using an FPGA to emulate a vintage computer
in [FPGA]
|
From: Michael Wojcik on 9 Mar 2010 13:15 Brian Boutel wrote: > Michael Wojcik wrote: >> >> If we relax the definition to allow named as well as anonymous >> functions, then someone could argue that get-accessors for properties >> are thunks, and those are quite common in modern languages. > > In functional languages with lazy evaluation (e.g. Haskell) arguments > are passed unevaluated, so an actual argument that is an expression > needs to be parcelled up as a piece of code and an environment in which > is is to be evaluated (i.e the bindings of the free variables in the > code). This amounts to a thunk. Good point. I have a passing familiarity with lazy evaluation, but even with functional programming most of my experience is with eager-evaluating languages like OCaml, so I didn't think of this example. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Greg Menke on 9 Mar 2010 15:10 Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> writes: > Greg Menke wrote: >> >> C++ does make for a nice "type-safe linking" C compiler. > > Except that it's not a C implementation, and so is not a C compiler at > all. > > C and C++ are different languages. Perhaps so, yet it is possible to compile C programs with a C++ and observe some benefits relating to better compile-time and link-time type checking. One can then disassemble the object modules created by C vs C++ compilers and observe the distinct similarity of with respect to the runtime structure. Which is why it "makes for a nice C compiler", not "is a better C compiler". Gregm
From: Greg Menke on 9 Mar 2010 15:18 Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> writes: > Greg Menke wrote: >> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> C is a collection of ad-hoc ideas. WG14 may have put a great deal of >>> thought into how to extend it without breaking the existing mosh, but >>> that's my point, it's still a mosh. >> >> iostream formatting operators, because we really need more operator >> overloading and no enhancements are too bizarre in service of making >> everything, (for particular values of everything), specialized? > > How fortunate, then, that C does not have them. You are quoting out of context. The original topic to which I followed up via the above quote was related to the sometimes "undesigned" appearance of C++. The particular quote above suggests C was already a collection of ad-hoc ideas, so that C++ is not a substantial departure from existing practice. >> Oh but wait, you can compile, install and dig your way through Boost so >> as to avoid the fun & games of vanilla iostream. > > Not in C, you can't. See above. > >> Thank goodness printf and friends are still around. > > Indeed, since a great number of C programs use them, and the committee > is explicitly charged with maintaining upward compatibility from the > first standard. See above. Gregm
From: Gene Wirchenko on 9 Mar 2010 15:59 On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:55:56 -0600, Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: [snip] >I think there is *not* a single C programmer who has *not* had his >hand slapped by making the mistake of using "=" when he meant >"==". Thus the avalanche of replies... :-) And because of this stupidity in language design being taken as acceptable, now, there is, in some related languages, the problem of using == when you needed ===. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko
From: Andy Botterill on 9 Mar 2010 16:18
Could you please move this discussion about C and related programming languages out of comp.arch.fpga. This thread has deviated considerably from the original posters request which was mostly on topic. Andy |