Large numbers of Europeans don't see the 2nd amendment as part of their civil rights. They aren't refusing to enforce a right they believe in, rather they are disagreeing with your definition. So I'm not sure how relevant that is, unless you want to argue there is some Platonic set of perfect rights which don't include democracy but do include the 2nd amendment.
Yes we honor Irish copyrights. On the other hand if WINE 2025 were to use some ideas from Windows 2022 and Microsoft made a patent claim the patent would be under Irish law.....
Exactly what I was going to say. Move your main operation to Ireland and the EU has much much more control over windows. Microsoft is having huge problems with the EU because, well they are actually interested in the public good.
This is meant to be an easy example and a solved one, how this happens very naturally. I know this is easy to fix, that's why it is easy to see. The "expressive", "natural" version being quadratic is the point. As for easier, agreed. I don't think functional languages are worse by any means, but we (meaning programmers) are less skilled at this point at avoiding these sorts of inefficiencies.
Why? They don't support the apps at all. I can buy a system from Dell today with software pre loaded and their tech support doesn't support that software. Their people don't support those apps at all. They don't know the answers, there is no escalation procedure beyond:
Then go on the ghc mailing list and educate the people who write the compiler for Haskell and let them know, they are are getting nailed by several of these problems.
If this were the case then Perl 6 would have stuck with the Pugs implementation. GHC would have stuck with Darcs and not gone to GIT. I love functional languages but putting your head in the sand regarding where the problems are and considering the evaluations FUD is not going to advance the cause.
So if you want to continue this conversation start reading the various performance related discussions. There are 2 decades of papers on trying to resolve specific examples of this problem. Wadler's site is a good place to start.
I'm familiar with the ML family. ML isn't pure and where it doesn't fall into these traps it does it quite often by being C like. If ML were beating C regularly it would be doing better on benchmarks.
Parallelizing pure functional languages is also far simpler, and that really matters too.
No for these benchmarks it doesn't. For other benchmarks which allowed you to use multiple CPUs and give developers a fixed time it would matter.
It was nice to see. I'm thinking maybe, we have a lot of experience optimizing LISPs. So the Scheme stuff caries over. They are sort of an exception. Not sure why that doesn't carry over to the rest of functional languages.
With the impure languages optimization becomes much much easier. On the other hand many of the advantages of functional go out the window. One global variable not in a monad and suddenly the compiler and runtime can't freely reorder executions.
Functional languages in practice often implement nlog n algorithms in quadratic time or memory. One of those in a bench mark is devastating. We really understand how to optimize imperative languages well, we don't have the same level of knowledge / experience regarding functional.
I agree this is a pity, but there doesn't seem to be any easy solution. Hopefully this gets fixed over the next generation.
You will need to port the message pump in base/. This means writing a version of what would happen if you were to call QApplication::exec(). Too much of our code requires our own custom message loop and some of the threading support it has. You might want to get this part down before anything else because I have vague memories of not being able to re-implement the main Qt runloop on one of my side projects.
I'm not advocating anything I'm answering a question from GP why QT wasn't chosen. I don't think QT should change to fit Chrome now that you ask. You can look at Chrome as inflexible but at the end of the day the engine organization is the key feature. Which is to say I think they likely did the right thing.
Where did I say that? Debian, Fedora, Suse... all support GTK. This has nothing to do with creating GUIs it has to do with link locations and dependencies.
I don't have one of those, but a low end mini tower type desktop (external monitor) is something Apple doesn't sell. Also better value for your hardware $$s.
Slashdot Mirror
economic stability? What do you mean by that?
Large numbers of Europeans don't see the 2nd amendment as part of their civil rights. They aren't refusing to enforce a right they believe in, rather they are disagreeing with your definition. So I'm not sure how relevant that is, unless you want to argue there is some Platonic set of perfect rights which don't include democracy but do include the 2nd amendment.
Yes we honor Irish copyrights. On the other hand if WINE 2025 were to use some ideas from Windows 2022 and Microsoft made a patent claim the patent would be under Irish law.....
Exactly what I was going to say. Move your main operation to Ireland and the EU has much much more control over windows. Microsoft is having huge problems with the EU because, well they are actually interested in the public good.
This is meant to be an easy example and a solved one, how this happens very naturally. I know this is easy to fix, that's why it is easy to see. The "expressive", "natural" version being quadratic is the point. As for easier, agreed. I don't think functional languages are worse by any means, but we (meaning programmers) are less skilled at this point at avoiding these sorts of inefficiencies.
Sieve of Eratosthenes is a good example because it has been solved but the discussion of the flaws in older solutions are quite subtle.
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2007-February/022666.html
Why? They don't support the apps at all. I can buy a system from Dell today with software pre loaded and their tech support doesn't support that software. Their people don't support those apps at all. They don't know the answers, there is no escalation procedure beyond:
name of app -> here is where you go for help.
Then go on the ghc mailing list and educate the people who write the compiler for Haskell and let them know, they are are getting nailed by several of these problems.
If this were the case then Perl 6 would have stuck with the Pugs implementation. GHC would have stuck with Darcs and not gone to GIT. I love functional languages but putting your head in the sand regarding where the problems are and considering the evaluations FUD is not going to advance the cause.
So if you want to continue this conversation start reading the various performance related discussions. There are 2 decades of papers on trying to resolve specific examples of this problem. Wadler's site is a good place to start.
I'm familiar with the ML family. ML isn't pure and where it doesn't fall into these traps it does it quite often by being C like. If ML were beating C regularly it would be doing better on benchmarks.
No for these benchmarks it doesn't. For other benchmarks which allowed you to use multiple CPUs and give developers a fixed time it would matter.
It was nice to see. I'm thinking maybe, we have a lot of experience optimizing LISPs. So the Scheme stuff caries over. They are sort of an exception. Not sure why that doesn't carry over to the rest of functional languages.
Interesting I can see how parallelization is so much easier that this would happen.
With the impure languages optimization becomes much much easier. On the other hand many of the advantages of functional go out the window. One global variable not in a monad and suddenly the compiler and runtime can't freely reorder executions.
Functional languages in practice often implement nlog n algorithms in quadratic time or memory. One of those in a bench mark is devastating. We really understand how to optimize imperative languages well, we don't have the same level of knowledge / experience regarding functional.
I agree this is a pity, but there doesn't seem to be any easy solution. Hopefully this gets fixed over the next generation.
Look where those languages are on the chart.
Java mostly against the left wall (i.e. mostly as fast as C). Perl right against the bottom (i.e. very small code).
It appears to me what this showed was that people like the walls.
You will need to port the message pump in base/. This means writing
a version of what would happen if you were to call
QApplication::exec(). Too much of our code requires our own custom
message loop and some of the threading support it has. You might want
to get this part down before anything else because I have vague
memories of not being able to re-implement the main Qt runloop on one
of my side projects.
I'm not advocating anything I'm answering a question from GP why QT wasn't chosen. I don't think QT should change to fit Chrome now that you ask. You can look at Chrome as inflexible but at the end of the day the engine organization is the key feature. Which is to say I think they likely did the right thing.
You have to use the apps as they exist. No additional documentation and support points them to correct forums to get answers.
Dell doesn't support Visual Studio either.
What mess is that? The GNU project I signed up for was to create a free Unix not a free Windows.
original thread
Interesting, you should probably reply to the original post on the Chrome site.
Where did I say that? Debian, Fedora, Suse... all support GTK. This has nothing to do with creating GUIs it has to do with link locations and dependencies.
I don't have one of those, but a low end mini tower type desktop (external monitor) is something Apple doesn't sell. Also better value for your hardware $$s.
Not beyond what was in the original article.
They'd be thrilled. They couldn't get the execution loop in QT to work with Chrome because Chrome has a very complex engine. Feel free to jump in.