World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
BrianH 11-Apr-2011 [1103] | That's why (after tax season) I'm going to try my hand at a Dalvik emitter :) |
Maxim 11-Apr-2011 [1104] | its also a very big issue for me. GPL is the license for star trek, when there will be no economics. |
Rebolek 11-Apr-2011 [1105] | startrek sounds nice but I think it's license for Mafia. |
Maxim 11-Apr-2011 [1106x2] | a lot of the people who do GPL don't work in the real world... they live in academia. |
one thing I've always wondered... does MIT actually use the MIT license in their projects? | |
BrianH 11-Apr-2011 [1108] | Yes. |
Rebolek 11-Apr-2011 [1109] | Acade Mia... |
Maxim 11-Apr-2011 [1110] | and are they discouraged to use GPL? |
BrianH 11-Apr-2011 [1111x2] | I don't know. MIT is public funded, so their products need to be usable to the public. That includes businesses. |
I think they also make money off patents though. | |
Maxim 11-Apr-2011 [1113] | yeah... any invention eventually needs to be leveraged... that's ok. and most high-profile research is funded by companies nowadays... I'm pretty sure its like that in all universities in the US. |
BrianH 11-Apr-2011 [1114] | The big ones, yes. The others don't do a lot of research. There are exceptions though; my old professor contributed to Pizza, which led to generics in Java 6, and indirectly in C# 2. |
Rebolek 11-Apr-2011 [1115] | Max, you sound like Japan anime with "most high-profile research is funded by companies nowadays". |
BrianH 11-Apr-2011 [1116] | To be fair, research has more of a chance to become high-profile with marketing. Companies can afford more marketing. |
Maxim 11-Apr-2011 [1117] | a lot of companies go to universities for some specific problems. they fund a specific project form a team and a professor and team has work for 2-3 years. sometimes it goes through the school, sometimes it almost like "renting" the professor for cheap. |
Pavel 13-Apr-2011 [1118] | Doc is there any reason the shift functions (<< >>) are not implemented? |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1119x5] | Yes, multiplication or division by a power of 2 are generating shifts, so the feature is available, the << >> operators are now just syntactic sugar, that's why their implementation has been delayed. |
They are also missing from the specification doc because I am not sure it is worth adding them anymore. What do you think? | |
Humm, looking at it a bit closer, it is not totally equivalent: the * and / operators will generate shifts only if the right argument is a literal integer. So: a: 4 123 * b won't generate a shift. So, I guess the conclusion would be: it is worth adding them. :-) | |
I'll consider adding these operators to the specifications after finishing my current debugging on ANY & ALL. | |
a: 4 123 * b should be: a: 4 123 * a | |
PeterWood 13-Apr-2011 [1124] | Will << and >> be needed in order to build the first version of Red? |
Pavel 13-Apr-2011 [1125] | shift funcs are useful f.e. for checksums, securtity funcs etc. I thought the shift funcs will be produced using shift machine codes (i e single operation). Is there some kind of optimalization for multiply/delete by pow of 2? Also consider not to implement overflow for << (true shifting) |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1126] | Peter: strictly speaking, they are not needed because they can be emulated by math operations. However, on CPUs, the speed difference with true shifts is huge (one order of magnitude at least). I can't say yet how much shifts will be used in Red's runtime (mainly in memory manager) because in some cases, bitfield operators could be used instead. |
PeterWood 13-Apr-2011 [1127x2] | I was wodering if you could perhaps live without them until the version of Red/System that will be built with Red. |
wodering -> wondering | |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1129x2] | Speedwise, certainly. But as the Red/System code that will be written for Red's runtime will stay, syntactic improvements are worth considering now. |
It is a matter of writing, e.g.: 123 >> 16 instead of: 123 / 65536 | |
PeterWood 13-Apr-2011 [1131x2] | It is certainly more readable. |
I'll guess that the next request will be for an unsigned integer. | |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1133] | BTW, Pavel is right about the overflow error checking (which is still pending for math ops in the current implementation), it is not required for shifts. |
Pavel 13-Apr-2011 [1134] | Doc it would be very helpful to publish (maybe as picture) workflow thru respective modules (files) because for non expert it is quite difficult to see what is going on each module. |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1135] | You mean compilation workflow? |
Pavel 13-Apr-2011 [1136] | yes and maybe light enlightment of design (ie metacode is created by compiler or linker?) |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1137x2] | metacode? If you mean the native code generation, it is done by the compiler. |
I'll see if I can make a short description on how it is organized. | |
Pavel 13-Apr-2011 [1139] | and what linker cares about, glues together multiple compiled source files? |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1140x2] | Compiled source files are glued together by the compiler itself. The linker currently simply generates the right binary from compiled code, global data and external libs imports. The linker will be later extended to be able als to statically link external libraries. |
als => also | |
Pavel 13-Apr-2011 [1142] | so emitter is only helper? |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1143] | Emitter module purpose is to isolate as much as possible target-specific code from the compiler. So, it provides target-independent helper functions to the compiler and for target-specific code, it loads one from %targets/ folder. |
Pavel 13-Apr-2011 [1144] | thx for description |
Dockimbel 13-Apr-2011 [1145] | The emitter module API is used by the compiler only when it can provide an added value, else the compiler taps directly in the target-specific code through a target-independant API. In other words, a new target module needs to implement all the current target API (all the emit-* functions in %IA.r) to be able to work with the compiler. |
Pekr 15-Apr-2011 [1146] | Doc - do you think we can get Red to the following page, or is it too preliminary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages |
GrahamC 15-Apr-2011 [1147] | somewhat premature .. it's not in use yet |
Henrik 15-Apr-2011 [1148] | I agree. |
Dockimbel 15-Apr-2011 [1149x2] | Probably too early. |
Direct link to Red/System specifications draft changed, it is now available from: http://static.red-lang.org/red-system-specs.html | |
Pekr 18-Apr-2011 [1151] | I just visited the Haiku OS website, and I can see, that it was accepted for the Google summer of code 2011. Maybe once Red becomes an alpha, we could apply too? Let's say for 2012 :-) |
Dockimbel 18-Apr-2011 [1152] | Google Summer of Code is a global program that offers student developers stipends to write code for various open source software projects I wouldn't qualify for the "student developer" part. |
older newer | first last |