - or composing, or whatever.
It seems to be common across widely disparate creative endeavours. I'm
not a bit surprised it manifests in programming too.
But, like you, I hadn't quite made the connection as clearly, nor
phrased it as elegantly....
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
If I can't help trying bizarre and crazy solutions to problems...what does
that make me? ;)
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
[...],
but because I can't NOT write software.
[...] "I can't NOT write
software" strikes a chord I wasn't aware of
till you said it. 
7:48 a.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2013, Mouse wrote:
The best painters are the ones who paint because they can't help
themselves. The best authors are the ones who can't not write. The
best musicians can't help playing - or composing, or whatever.
It seems to be common across widely disparate creative endeavours. I'm
not a bit surprised it manifests in programming too.
But, like you, I hadn't quite made the connection as clearly, nor
phrased it as elegantly....
If I can't help trying bizarre and crazy solutions to problems...what does
that make me? ;)
Welcome to the Mad Scientist club.
[...], but because I can't NOT write software.
[...] "I can't NOT write software" strikes a chord I wasn't aware
of
till you said it.
10:29 a.m.
New subject: bad engineers, was Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: Old UNIX Systems
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Tothwolf wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Man. Those were _awesome_ books. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
On Tue, 5 Jun 2013, Mouse wrote:
If I can't help trying bizarre and crazy solutions to problems...what does
that make me? ;)
Welcome to the Mad Scientist club.
>
[...], but because I can't NOT write software.
[...] "I can't NOT write software" strikes a chord I wasn't aware of
till you said it.
The best painters are the ones who paint because they can't help
themselves. The best authors are the ones who can't not write. The
best musicians can't help playing - or composing, or whatever.
It seems to be common across widely disparate creative endeavours. I'm
not a bit surprised it manifests in programming too.
But, like you, I hadn't quite made the connection as clearly, nor
phrased it as elegantly....
4 Jun
4 Jun
2:48 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, David Riley wrote:
On Jun 4, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
Were the engineers elitiats as well? (FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE
ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
There is another factor. It turns out that most
embedded projects that use
the 80386 are done in big companies, usually because they hire based on
resume' keyword searches, low stated salary requirements, etc. In other
words...people who aren't experienced enough to know why it's probably not a
good idea. Those guys either get promoted into middle management where they
can't do any more damage (and is probably what they wanted anyway), and then
someone else takes over. When that new person digs into the system, it's a
"big complicated unfamiliar mess", and that makes it even less likely that an
OS upgrade will happen simply because a new OS release has come available.
Correction: they get promoted to middle management where upper management
THINKS they can't do as much damage. I've seen plenty of damage done by
bad engineers promoted to middle management, where they insist on running
Linux on a massive processor when you could do the same with a tiny loop
on a tiny ARM. Bad engineers should be fired and made to find out what
it is that they actually want to do, like running a bakery or coaching
sports teams. I'm genuinely serious about that; most of the bad engineers
I've met just haven't had their heart in it.
- Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
4:15 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 06/04/2013 02:48 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Were the engineers elitiats as well? (FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE
ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
I think the people we're discussing are the ones who would say
something like "Functional programming? What version of Microsoft
Visual C++ does that come with?"
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
There is another factor. It turns out that most
embedded projects
that use
the 80386 are done in big companies, usually because they hire based on
resume' keyword searches, low stated salary requirements, etc. In other
words...people who aren't experienced enough to know why it's
probably not a
good idea. Those guys either get promoted into middle management
where they
can't do any more damage (and is probably what they wanted anyway),
and then
someone else takes over. When that new person digs into the system,
it's a
"big complicated unfamiliar mess", and that makes it even less likely
that an
OS upgrade will happen simply because a new OS release has come
available.
Correction: they get promoted to middle management where upper management
THINKS they can't do as much damage. I've seen plenty of damage done by
bad engineers promoted to middle management, where they insist on running
Linux on a massive processor when you could do the same with a tiny loop
on a tiny ARM. Bad engineers should be fired and made to find out what
it is that they actually want to do, like running a bakery or coaching
sports teams. I'm genuinely serious about that; most of the bad
engineers
I've met just haven't had their heart in it.
6:34 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:15, "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 06/04/2013 02:48 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Were the engineers elitiats as well? (FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE
ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
I think the people we're discussing are the ones who would say something like
"Functional programming? What version of Microsoft Visual C++ does that come
with?"
True.
There is another factor. It turns out that most
embedded projects
that use
the 80386 are done in big companies, usually because they hire based on
resume' keyword searches, low stated salary requirements, etc. In other
words...people who aren't experienced enough to know why it's
probably not a
good idea. Those guys either get promoted into middle management
where they
can't do any more damage (and is probably what they wanted anyway),
and then
someone else takes over. When that new person digs into the system,
it's a
"big complicated unfamiliar mess", and that makes it even less likely
that an
OS upgrade will happen simply because a new OS release has come
available.
Correction: they get promoted to middle management where upper management
THINKS they can't do as much damage. I've seen plenty of damage done by
bad engineers promoted to middle management, where they insist on running
Linux on a massive processor when you could do the same with a tiny loop
on a tiny ARM. Bad engineers should be fired and made to find out what
it is that they actually want to do, like running a bakery or coaching
sports teams. I'm genuinely serious about that; most of the bad
engineers
I've met just haven't had their heart in it.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
5 Jun
5 Jun
9:33 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
Dave McGuire wrote:
I think the people we're discussing are the
ones who would say
something like "Functional programming? What version of Microsoft
Visual C++ does that come with?"
To that kind of person, I think the answer is probably "F#".
Peace... Sridhar
6 Jun
6 Jun
4:05 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:15:29 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
Every. The template mechanism of C++ in itself is a turing
complete
functional programming language. Here are meta programms that calculate
prime numbers at compile time:
http://aszt.inf.elte.hu/~gsd/halado_cpp/ch06s04.html#Static-metaprogramming
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Programming/Templates/Template_Meta-Pr…
A "C++ programmer" who is not aware of this and doesn't make use of it,
should be put back to programming BASIC on a ZX81. That would be an
adequate level. ;-)
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
(FUNCTIONAL
PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
What version of Microsoft Visual C++ does
that come with?"
5:10 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 06/06/2013 04:05 PM, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:15:29 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
Every. The template mechanism of C++ in
itself is a turing complete
functional programming language. Here are meta programms that calculate
prime numbers at compile time:
http://aszt.inf.elte.hu/~gsd/halado_cpp/ch06s04.html#Static-metaprogramming
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Programming/Templates/Template_Meta-Pr…
A "C++ programmer" who is not aware of this and doesn't make use of it,
should be put back to programming BASIC on a ZX81. That would be an
adequate level. ;-)
Indeed, most likely. But you are aware that it was a joke, right?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
(FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
What version of Microsoft
Visual C++ does that come with?"
7 Jun
7 Jun
2:26 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:10:09 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
Indeed, most likely. But you are aware that it was
a joke, right?
Yes. But it is still surprising for many people that C++ has
functional
elements. Especially for people that ask questions like:
"What version of Microsoft Visual C++ does that come with?"
If those people understand what functional programming is at all...
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
11:42 a.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:10:09 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
The answer isn't, "C++ templates", the *question* is "C++
templates". The
answer is "No fscking way!" :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Indeed, most likely. But you are aware that
it was a joke, right?
Yes. But it is still surprising for many people that C++ has
functional
elements. Especially for people that ask questions like:
"What version of Microsoft Visual C++ does that come with?"
If those people understand what functional programming is at all...
1:52 p.m.
New subject: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of geneb
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:42 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Jochen Kunz wrote:
I recall reading a joke, that was subsequently stated as a claim of fact by my Programming
Languages professor: "There are often several ways to solve a given problem, and C++
includes them all." -- Ian
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:10:09 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
The answer isn't, "C++ templates", the *question* is "C++
templates". The
answer is "No fscking way!" :) Indeed, most likely. But you are aware that
it was a joke, right?
Yes. But it is still surprising for many people that C++ has
functional elements. Especially for people that ask questions like:
"What version of Microsoft Visual C++ does that come with?"
If those people understand what functional programming is at all... 
7:50 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 07/06/13 1:52 PM, Ian King wrote:
Only if you Greenspun the ones it doesn't have (like logic/constraint
programming, or, indeed, higher-order functions. It apparently gained
some form of closure recently but it remains unclear how a lexical
closure is reliably implemented without proper gc).
--T
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of geneb
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:42 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Jochen Kunz wrote:
I recall reading a joke, that was subsequently stated as a claim of fact by my
Programming Languages professor: "There are often several ways to solve a given
problem, and C++ includes them all." -- Ian
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:10:09 -0400
Dave McGuire<mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
The answer isn't, "C++ templates", the *question* is "C++
templates". The
answer is "No fscking way!" :) Indeed, most likely. But you are aware that
it was a joke, right?
Yes. But it is still surprising for many people that C++ has
functional elements. Especially for people that ask questions like:
"What version of Microsoft Visual C++ does that come with?"
If those people understand what functional programming is at all...
9 Jun
9 Jun
8:46 a.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 19:50:58 -0400
Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
[C++]
apparently gained
some form of closure recently but it remains unclear how a lexical
closure is reliably implemented without proper gc
Well. As allways with C++: It
leaves the decision up to the programmer.
This way the programmer can, well should, must, choose what way that is
most efficient for the given situation. You can "plug in" a full blowen
garbage collector to manage your memory. Or use smart pointers as a
simple, primitive variation of gc. (... that works so well in many
situations that a full blowen garbage collector is unnecessary many
times.) You can pass the "lexical scope" by value, i.e. make a copy at
the time the lambda is instantiated. (You may say that this defetas the
purpose of lambdas. But actually it is the proper solution in many
situations.) Or you can pass by reference. But in the later case you
have to ensure that the reference is still valid when the lambda is used.
That is the point about C++: If a language offers only one, single
mechanism for a task, like garbage collection for memory management, it
forces the programmer to this singe way. Even in situations where this
one, single machanism is not apropriate. C++ deliberately gives you the
choice of many ways. - And thus the responsibility to use your brains
to find the way most efficient way for the speciffic, given task at
hand.
Thats why I dont like e.g. Java. It imposes garbage collection on me
even where not appropriate or unwanted, making very usefull things like
RAII de facto impossible.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
11 a.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 6/9/13, Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> wrote:
That is the point about C++: If a language offers only
one, single
mechanism for a task, like garbage collection for memory management, it
forces the programmer to this singe way. Even in situations where this
one, single machanism is not apropriate. C++ deliberately gives you the
choice of many ways. - And thus the responsibility to use your brains
to find the way most efficient way for the speciffic, given task at
hand.
The downside of this flexibility is that the language ends up as an
unfocused, confused jumble of ideas and features. It's easy to build
a language by tossing in every capability someone asks for without
much thought to how they will interact or whether the end result will
be understandable, but much harder to design from the beginning with a
coherent, consistent set of organizing principles.
The C++ standard is so massive that the first thing many teams do is
decide on a subset to use and ignore the rest (also due to
historically buggy implementations of some features). Which maybe
works fine until you need to use someone else's code written with a
different subset. Big, complex things are harder to reason about and
understand, it's true for languages just as it is for programs.
10 Jun
10 Jun
3 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 11:00:45 -0400
Andrew Hoerter <amh at pobox.com> wrote:
The downside of this flexibility is that the language
ends up as an
unfocused, confused jumble of ideas and features. It's easy to build
a language by tossing in every capability someone asks for without
much thought to how they will interact or whether the end result will
be understandable, but much harder to design from the beginning with a
coherent, consistent set of organizing principles.
There is no single magic silver
bullet. Thats why C++ offers many
different bullets. But C++ itself is no magic silver bullet. It is a
tool with its uses and misuses. C++ is a big and complex power tool,
but a very capable tool for a programmer that knows to handle it.
Unfortunately many wanebes hack C++ and produce mediocre (at best)
code. Everyone can hit a pice of steel with a sledgehamer. But only a
few are capable to forge a double-edged sword.
The C++ standard is so massive
There is
something that adds to this: C++ wants to be as compatible
with C as it can. This is a double-edged sword. It is trivial to
interface C++ to old C code, but it encumbers C++ and sometimes adds
some awkwardness.
that the first thing many teams do is
decide on a subset to use and ignore the rest
Thats stupid in most cases. It is,
well, ignorant.
(also due to historically buggy implementations of
some features).
Implementations improve and once the bugs are shaken out it is time
to
remove any "don't use ..." policies. E.g. I use C++11. At work I still
have to use an old corss-gcc 4.5.something. It lacks some C++11
features, but most of it is there. There are some minor problems in our
old libstdc++, but thats close to cosmetic.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
4:14 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Jochen Kunz wrote:
There is no single magic silver bullet. Thats why C++
offers many
different bullets.
C++ always provides enough bullets for you to hang yourself.
4:50 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Jochen Kunz wrote:
So by comparison, Perl gives you just enough rope to shoot yourself in the
foot?
There is no single magic silver bullet. Thats why
C++ offers many
different bullets.
C++ always provides enough bullets for you to hang yourself.
6:11 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
> C++ always provides enough bullets for you to
hang yourself.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Tothwolf wrote:
So by comparison, Perl gives you just enough rope to
shoot yourself in the
foot?
already used as the title of one of Holub's books (debugging puzzles)
4:56 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Jochen Kunz wrote:
Not to mention the built-in cluster bombs, VX gas, Sarin, Phosgene and
bouncing betties! It's a FULL SERVICE ruiner of your day! :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
There is no single magic silver bullet. Thats why
C++ offers many
different bullets.
C++ always provides enough bullets for you to hang yourself. 
9 Jun
9 Jun
2:14 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 6/9/2013 5:46 AM, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 19:50:58 -0400
Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
[C++]
Is this actually an option? I'll admit it's been a few years since I
last investigated this but my understanding is that C++ garbage
collectors are all extremely limited in their ability to actually work
with real-world code. Especially if you commit the sin of calling other
code that isn't GC aware (i.e. all of it) or use pointers in interesting
ways, etc. Has this changed?
I think the "deliberate choice of many ways" you mention C++ giving you
basically boils down to either using ref counting (hopefully via RAII)
or nothing at all.
- Josh
apparently gained
some form of closure recently but it remains unclear how a lexical
closure is reliably implemented without proper gc
Well. As allways with C++: It
leaves the decision up to the programmer.
This way the programmer can, well should, must, choose what way that is
most efficient for the given situation. You can "plug in" a full blowen
garbage collector to manage your memory.
4:05 p.m.
New subject: C++, "multiparadigm"??? - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:14:40 -0700
Josh Dersch <derschjo at gmail.com> wrote:
I'll admit it's been a few years since I
last investigated this but my understanding is that C++ garbage
collectors are all extremely limited in their ability to actually work
with real-world code. Especially if you commit the sin of calling other
code that isn't GC aware (i.e. all of it) or use pointers in interesting
ways, etc. Has this changed?
I don't know if it changed. I never had the need
to use GC in C++.
Smart pointers, i.e. proper RAIIed ref counting, was suitable for my
needs up to now. But C++11 introduced a garbage collection ABI. There
is a paragraph about this in Stroustrups C++11 FAQ:
http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#gc-abi
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
4 Jun
4 Jun
8:26 p.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 04/06/13 2:48 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
...
Were the engineers elitiats as well? (FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE
ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
Nobody claims it solves all problems. But it certainly solves some
important ones.
Progress *is* allowed, you know.
--T
6 Jun
6 Jun
4:50 p.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:26:19 -0400
Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
Very true. A programming language is a tool. Every tool has its
use.
There are some fairly universal tools that fit many uses. But some
tools fit a particular problem better then other tools. A good software
engineer has to know those tools and when to apply what tool for what
problem. nail => hammer, screw => screw driver. But still you can
(miss) use a screw driver as a hamer. As noted elsewhere C++ supports
functional programming. But writing pure functional programms in C++
templates is an awful pain. Imperative C++ with the right dose of
functional "template spice" can be a pleasure.
Were the
engineers elitiats as well? (FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE
ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
Nobody claims it solves all problems. But it certainly solves
some
important ones. Progress *is* allowed, you know.
Functional
programming is no progress. It is as old as imperative
programming. But it can be progress for a programmer to learn and use
functional programming, as it teaches you a different way to think.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
7:57 p.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 06/06/13 4:50 PM, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:26:19 -0400
Toby Thain<toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
Very true. A programming language is a tool. ...
Yes, of course, the Lisp and Fortran forks of the tree occurred around
the same time.
But functional programming languages today represent major advances over
*mainstream* imperative languages in expressivity and - with a type
system like Haskell's or Scala's - correctness and productivity.
Neglecting the past 40 years of functional programming R&D is probably
the biggest single most costly mistake of the industry. In this sense,
an acknowledgement of that intellectual input *is* major progress.
The mainstream languages have a lot of catching up to do (some of them
now have closures of various shades of broken-ness, which Scheme made
solid in 1975, but it will be a long wait for the rest...)
--Toby
Were the
engineers elitiats as well? (FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL SOLVE
ALL PROBLEMS!!!)
Nobody claims it solves all problems. But it certainly solves
some
important ones. Progress *is* allowed, you know.
Functional programming is no progress. It is as old as imperative
programming. But it can be progress for a programmer to learn and use
functional programming, as it teaches you a different way to think.
11:02 p.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
But functional programming languages today represent
major advances
over *mainstream* imperative languages in expressivity and - with a
type system like Haskell's or Scala's - correctness and productivity.
For some problems and programmers. They are unmitigated disasters in
other cases. Functional programming is particularly bad at event loops
that mutate state based on external input; doing such a thing basically
requires reinventing variables in a way that jumps through the hoops
necessary to make it fit the rather Procrustean FP bed.
FP is an important tool, both for the sake of the tasks it _is_ a good
fit for and for the sake of the mind expansion learning it produces (in
those who do manage to get their heads around it). But to dogmatically
declare it an advance in pretty much any task-independent practical
metric is to drink some rather unrealistic ivory-tower koolaid.
Of course, the same is equally true of pretty much any programming
paradigm; FP is very far indeed from being alone in this respect.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
11:46 p.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On 06/06/13 11:02 PM, Mouse wrote:
It's simple to teach and use.
But functional
programming languages today represent major advances
over *mainstream* imperative languages in expressivity and - with a
type system like Haskell's or Scala's - correctness and productivity.
For some problems and programmers. They are unmitigated disasters in
other cases. Functional programming is particularly bad at event loops
that mutate state based on external input; doing such a thing basically
requires reinventing variables in a way that jumps through the hoops
necessary to make it fit the rather Procrustean FP bed.
FP is an important tool, both for the sake of the tasks it _is_ a good
fit for and for the sake of the mind expansion learning it produces (in
those who do manage to get their heads around it). But to dogmatically
declare it an advance in pretty much any task-independent practical
metric is to drink some rather unrealistic ivory-tower koolaid.
I've never actually seen anyone do that, but it's a popular strawman.
--T
Of course, the same is equally true of pretty much any programming
paradigm; FP is very far indeed from being alone in this respect.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
7 Jun
7 Jun
9:21 a.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Toby Thain wrote:
This is also a joke right? You've *never* encountered a technological zealot
or a shill?
--
Jason
Sent from my DEC 3000
On 06/06/13 11:02 PM, Mouse wrote:
This is a joke, right?
It really is a different way of thinking that's not easy for some folks to
pick up. I'm interested to hear your your approach which makes
functional programming simple and easy.
FP is an important tool, both for the sake of the
tasks it _is_ a good
fit for and for the sake of the mind expansion learning it produces (in
those who do manage to get their heads around it).
It's simple to teach and use.
But to
dogmatically
declare it an advance in pretty much any task-independent practical
metric is to drink some rather unrealistic ivory-tower koolaid.
I've never actually seen anyone do that, but it's a popular strawman.
--T
12:12 p.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Jason Howe wrote:
This is also a joke right? You've *never* encountered a technological zealot
or a shill?
Encountered? He _is_. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
But to dogmatically
declare it an advance in pretty much any task-independent practical
metric is to drink some rather unrealistic ivory-tower koolaid.
I've never actually seen anyone do that, but it's a popular strawman.
--T
3:27 p.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
FP is [...] and for the sake of the mind expansion
learning it
produces (in those who do manage to get their heads around it).
It's simple to
teach and use. It really is a different way of thinking that's
not easy for some
folks to pick up.
It is. It's a very interesting way of thinking, but, yes, it's not
easy for some people.
Including me. I _implemented_ continuations (I wrote a Lisp engine and
one of the things it does is continuations), and I still subscribe to
the dictum that the continuation that does not bend your brain is not
the true continuation.
But to dogmatically declare it an advance in pretty
much any
task-independent practical metric is to drink some rather
unrealistic ivory-tower koolaid.
I've never actually seen anyone do that, but
it's a popular
strawman.
9 Jun
9 Jun
9:03 a.m.
New subject: Functional programming - Re: NetBSD's i386 support, was Re: [cctalk] Old UNIX Systems
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Jason Howe <jason at smbfc.net> wrote:
[functional programming]
The same can be said about imperative programming.
People usually get started with imperative programming. It is familar,
as it is like a cooking recipe: Do this, then that until condition,
finaly do ...
If you are a mathematician, functional programming will be much closer
to what you are used to.
Currently I am diving into Haskell. Many times it is astonishing to me
how easy and natural some things are to express in a functional
programming language.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
It's
simple to teach and use.
This is a joke, right?
It really is a different way of thinking that's not easy for some folks to
pick up.
4094
days inactive
4100
days old
44 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
amh＠POBOX.COM -
b4＠gewt.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
derschjo＠gmail.com -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
jason＠smbfc.net -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
seefriek＠gmail.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au -
tothwolf＠concentric.net