Re: shitty programming [WAS: Chucks address]
At 03:58 AM 6/16/00 +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>At 05:19 20000615 -0700, M. Simon wrote:
> >At 10:08 PM 6/14/00 +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
> >>At 17:04 20000614 -0700, M. Simon wrote:
> >> >At 10:06 PM 6/13/00 -0400, vic plichota wrote:
> >> >> > >my 2 cents - vic
> >> >> >
> >> >> > True. But sometimes that is good enough.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Please don't take it personally, it was just a general observation --
> >> >>in fact I appreciate your point -- but I am in an absolutely terrible
> >> >>mood today (had to tell an abusive client to fuck off).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>cheers - vic
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >No problem.
> >> >
> >> >In fact I agree.
> >> >
> >> >The sorry state of current hardware and software is because the two
> >> disciplines
> >> >have become relatively isolated.
> >> >
> >> >The MISC group are the only ones trying to think about this subject
> in any
> >> >deep way.
> >> >
> >> >I read about a group trying to impliment C in hardware. What a hoot.
> >> >C internals are ugly and require LOTS of registers to make things even
> >> >quasi efficient.
> >>
> >>C is quite easy to compile for the conventional and RISC
> >>processors as long as they are orthogonal etc.
> >>
> >> >Then there is that ugly 'stack frame' . What an terrible use
> >> >of a stack.
> >>
> >>What is the alternative?
> >
> >FORTH.
>
>Forth is not the world's programming language, but C and it's
>derivatives are. C is a language that's much more adapted to
>humans than to the underlying hardware and is therefore much
>more writable and readable and rereadable and checkable
>than a reversed polish notation one-type-only based language.
>
>But even if you should be one the sekte that disagrees, any
>generally employable processor should be able to handle
>compiled C programs quite well also.
>
> >Preferably running on a MISC chip. But the MISC chip
> >is not an absolute requirement.
>
>Yes, Chuck is God, Jess is Jezus and Dr. Ting is the holy
>spirit!
>
> >>Procedures/functions will need local
> >>memory so they will need some sort of stack mechanisme.
> >>It's also very inexpensive, just decrement the stack pointer
> >>and push the instruction pointer.
> >
> >Sucks for passing data on the stack.
>
>Everything is cachable in this world. I'm just saying that a
>stack is needed. See it in a more abstract way.
>
> >And of course the programmer is no longer in charge. The compiler
> writer is.
>
>Yes and the programmer lives in an easier more abstract world.
>Only bit-fuckers don't like this.
Been a bit fucker for years.
Still happily employed.
My employer is still happy.
My employers employ FORTH.
I'm having fun.
