2013-03-25 00:00 biot has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 2013-03-25 00:03 DocScrutinizer51 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:03 kyak_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:03 wpwrak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:03 rozzin has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:05 biot has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:07 kristianpaul has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:07 kristianpaul has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:14 rozzin has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 2013-03-25 00:15 wpwrak has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 2013-03-25 00:15 wpwrak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:22 rozzin has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:22 DocScrutinizer51 has quit [*.net *.split] 2013-03-25 00:22 kyak_ has quit [*.net *.split] 2013-03-25 00:23 kyak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:23 kyak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:23 kyak has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 00:23 DocScrutinizer51 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:32 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:34 wpwrak has quit [*.net *.split] 2013-03-25 00:34 dandon has quit [*.net *.split] 2013-03-25 00:34 panda|znc has quit [*.net *.split] 2013-03-25 00:37 DocScrutinizer51 has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 2013-03-25 00:38 DocScrutinizer51 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:39 sivoais has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 00:40 sivoais has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:40 panda|z has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:45 wpwrak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:45 dandon has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:50 DocScrutinizer51 has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 2013-03-25 00:51 gbraad has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:51 gbraad has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 00:51 gbraad has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 00:51 DocScrutinizer51 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:02 gbraad has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 01:07 DocScrutinizer51 has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 2013-03-25 01:07 kyak has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 2013-03-25 01:07 gbraad has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:07 gbraad has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 01:07 gbraad has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:08 DocAvalanche has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:08 kyak_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:09 DocAvalanche is now known as DocScrutinizer51 2013-03-25 01:16 gbraad has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 01:28 gbraad has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:28 gbraad has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 01:28 gbraad has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:48 wolfspraul has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:50 dlan^ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 01:58 dandon__ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:00 dlan^ has quit [Excess Flood] 2013-03-25 02:09 dandon__ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 2013-03-25 02:09 dandon has quit [Ping timeout: 684 seconds] 2013-03-25 02:11 dandon_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:11 dandon_ is now known as dandon 2013-03-25 02:11 lkcl has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:19 DocScrutinizer51 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 02:21 DocScrutinizer51 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:22 lkcl has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 02:24 lkcl_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:29 lkcl__ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:34 lkcl_ has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 2013-03-25 02:42 DocScrutinizer51 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 02:43 DocScrutinizer51 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:47 dandon_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:50 rz2k has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 02:51 dandon has quit [Ping timeout: 282 seconds] 2013-03-25 02:51 dandon_ is now known as dandon 2013-03-25 02:58 dandon_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 03:06 dandon has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 2013-03-25 03:19 qi-bot has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 03:41 qi-bot has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 03:42 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 257 seconds] 2013-03-25 03:43 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 04:04 DocScrutinizer05 has quit [Disconnected by services] 2013-03-25 04:04 DocScrutinizer06 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 04:04 DocScrutinizer06 is now known as DocScrutinizer05 2013-03-25 04:59 megha has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 05:00 baba has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 2013-03-25 05:40 larsc_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 05:41 zedstar_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 05:42 mirko_ is now known as mirko 2013-03-25 05:45 Guest19240_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 05:45 wolfspraul has quit [Quit: leaving] 2013-03-25 05:46 panda|znc has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 05:46 larsc has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 05:46 zedstar has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 05:46 panda|z has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 05:46 Guest19240 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 06:16 kyak_ is now known as kyak 2013-03-25 06:16 kyak has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 06:16 kyak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 06:17 kyak is now known as kyak_ 2013-03-25 06:17 kyak_ is now known as kyak 2013-03-25 06:50 why is that ASIC miner even a part of qi-hw wiki?.. 2013-03-25 07:03 apelete has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 07:19 jluis has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 07:22 gbraad has quit [Quit: Lost terminal] 2013-03-25 07:38 jekhor_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:07 Calyp has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:23 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 08:24 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:35 rz2k_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:35 jekhor__ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:38 qi-bot7 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:39 xiangfu_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:39 qi-bot has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 2013-03-25 08:39 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 2013-03-25 08:39 jekhor_ has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 2013-03-25 08:39 qi-bot7 is now known as qi-bot 2013-03-25 08:40 rz2k has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 08:40 larsc_ has quit [*.net *.split] 2013-03-25 08:41 jluis|work has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:41 jluis has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 2013-03-25 08:42 kyak has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 08:42 kyak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:42 kyak has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:42 kyak has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 08:44 larsc has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 08:44 wolfspraul has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 09:20 wolfspraul has quit [Quit: leaving] 2013-03-25 09:37 lekernel has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 09:54 kuribas has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 10:10 jekhor__ has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 10:15 unclouded has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 10:27 kuribas has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 2013-03-25 10:49 kuribas has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 11:12 MistahDarcy has quit [Quit: Leaving] 2013-03-25 11:27 zedstar_ is now known as zedstar 2013-03-25 11:27 zedstar has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 11:27 zedstar has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 11:43 wolfspraul has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 11:50 jekhor__ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 11:57 newcup has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 12:35 paroneayea has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 12:48 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 12:59 security has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 13:00 megha has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 2013-03-25 13:30 pcercuei2 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 13:30 pcercuei has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 2013-03-25 13:32 uwe__ is now known as uwe_ 2013-03-25 13:53 guanucoluis has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 14:07 guanucoluis has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 14:07 guanucoluis has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 14:10 LunaVorax has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 14:21 kuribas has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 2013-03-25 14:23 pcercuei2 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 14:31 guanucoluis has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 2013-03-25 14:54 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 15:14 guanucoluis has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 15:17 pcercuei2 has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 15:18 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 15:20 rz2k_ has quit [] 2013-03-25 15:27 pcercuei2 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 15:37 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 15:47 apelete has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 2013-03-25 15:52 pcercuei has quit [Read error: No route to host] 2013-03-25 15:53 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 15:54 emeb has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 16:07 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 16:14 i just discovered the older syntax for function definition: "The parameters are named between the parentheses, and their types are declared before 2013-03-25 16:14 opening the left brace" 2013-03-25 16:15 K&R, yes 2013-03-25 16:15 i found it more convenient for functions with many arguments, because it is easier to edit and change arguments types 2013-03-25 16:16 it's horrible, in my opinion 2013-03-25 16:16 but i wonder hwo portable is it? it is supported by gcc is all i know 2013-03-25 16:16 the historical context is that back in the days, everything was `int`. 2013-03-25 16:16 so you didn't really specify any types. 2013-03-25 16:16 I think gcc will tell you that it's bad idea to do this 2013-03-25 16:16 (by default, that is) 2013-03-25 16:16 return types, argument types, even variable types 2013-03-25 16:16 main; is valid C89 2013-03-25 16:16 gcc just silently "eats" it 2013-03-25 16:16 kyak: -Wall -pedantic, etc 2013-03-25 16:16 (and is equivalent to `int main`) 2013-03-25 16:17 gcc can issue warnings for such things. some old-style definitions can also cause real trouble. 2013-03-25 16:18 e.g., you can declare a function just as extern int blabla(); ("extern" and "int" are both optional, but gcc can complain if you omit the "int") 2013-03-25 16:18 but how convenient it is! you can say int param1, param2 instead of int param1, in param2 2013-03-25 16:18 kyak: you can even say param1, param2 2013-03-25 16:18 this would then be compatible with any (!) list of arguments. so you lose all checking and all type conversion as well. 2013-03-25 16:18 no, i'm only talking about definition.. i understand it is bad for declaration 2013-03-25 16:18 without any int at all 2013-03-25 16:19 larsc: do you mean, in old style? 2013-03-25 16:20 as whitequark everything is an int by default 2013-03-25 16:20 as whitequark said 2013-03-25 16:21 jluis|work has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 16:22 in a way ... i think pointers were special. not sure how they actually implemented them. they probably assumed that sizeof(pointer) <= sizeof(int) 2013-03-25 16:22 wpwrak: = 2013-03-25 16:22 int = ptr = machine word 2013-03-25 16:23 and char just became an int 2013-03-25 16:23 apelete has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 16:23 afaik 2013-03-25 16:23 yep, i use just (param1, param2) in definition. But if i wanted to make them chars, char param1, param2 before the left brace is more compact than (char param1, char param2). Again, i'm only talking about the definition 2013-03-25 16:24 whitequark: ah, there are subtleties. e.g., you could have different kinds of pointers. e.g., if your machine had a memory for numbers and another memory for characters, you'd have quite different pointers 2013-03-25 16:24 did you know that the c standard differentiates between function pointer size and data pointer size? 2013-03-25 16:24 of course, this sort of architectures is pretty much extinct now 2013-03-25 16:24 gcc will throw a warning if you assign a function pointer to a data pointer 2013-03-25 16:24 larsc: yes, of course 2013-03-25 16:25 that's still useful e.g. AVR 2013-03-25 16:25 but I'm not sure if it was in K&R C 2013-03-25 16:25 dunno about the PDP-7 arch 2013-03-25 16:26 btw, i like it how how they get through the first chapter (Introduction) of K&R without using pointers at all 2013-03-25 16:26 the example programs are very simple of course, but still 2013-03-25 16:29 they get through entire java books without using pointers at all ;) 2013-03-25 16:30 don't mention java 2013-03-25 16:30 please 2013-03-25 16:30 probably ruby books as well 2013-03-25 16:30 hrm 2013-03-25 16:30 you get exposed to indirection pretty quickly in ruby 2013-03-25 16:30 a = []; b = a; b << 1; a # => [1] 2013-03-25 16:31 at this point people usually come to #ruby-lang and ask questions. 2013-03-25 16:32 having to confront unpleasant truths early helps to strengthen the character :) 2013-03-25 16:32 oh exactly 2013-03-25 16:32 like there is no santa 2013-03-25 16:32 or easterbunny 2013-03-25 16:32 to stay in the season 2013-03-25 16:32 what season 2013-03-25 16:32 * whitequark looks at piles of snow 2m high 2013-03-25 16:33 it *is* decemper 2013-03-25 16:33 you only need to go the nearest supermarket 2013-03-25 16:33 *december 2013-03-25 16:33 all the clocks are simply wrong 2013-03-25 16:34 "Call by value is an asset, however, not a liability." - i'm quoting K&R :) 2013-03-25 16:35 call by value is pretty much a requirement for any systems programming 2013-03-25 16:35 whitequark: don't look at my piles! they are mine! mine! 2013-03-25 16:35 the first thing they did to haskell in order to adopt it to systems programming (Habit) was to make it call-by-value 2013-03-25 16:35 also call-by-name coupled with pervasive side effects is a disaster 2013-03-25 16:35 demonstrated by, I think, ALGOL 2013-03-25 16:36 whitequark: what do you mean by systems programming? 2013-03-25 16:42 larsc: that is a broad topic. but if you need to be able to talk directly to hardware, that's systems programming. 2013-03-25 16:42 same for manually managing memory. 2013-03-25 16:42 why do you need call by value for that? 2013-03-25 16:43 makes me wonder, why C function can't return two arguments - one has to use pointers for that. Why not simple make C a pass-by-reference language then? Especially considering the extensive use of pointers in C 2013-03-25 16:43 larsc: call-by-name is essentially lazy evaluation, and most of the aforementioned code depends on side effects being executed in accurate order 2013-03-25 16:44 ah ok 2013-03-25 16:44 i see 2013-03-25 16:44 kyak: I think the biggest problem with that is that you'd need to update the ABI for every single architecture 2013-03-25 16:45 otherwise, C is pass-by-value for input arguments and pass-by-reference (kind of) for output 2013-03-25 16:45 kyak: pass-by-reference? 2013-03-25 16:45 C is strictly pass-by-value 2013-03-25 16:45 whitequark: that's why a said "kind of". 2013-03-25 16:45 you need to use pointers if you need more than one output 2013-03-25 16:46 struct { int a; int b} f() 2013-03-25 16:46 ok, if you need to scalar outputs 2013-03-25 16:46 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 16:46 you understand what i mean, don't suggest me your little tricks :) 2013-03-25 16:47 also, if it's pass-by-value, what i can't pass the array value? 2013-03-25 16:47 because there are no array values 2013-03-25 16:47 as input 2013-03-25 16:48 struct { int a, b; } foo() { struct {int a, b; } foo = { 0, 0 }; return foo; 2013-03-25 16:48 } 2013-03-25 16:48 gcc is extra helpful here: 2013-03-25 16:48 test.c:3:3: error: incompatible types when returning type ‘struct ’ but ‘struct ’ was expected 2013-03-25 16:48 it's not a trick :) 2013-03-25 16:48 clang: 2013-03-25 16:48 test.c:3:10: error: returning 'struct ' from a function with incompatible result type 2013-03-25 16:48 'struct '; 2013-03-25 16:48 return foo; 2013-03-25 16:48 ^~~ 2013-03-25 16:49 kewl, you can do this: 2013-03-25 16:49 typedef struct { int a, b; } ret_t; 2013-03-25 16:49 } 2013-03-25 16:49 ret_t foo() { return (ret_t) { 0, 0 }; 2013-03-25 16:50 just declaring struct foo wuold also do the trick ... 2013-03-25 16:50 there's nothing magic here 2013-03-25 16:50 wpwrak: then I'd have to do `return (struct ret_t)` for C89 compat 2013-03-25 16:50 I think 2013-03-25 16:51 I thought I could do that in-line. LLVM IR can do this: 2013-03-25 16:51 ret { i32, i32 } { 0, 0} 2013-03-25 16:52 that looks very wrong 2013-03-25 16:52 well, LLVM has strictly structural typing 2013-03-25 16:52 and you'd have to .... struct ret_t ret; ... return ret; 2013-03-25 16:53 I'm not sure about C spec... 2013-03-25 16:53 wpwrak: yeah. 2013-03-25 16:53 (return is not a function - no parentheses needed) 2013-03-25 16:53 um, that is not a "method call" 2013-03-25 16:53 it's a type conversion 2013-03-25 16:53 I could also write it as ret_t({ 0, 0 }) 2013-03-25 16:53 but not ret_t { 0, 0 } 2013-03-25 16:54 test.c:3:10: error: expected expression return struct ret_t { 0, 0 }; 2013-03-25 16:54 I think (ret_t) {0, 0} is gcc extension 2013-03-25 16:55 looks like a logical extrapolation from aggregate initializers 2013-03-25 16:56 both gcc and clang eat (struct ret) { 0, 0 } in --std=c89 2013-03-25 16:56 oh -pedantic suggests it's C99 2013-03-25 16:57 ah ok 2013-03-25 17:02 so i can pass arrays by value.. just need to wrap them into a structure? 2013-03-25 17:04 yes 2013-03-25 17:05 yep 2013-03-25 17:05 am i the only one finding the pass-by-value concept of C inconsistent? I'm talking about inconsistency between inputs and outputs of a function 2013-03-25 17:07 you mean the number of things you can pass in/out ? or what kind of things you can pass in/out ? 2013-03-25 17:08 that you cannot have more than one return value? 2013-03-25 17:08 yeah, more recent languages all have this built-in 2013-03-25 17:08 Lua, Ruby, Python, etc 2013-03-25 17:08 Lisp could simply return a list 2013-03-25 17:08 yeah, i'm talking about the number of outputs 2013-03-25 17:08 (actually, Ruby and Python do that, too. it's just Lua who has native multi-return support) 2013-03-25 17:08 (R&P also have deconstructing assignment for arrays/tuples.) 2013-03-25 17:09 a, b, c = [1, 2, 3] 2013-03-25 17:09 or a, b, c = get_multi 2013-03-25 17:09 yeah, many languages do that.. MATLAB does that 2013-03-25 17:12 and then there are "exceptions". When you pass an array name to C function, you get the address. I mean, isn't it just another proof that passing by reference would make more sense? 2013-03-25 17:12 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 17:13 Calyp_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 17:14 and then you can suddenly subscript that value using square brackets.. But hey, it's an address! 2013-03-25 17:14 Calyp has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 17:15 square brackets do not exist. 2013-03-25 17:15 subscripts, also. 2013-03-25 17:15 it is a syntactic sugar for addition. 2013-03-25 17:17 i see.. sugar is not healthy :) 2013-03-25 17:17 syntacitc sugar for addication ;) 2013-03-25 17:17 syntactic sugar for addicition 2013-03-25 17:18 addiction? 2013-03-25 17:18 so you get addicited to using the language 2013-03-25 17:19 you just can't get that word right, can you? :) 2013-03-25 17:19 too much sugar 2013-03-25 17:19 can type anymore 2013-03-25 17:19 cant 2013-03-25 17:20 rofl 2013-03-25 17:20 do you advise against using square brackets, but rather use pointers? 2013-03-25 17:20 kyak: why? it's the same thing 2013-03-25 17:20 it's not 2013-03-25 17:20 if square brackets make your code more clear (they do), use them. 2013-03-25 17:20 larsc: how so? 2013-03-25 17:20 whitequark: dunno, it sound bad the way you said it 2013-03-25 17:21 whitequark: can't remember ;) 2013-03-25 17:23 "When you use the type char x[] instead of char *x with initialization, they are completely 100% different." 2013-03-25 17:23 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1790704/difference-between-square-brackets-and-asterisk 2013-03-25 17:23 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 17:23 um, [] do not mean "subscript" in declaration 2013-03-25 17:24 but i think in the context of array subscript, they are the same 2013-03-25 17:24 that is true, of course. I was only talking about operator [], not the declaration syntax. 2013-03-25 17:30 well, at least now i start to understand where aware-of-ASCII-only programmers come from. It's clear K&R didn't think of "wide characters" at that time, but so do many developers not think about it now. 2013-03-25 17:31 English-centered world. 2013-03-25 17:31 Calyp_ is now known as Calyp 2013-03-25 17:31 Calyp has quit [Changing host] 2013-03-25 17:31 Calyp has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 17:38 LunaVorax has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 2013-03-25 18:04 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 18:17 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 18:28 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 18:29 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 18:35 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 18:40 hehe I just learned about the new hotness, FRP 2013-03-25 18:40 functional reactive programming 2013-03-25 18:41 imagine a verilog simulator. now replace "wires" with "signals", "pins" with "events" and "triggers" with "switches" 2013-03-25 18:41 then connect the whole thing to a GUI 2013-03-25 18:41 I think the history has just looped. 2013-03-25 18:42 we had physical buttons and physical lamps connected by physical wires 2013-03-25 18:42 now we have virtual buttons and virtual lamps connected by virtual wires. 2013-03-25 18:48 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 18:54 just wait until somebody adds a virtual transistor 2013-03-25 18:54 all already there 2013-03-25 18:54 http://elm-lang.org/edit/examples/Reactive/Clock.elm 2013-03-25 18:54 but gui toolkits like gtk and qt had this for ages 2013-03-25 18:55 larsc: FRP seems like a higher level abstraction to me. 2013-03-25 18:55 you know, you could say that C has first-class functions because it has function pointers. 2013-03-25 18:55 yes 2013-03-25 18:55 this sort of distinction. 2013-03-25 19:00 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 19:03 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 19:08 wpwrak: did you mention a language called Esterel? 2013-03-25 19:08 or whatever else, suited to synchronous programming? 2013-03-25 19:08 I vaguely recall we've had a conversation about them 2013-03-25 19:09 i plead "not guilty" 2013-03-25 19:10 may have been DocScrutinizer05. he's come into contact with some very strange languages. 2013-03-25 19:11 jekhor__ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 2013-03-25 19:11 wpwrak: it *definitely* were you 2013-03-25 19:11 but I'm not sure about the name of the language 2013-03-25 19:12 wouldn't recall anything like that 2013-03-25 19:12 erlang? 2013-03-25 19:13 prolly not 2013-03-25 19:13 no no, I know what erlang is :p 2013-03-25 19:13 wpwrak: might have something to do with CSP 2013-03-25 19:13 as in communicating sequental processes 2013-03-25 19:13 it was a discussion about parallelism... 2013-03-25 19:14 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 2013-03-25 19:14 occam? probably no 2013-03-25 19:17 hmm, erlang then ? 2013-03-25 19:17 ah no 2013-03-25 19:17 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 19:17 hmm. pearl ? that would have been DocScrutinizer05, though 2013-03-25 19:18 is pearl "suited to synchronous programming"? 2013-03-25 19:19 if it's turing-complete, it probably is ;-) 2013-03-25 19:19 lol 2013-03-25 19:20 if in doubt, try ada 2013-03-25 19:20 ada is everything, plus some cruft on top ;-) 2013-03-25 19:20 pearl seems relevant, but it's not that. 2013-03-25 19:20 (ada) yeah :D 2013-03-25 19:20 and so much syntax you'd want to strangle yourself 2013-03-25 19:40 viric_ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 19:40 viric has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 2013-03-25 19:40 lekernel has quit [Quit: Leaving] 2013-03-25 19:45 pcercuei has quit [Quit: Bye] 2013-03-25 20:22 viric_ is now known as viric 2013-03-25 20:32 kuribas has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 20:59 fire has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 21:01 security has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 2013-03-25 21:02 jekhor__ has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 22:07 kuribas has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)] 2013-03-25 22:22 guanucoluis has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 2013-03-25 22:26 jekhor__ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 2013-03-25 22:57 guanucoluis has joined #qi-hardware 2013-03-25 23:09 wolfspraul has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 2013-03-25 23:35 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware