There's a Common Lisp package for automatic generation of reference manuals from source code that I once adapted for FrameMaker output (I wasn't using TeX at the time).
There was no way of generating cross references. All those had to be inserted by hand, which meant that every time you regenerated a manual, you had to go though the whole thing again.
So I got into LaTeX (that's what the tool originally supported). And then into improving user-manual.lisp to add support for my language extensions, etc.
What's bad about *TeX is that it's a really yucky programming language. Again somebody went reinventing the wheel instead of building on the (then 20, now 40) years of previous work of other people.
And let's not forget that if TeX used CL, mathematicians would only need to learn 1 language (provided they used one of the CL-based comptuter algebra systems).
See above for more outrageous examples ("Not the right way")
Gosh. I'm glad I don't live there. AFAIK, it's only paper in this canton, so I can't get mad.
Prices in SFr: (1 USD = 1.5 SFr)
Microsoft Visual C++ Enterprise 2433.30 Microsoft Visual C++ Professional 1026.35 Microsoft Visual C++ Standard 186.45 Microsoft Windows 98 update 168.00 Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business update 399.00 Microsot Office 2000 Premium update 799.00 Microsoft Office 2000 Professional 529.00 Microsoft Office 2000 Standard 419.00 Microsoft Word 2000 update 179.00 Microsoft Excel 2000 update 189.00
What about ESPRIT projects whose documents must be in MS Word format? (when SGML, HTML, or XML is available) [I don't give other names] What about Euro organizations providing document templates in.doc format only? What about Euro organizations putting documents on the web only in.doc format?
Why should we, computer professionals, subsidize the biotech industry? Clueless bureaucrats have done more than enough to keep the European software industry for flourishing. We don't need them to destroy what's there, or to give us even more motivation to move to the US (as if it was not enough with the more conservative character of the VC market, (or restrictions on the financial placements of insurance institutions, at least in.ch)).
I'm the first to complain about how ignorant Euro governments, organizations, companies and the public are in general when it comes to Microsoft software (besides being plain/wrong/ in the case of public institutions to MANDATE the use of proprietary American file formats), but this is NOT the way it should be done.
1. Requiring access to source code is OK. It doesn't need to be Open Source. That's what source code escrow is for. 2. Proprietary software is OK, when a. The company providing it does not hold a [virtual] monopoly (eg: not only Microsoft would be out, but Mathematica, too). In this case, if the alternatives are not good enough, the state should provide a substantial amount of funding to help develop free alternatives (eg: REDUCE, Mockma, whatever). b. There is no dominant player, and the commercial alternative provides relevant benefits, and is not attemptting an `embrace an extend' (a.k.a. vendor lock-in) strategy [Extensions not denounced by a sizable proportion of the community as improperly designed should be OK]. 3. If a non-European player is not dominant as a whole, but only in relationship with its commercial competitors, and these include European companies, that dominant player is disqualified. [Note that this does not mean that an European vendor is finally chosen]. 4.`loss leaders' associated with conglomerates are disqualified.
BTW, It's not the first thing running on Apertos, some Sony people I met told me they have some set-top boxes using it, but they never tell (well, obviously they do when you surprise them asking about such kind of thing).
Damm. Just the kind of excuse I was looking for. Now I'll _really_ have to buy this puppy.
After many years of walking in circles, SGI has finally found the new focus needed to grow beyond graphics. And they are showing great strategic savvy: it's much better to periodically release bits of very free source, instead of going `Open Source' in a big gulp. You get much more exposure that way.
It's not risk-free, of course. For many people `just' 64-bit and journaling will be more than they need.
I hope the license will only allow THEM to use this source to add XFS to Windows NT.
If you want grio, you'll have to get IRIX. They are only releasing the journaling part, and it's limited to 64-bit. This is the perfect move. They give Linux something great, get extremely good PR, establish XFS as an industry-standard, and still manage to keep a proprietary advantage to make you want to buy their machines for technical reasons. Really smart.
Even such a `limited' version will be better than NTFS.
Itasca is the best at dynamic schema modification and so on, as it's written in Common Lisp. They have interfaces for C, C++, CL and Java. It is now owned by IBEX Object Systems, which is in turn owned by HPI (Hermes Precisa International, a holding). I don't know if they have a Linux version. But if it's something you'd like to buy, you should tell them.
Ever tried searching for `garbage collection' or `memory management' in amazon.com? I'm happy enough this book exists. I'm sure others will come (The recommendations list I get consists mostly of `patterns' titles. I'm so bored I started getting into semantics, partial evaluation and old Lisp books)
There's too many people out there (some with good positions at important companies) who either:
a) Don't know anything besides C and C++ b) Are forced to use C/C++ because that's the company orientation
so that then they later force that trash on developers in the form of libraries, debuggers that crash, broken compilers, etc.
Every time I upgrade systems/tools, the release notes make me sick.
No. Open Source is not doing better. You can't ignore C/C++ on Linux either.
For simple things, malloc/free can be enough, but there's a certain point where the complex relationships between components/subsystems/clients crave for GC.
Every Logitech MouseMan comes with a retina chip designed here
That is not COOL. I invented COOL in 1988
on
Microsoft's COOL
·
· Score: 1
In the thesis I wrote in 1988, I describe a language called FOOL (Fuzzy Object Oriented Language) and a restricted form of it, COOL (Concurrent Object Oriented Language). [Semantics of fuzzy inheritance still required some work].
Given that the media/drones/masses are so remarkably inept at establishing the difference between a kernel and an OS, how about if we start calling the Linux/GNU/X combination..
Slashdot Mirror
There's a Common Lisp package for automatic generation of reference manuals from source code that I once adapted for FrameMaker output (I wasn't using TeX at the time).
There was no way of generating cross references. All those had to be inserted by hand, which meant that every time you regenerated a manual, you had to go though the whole thing again.
So I got into LaTeX (that's what the tool originally supported). And then into improving user-manual.lisp to add support for my language extensions, etc.
What's bad about *TeX is that it's a really yucky programming language. Again somebody went reinventing the wheel instead of building on the (then 20, now 40) years of previous work of other people.
And let's not forget that if TeX used CL, mathematicians would only need to learn 1 language (provided they used one of the CL-based comptuter algebra systems).
See above for more outrageous examples ("Not the right way")
Gosh. I'm glad I don't live there. AFAIK, it's only paper in this canton, so I can't get mad.
Prices in SFr: (1 USD = 1.5 SFr)
Microsoft Visual C++ Enterprise 2433.30
Microsoft Visual C++ Professional 1026.35
Microsoft Visual C++ Standard 186.45
Microsoft Windows 98 update 168.00
Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business update 399.00
Microsot Office 2000 Premium update 799.00
Microsoft Office 2000 Professional 529.00
Microsoft Office 2000 Standard 419.00
Microsoft Word 2000 update 179.00
Microsoft Excel 2000 update 189.00
And then I get flamed..
What about ESPRIT projects whose documents must be in MS Word format? (when SGML, HTML, or XML is available) [I don't give other names] .doc format only? .doc format?
.ch)).
What about Euro organizations providing document templates in
What about Euro organizations putting documents on the web only in
Why should we, computer professionals, subsidize the biotech industry? Clueless bureaucrats have done more than enough to keep the European software industry for flourishing. We don't need them to destroy what's there, or to give us even more motivation to move to the US (as if it was not enough with the more conservative character of the VC market, (or restrictions on the financial placements of insurance institutions, at least in
I'm the first to complain about how ignorant Euro governments, organizations, companies and the public are in general when it comes to Microsoft software (besides being plain /wrong/ in the case of public institutions to MANDATE the use of proprietary American file formats), but this is NOT the way it should be done.
1. Requiring access to source code is OK. It doesn't need to be Open Source. That's what source code escrow is for.
2. Proprietary software is OK, when
a. The company providing it does not hold a [virtual] monopoly (eg: not only Microsoft would be out, but Mathematica, too). In this case, if the alternatives are not good enough, the state should provide a substantial amount of funding to help develop free alternatives (eg: REDUCE, Mockma, whatever).
b. There is no dominant player, and the commercial alternative provides relevant benefits, and is not attemptting an `embrace an extend' (a.k.a. vendor lock-in) strategy [Extensions not denounced by a sizable proportion of the community as improperly designed should be OK].
3. If a non-European player is not dominant as a whole, but only in relationship with its commercial competitors, and these include European companies, that dominant player is disqualified.
[Note that this does not mean that an European vendor is finally chosen].
4.`loss leaders' associated with conglomerates are disqualified.
And how good is it for multithreaded debugging
is there anything comparable to SGI's CaseVision?
[As a reference, I consider multithreaded debugging support in VisualC++ to be BAD compared to cvd]
It runs Apertos, a reflective operating
system based on an eclectic Japanese dialect of Lisp.
You can find one article in
Advances in Object-Oriented Metalevel Architectures and Reflection, as well as some other references
at the awfully outdated Apertos home page.
BTW, It's not the first thing running on Apertos,
some Sony people I met told me they have some set-top boxes using it, but they never tell (well,
obviously they do when you surprise them asking about such kind of thing).
Damm. Just the kind of excuse I was looking for. Now I'll _really_ have to buy this puppy.
After many years of walking in circles, SGI
has finally found the new focus needed to grow
beyond graphics. And they are showing great strategic savvy: it's much better to periodically release bits of very free source, instead of going `Open Source' in a big gulp. You get much more exposure that way.
It's not risk-free, of course. For many people `just' 64-bit and journaling will be more than they need.
I hope the license will only allow THEM to use this source to add XFS to Windows NT.
If you want grio, you'll have to get IRIX.
They are only releasing the journaling part,
and it's limited to 64-bit.
This is the perfect move. They give Linux something great, get extremely good PR, establish XFS as an industry-standard, and still manage to
keep a proprietary advantage
to make you want to buy their machines for technical reasons. Really smart.
Even such a `limited' version will
be better than NTFS.
R12000 is out
R14000 is on the way
The interesting stuff (Beast) was killed,
but I pray they'll resume as:
1. Merced is delayed
2. EPIC will show how wasteful of resources it is
SGI/MIPS has always shown how it is not just about
MHz. There's one very good BINARY COMPATIBLE opportunity open:
a THREADED processor
Of course, for O2K/Cray style machines, a low-volume, expensive VECTOR processor would
be a better match for most nodes in most applications.
Itasca is the best at dynamic schema modification and so on, as it's written in Common Lisp. They have interfaces for C, C++, CL and Java. It is now owned by IBEX Object Systems, which is in turn owned by HPI (Hermes Precisa International, a holding). I don't know if they have a Linux version. But if it's something you'd like to buy, you should tell them.
Ever tried searching for `garbage collection' or `memory management' in amazon.com? I'm happy enough this book exists. I'm sure others will come (The recommendations list I get consists mostly of `patterns' titles. I'm so bored I started getting into semantics, partial evaluation and old Lisp books)
Get the alternative Lisp syntax back. That's not hard to do.
There's too many people out there (some with good positions at important companies) who either:
a) Don't know anything besides C and C++
b) Are forced to use C/C++ because that's the company orientation
so that then they later force that trash on developers in the form of libraries, debuggers that crash, broken compilers, etc.
Every time I upgrade systems/tools, the release notes make me sick.
No. Open Source is not doing better. You can't ignore C/C++ on Linux either.
For simple things, malloc/free can be enough, but
there's a certain point where the complex relationships between components/subsystems/clients crave for GC.
So many transistors going down the drain of diminishing returns: more and more branch prediction, out-of-order execution, multiple execution units..
And just a little bit of silicon helps GC in a big way!
I hope that the trend resumed by PicoJava will propagate to other embedded and general purpose processors.
And dynamic type checking is mainstream too now,
but that is another story..
er.. TrackMan
Every Logitech MouseMan comes with a retina chip designed here
In the thesis I wrote in 1988, I describe
a language called FOOL (Fuzzy Object Oriented Language) and a restricted form of it, COOL
(Concurrent Object Oriented Language).
[Semantics of fuzzy inheritance still required some work].
Given that the media/drones/masses are so remarkably inept at establishing the difference between a kernel and an OS, how about if we start calling the Linux/GNU/X combination..
TuX
?
It's on a PROM in the front panel
or in the backplane, depending on the model.
We want CAD models for the costumes!
No proprietary file formats of course.
What about IGES?