Next Generation of Language
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: a potential lisp convert, and interpreting the shootout
Next: ANN: ABLE 0.1, A Basic Lisp Editor
From: Kirk Sluder on 13 Jan 2007 02:40 In article <pan.2007.01.13.05.56.28.181008(a)tznvy.pbz>, Chris Barts <puonegf+hfrarg(a)tznvy.pbz> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:37:59 -0800, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > > > Chris Barts wrote: > > > >> > >> How many people have forgotten that 'code' is a mass noun and, as such, > >> does not take plurals? Do you also say 'these muds' and 'these dusts'? > > > > How many people have forgotten that *language changes over time* and is > > not something handed down from the elder days, never to be changed? > > "Like, wow, dude! Language is whatever I say it is! Crumb buttercake up > the windowpane with the black shoehorn butterhorse!" Actually, to be pedantic, 'code' is a collective noun similar to 'government,' 'people' or 'team' with the appropriate definition for this context being: "Any system of symbols and rules for expressing information or instructions in a form usable by a computer or other machine for processing or transmitting information." My OED cites plural uses going back to the mid-18th century: 1735: Larger far Than civil codes with all their glosses are. 1818: The different German tribes were first governed by codes of laws formed by their respective chiefs. 1875: Maritime codes of signals. And finally in cybernetics 1970: A saving in computer time..compared with the discrete ordinate codes NIOBE and STRAINT. This makes sense given that the derivation is from CODEX or book, and the 14th century use of the term focuses on the code of laws created by specific Roman Emperors (presumably in contrast with codes created by other Roman emperors.) And in fact, the OED has a specific definition for the plural "muds," "2. In pl. Tracts of mud on the margin of a tidal river; mudflats." 1755: Near half a mile front on said river of flats or muds, which yields extraordinary pasture at all seasons. 1902: There are still no flounders on the famous Bishop's Muds. Along with comparative use of "muds" as a plural: 1885: Encycl. Brit. XVIII. 122/1 At some points in the same regions are found green muds and sands, which, as regards their origin..resemble the blue muds. There is even documented use of "dusts" in there to compare between types of dusts. "Of the many dusts tested, wheat dust was most flammable." Of course I'm a pretty strong descriptivists who feels that the pragmatics of language do more to keep things stable than well-meaning but misguided grammar wonks who don't understand what they seek to defend. So I'll just point out that you are arguing against about 250 years of formal use on this one.
From: Rob Warnock on 13 Jan 2007 05:11 Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> wrote: +--------------- | My argument is that physically, these machines actually are distributed | memory systems, but their programming model is that of a shared memory | system. And this illusion is maintained by a combination of hardware | (route requests to non-local memory over the interconnect, deal with | cache-coherency etc) and system-level software (arrange life so that | memory is local to the threads which are using it where that is | possible etc). | | Of course these machines typically are not MPP systems, and are also | typically not HPC-oriented. Though I think SGI made NUMA systems with | really quite large numbers of processors, and a Sun E25K can have 144 | cores (72 2-core processors), though I think it would be quite unusual | to run a configuration like that as a single domain. +--------------- SGI *stills* makes large ccNUMA systems, the Altix 4700 series, which offer a very large global main memeory, up to 128 TB(!), with global cache coherency (sequential consistency, to be specific) and with up to 512 Itanium CPUs standard (up to 1024 by special-order) in a *single* domain, that is, a single instance of Linux, see: http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/ Two things make this scale well: 1. A directory-based cache coherency system, which keeps cache line ownership information with the memory subsystem the cache line is in. 2. Compared to other large ccNUMA or NUMA systems, a really low ratio of remote to local memory access times, varying between 3:1 to 4:1 for large to very-large systems. And, yes, there a quite a few HPC customers who run systems that large as single images for SMP-style codes which don't convert to MPI style very well. -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Rob Warnock on 13 Jan 2007 05:18 Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> wrote: +--------------- | My argument is that physically, these machines actually are distributed | memory systems, but their programming model is that of a shared memory | system. And this illusion is maintained by a combination of hardware | (route requests to non-local memory over the interconnect, deal with | cache-coherency etc) and system-level software (arrange life so that | memory is local to the threads which are using it where that is | possible etc). | | Of course these machines typically are not MPP systems, and are also | typically not HPC-oriented. Though I think SGI made NUMA systems with | really quite large numbers of processors, and a Sun E25K can have 144 | cores (72 2-core processors), though I think it would be quite unusual | to run a configuration like that as a single domain. +--------------- SGI *still* makes large ccNUMA systems, the Altix 4700 series, which offer a very large global main memeory, up to 128 TB(!), with global cache coherency (sequential consistency, to be specific) and with up to 512 Itanium CPUs standard (up to 1024 by special-order) in a *single* domain, that is, a single instance of Linux, see: http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/ Two things make this scale well: 1. A directory-based cache coherency system, which keeps cache line ownership information with the memory subsystem the cache line is in. 2. Compared to other large ccNUMA or NUMA systems, a really low ratio of remote to local memory access times, varying between 3:1 to 4:1 for large to very-large systems. And, yes, there a quite a few HPC customers who run systems that large as single images for SMP-style codes which don't convert to MPI style very well. -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Tim Bradshaw on 13 Jan 2007 10:10 Kirk Sluder wrote: > My OED cites plural uses going back to the mid-18th century: > 1735: Larger far Than civil codes with all their glosses are. > 1818: The different German tribes were first governed by codes of > laws formed by their respective chiefs. > 1875: Maritime codes of signals. Yes, I should have thought of things like "legal code" "legal codes" which are clearly evidence of plural use going back a long time ... > > And finally in cybernetics > 1970: A saving in computer time..compared with the discrete ordinate > codes NIOBE and STRAINT. .... and that might be the HPC usage, though it depends exactly on what NIOBE and STRAINT were - I suppose one could look up the OED citation if one cared. > And in fact, the OED has a specific definition for the plural "muds," Heh > There is even documented use of "dusts" in there to compare between > types of dusts. "Of the many dusts tested, wheat dust was most > flammable." That's exactly the usage I would have expected. > well-meaning but misguided grammar wonks who don't understand what > they seek to defend. He won't like split infinitives either. Mind you I own both of the Fowlers' books and have read thyem more-or-less end to end. Mostly I think because they're so nicely written. --tim
From: Tim Bradshaw on 13 Jan 2007 10:12
Chris Barts wrote: > "Like, wow, dude! Language is whatever I say it is! Crumb buttercake up > the windowpane with the black shoehorn butterhorse!" I'm afraid I can make neither head nor tail of your curious colonial speech. |