Re: register windows. I disagree: code size wasn't the killer here, it was how DEEP the stack got. If your architectural register window spilled at 4 deep, then calls 3 deep were fine, but if you had a set of code attempting to iterate over a tight loop which had 8 calls deep, you were in [performance] trouble.
Another divot: asymmetric functional units. Some versions of Alpha supported a PopCount instruction, but it only worked in a single functional unit, which made scheduling a pain, esp. if you had to write in assembly language.
I'm not convinced that AVX 256 and AVX 512 are useful for non-matrix operations. Most strings (more importantly, parsing bounded by whitespace) are much shorter than 512 bits (32 bytes). In English, I cannot come up with many words longer than 16 bytes (some place names, antidisestablishmentarianism, chemical compound names, and some other stuff)
> I'm not convinced that AVX 256 and AVX 512 are useful for non-matrix operations.
I've observed that compared to regular x86-64 code without SIMD, using AVX 256 speeds up the Chacha20 cipher (for long messages so they can be processed in 512-bytes chuncks (8 blocks)) by a factor of 5. Network packets easily exceed 1KB, and files are usually much bigger.
Proposal: emacs is now irrelevant. Stabilize it, freeze and kill "future development".
Oh, sorry, emacs 'development' is solely about emacs, rather than being about productivity. Too bad that emacs is more about DECs TECO than reality.
First hit on google: SBLC == Stand By Letter of Credit.
Clearly, Common LISP is not important/relevant according to google. It seems like "Common Lisp" implementations may be stuck in the mid 1980s and the implementors do not have any idea about how to use shared libraries. So sad
"tired and Cosmopolitan wired" This poster needs to be banned. Only relevant if you want an interpreter which runs an secondary interpreter, encapsulated in a .zip file.
many MANY reasons
VPs who insist on micro-managing technical decisions even though they really do ignore technical recommendations of highly skilled engineers. (Tom Hamilton, formerly of Digital Guardian)<br>
VPs who refuse to share technical aspects of the business plans/goals (for a small company) with engineering because "well I can't share that with you" Steve Weingart when @ Liant<br>
Anything involving/supervised by Ben Bar-Haim formerly AMD. Ben successfully constructed an incredibly monolithic bureaucracy in AMD - with a huge amount of overhead. Software groups not based in Markham Ontario got Trashed.
<br>
So yes, lots of Manager/VP reasons to hate programming
NO, NO, NO. Scala is NOT a 'great' language.
It is implemented in Java, so suffers ALL of the performance issues of Java (and then some). I would be THRILLED to see a new, straightforward language (vs. C++) which is strongly typed. From my personal perspective, GOLang is the best improvement so far, but suffers from a worse case of 'rpm hell' equivalant than general linux rpm packages do.
Secondly, "Functional Programming" is best described as "DisFunctional Programming". The primary precept of functional programming is that there are ZERO side effects. Well, welcome to the real world of hardware/network failures. Please stop pitching garbage ideas to the rest of us realists.
Dismissing new ideas out of hand does not make you a realist, it makes you ignorant. You seem to be confusing functional programming with purely functional programming for one, and for two, if you think purely functional programming doesn’t deal with side effects or failures in any way, then you don’t know enough about it to pass judgement.
> The primary precept of functional programming is that there are ZERO side effects. Well, welcome to the real world of hardware/network failures.
You clearly have never actually learned a functional programming language, because functional programming tends to make it easier to handle errors and side effects precisely because they are more contained, instead of allowing any arbitrary code to throw an exception, or having to remember to handle error codes, etc. I strongly suggest that you build a small toy program in a language like Haskell—it really does change how you approach problems, even in more mainstream, imperative languages.
Sounds like you never tried it, just because it runs on JVM doesn't make it bad, on the contrary actually. Go is a completely different thing. Scala is one of the most pleasant languages to write.
> Please stop pitching garbage ideas to the rest of us realists.
The common definition of what side effects are would argue otherwise. Functional programs definitely do adhere to maintaining referential transparency. FP is about the world of the program, and the unknown. In the unknown, server failures and network issues happen, absolutely, but for the maintainability and local reasoning of the code, the rules of functional programming are followed so as many of those situations are handled. No paradigm can account for everything, and functional programming is one way of reasoning about the outside world in one of the safest ways you can. I think its totally unfair to consider FP as a garbage idea, there are tons of companies that follow these practices that rake in billions of dollars because their software works and is reliable. There plenty of valid criticisms of FP, but the world outside the JVM failing isn't one of them.
Another divot: asymmetric functional units. Some versions of Alpha supported a PopCount instruction, but it only worked in a single functional unit, which made scheduling a pain, esp. if you had to write in assembly language.
I'm not convinced that AVX 256 and AVX 512 are useful for non-matrix operations. Most strings (more importantly, parsing bounded by whitespace) are much shorter than 512 bits (32 bytes). In English, I cannot come up with many words longer than 16 bytes (some place names, antidisestablishmentarianism, chemical compound names, and some other stuff)