98000+ entries in 0.031s
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes no that's ~exactly~ what they both earned and deserve. i wasn't kidding re memory holing the other day, the plan literally is for EVERYTHING empire made to get permanently lost. from wikipedia on.
mircea_popescu: likely story. your flimsy cover-up of the time travel technology is not convincing anyone mod6
mircea_popescu: ah yeah, came same day. turns out he just runs the blog though
mircea_popescu: bad example, seeing how senescent senility is a fine excuse, but anyway
mircea_popescu: so yes, i'm perfectly willing and entirely able to banish knuth.
mircea_popescu: the best thing you can do for a pianist in general is take a hammer to the fingers of the "most talented piano player of his generation" so he can never as much as open a can of tuna with his own hands ever again.
mircea_popescu: especially if they are then followes through with merciless, disfiguring beatings.
mircea_popescu: idiots, and by this i mean specifically intelligent ones, benefit immensely from warnings
mircea_popescu: dude are you kidding me ; anything in javascript is a 2-500% slowdown over everything else.
mircea_popescu: " I’ve heard that this results in a 5-10% slowdown for basically all JavaScript code."
mircea_popescu: rust is pretty much the anti-language ; as someone explained "the red hat decided to present it as the thing and hope for all the idiots to contribute freely to make it the thing for this reason".
mircea_popescu: i couldn't care less what rust dork has to say on any topic.
mircea_popescu: you understand, all this, cpu freq, bus aperture, words etc exist because simple and cheap solution to the clock problem
mircea_popescu: the only way to make them wrong would be to make your cpu work without clock and bus cycles.
mircea_popescu: multi-wire bus delivers a specified amount of buckshot each fire.
mircea_popescu: and someone somewhere is going to want to talk of it directly rather than haskelly, and so they will use the concept of... machine words.
mircea_popescu: myeah. but if i ever make a chip myself, there's not going to be fucking carry speshul bit.
mircea_popescu: ie, origin ally the philosophical minds prevailed, and a special wire was added (the carry). but then ww2 ended and saner minds prevailed ; thus double sized results on the same bus and the world went back to the peace and prosperity of everything in band.
mircea_popescu: incidentally this whole thing with mul add etc is a fine working example for the in band / out of band discussion.
mircea_popescu: well yes, but as long as the job is "check for machine word fixed type", the carry will save you.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform there's also fleshlights. i don't program on those.
mircea_popescu: well i don't see how you can get 3 words by multiplying 1 word with another word.
mircea_popescu: yes but here is used conceptually, as the "top half of the result", be it 1 bit or 1 machine word.
mircea_popescu: ok. what's this to do with ada i dunno, but anyway, there it is.
mircea_popescu: so it just returns the same as 0x000000000 + 0x000000000 ?
mircea_popescu: so you do 0x100000000 * 0x100000000 and get the carry set and you blew it.
mircea_popescu: i didn't realise the above high level math was stand-in for asm.
mircea_popescu: you get memory access violation for trying to write at offset-1 in memory.
mircea_popescu: it's not clear how you represent the y ; but whatever, half questions ftw.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform 0x10000000000000000 is not in range no ; 0x0 is in range, yes.
mircea_popescu: the test MAY NOT BE > 0 (or -1 ?) and < 0x10000000000000000. if the compiler does that the compiler is very, very stupid.
mircea_popescu: the range is 0 to 0xfffffffffffffff. the test is >= 0 and <= 0xfffffffffffffff.
mircea_popescu: if the compile rules do "add one and <" the compiler is wrong ; it should not add one ad <=.
mircea_popescu: indeed 0x10000000000000000 is not what the program stated ; and indeed the problem is that (if) the compiler adds one to what the program statyed ; it shouldn't do that.
mircea_popescu: i thought bounds checking was introduced by the compiler not by the program.
mircea_popescu: are you saying the problem ISN'T after all that "the compiler can't find 0x10000000000000000" as you originalyl stated, but that it can't be arsed to compare to 0xffffffffffffffff instead ?
mircea_popescu: which fundamental reasons entirely consist of "alf the bee dog with his magical black and white spots vision managed to read the expliciting of the < vs <= difference SIX TIMES and ignore it every time"
mircea_popescu: because if the programmer said the number 10, the compiler is NOT at liberty to invent magic number 11.
mircea_popescu: and therefore question for type Foo is range 0 .. 10 must always be, is foo <= 10 ; not is foo < 11
mircea_popescu: i'm not interested in picking anything. bound checking is to be done by comparing TO THE BOUND not to some other random value picked by the compiler.
mircea_popescu: DO NOT implement bounds checking as "smaller than bound +1". DO implement bounds checking as "smaller or equal than bound".
mircea_popescu: dude, stop picking the irrelevant. pick the meat of what i say.
mircea_popescu: so basically, what my mind has strained from this convo, is that ada implements bound checking badly ; in that it (wrongly) assumes that it can always source a larget item to compare to, like < size+1.
mircea_popescu: the thing is called modular exponentiation you know :D
mircea_popescu: well good for it, but if it introduces it without providing it then ada's an idea man ; we have plenty of these up in wash dc. their product is called "unfunded mandates".
mircea_popescu: so there's at least two "whole notion of fixnum is this"
mircea_popescu: that's a part of the thing. consider, why isn't "the whole notion of fixnum" that if you b = size+1 then b = 0 ?
mircea_popescu: seems like a strange sort of fencing error. vaguely reminiscent of the whole "is 1 inch pipe 1 inch outside or inside ?" debacle for apprentice plumbers