Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@cs.Technion.AC.IL: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]

Expand Messages
  • mulix
    ... there is one class (Digital Systems) i ve taken so far, where no tests are published since the questions come for a closed pool of questions. in all other
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:

      > In my opinion the same should be true also for tests: you should be allowed
      > to publish previous tests and suggested solutions. As far as I saw, this was
      > the norm in the Technion (the student union even gave people small gifts
      > if you gave them copies of tests) but strangely it seems to be frowned upon
      > in HaifaU...
      >
      > It is obvious why professors would not want previous excercises and tests
      > to be published - it will force them to make up new questions every once
      > in a while. But every now and then these professors need to be reminded that
      > they are paid for this work, and that the raison d'etre of BA studies is
      > to teach the students well, not to make life easy for the professor...

      there is one class (Digital Systems) i've taken so far, where no tests are
      published since the questions come for a closed pool of questions. in all
      other classes, the tests are always published, nearly always with official
      solutions.

      > I think that Brian Kernighan agrees with you :) He wrote (in 1981, that's
      > 20 years ago!) a technical report about why Pascal sucks, titled "Why Pascal
      > is Not My Favorite Programming Language". See
      >
      > http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/100.ps.gz
      >
      > You can also see his homepage, at http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/bwk/.

      i've read it in the past, but i'll read it again. oh, and thanks for the
      pointer to stroustroup's april's fools paper. it was hilarious!
      --
      mulix
      http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix

      linux/reboot.h: #define LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1 0xfee1dead
    • Moshe Zadka
      ... You forgot Chill -- I ll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I m |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python? looking for someplace else to grab power. |YODA:
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

        > In any case, how many language front-ends there are to gcc anyways. Here
        > are the ones I'm aware of:
        >
        > 1. ANSI C (gcc)
        > 2. C++ (g++)
        > 3. Objective C (comes with the gcc distribution)
        > 4. Pascal (gpc and perhaps also Free Pascal)
        > 5. Java and Java byte code (gcj)
        > 6. Ada (GNATS - it's written in Ada, so you need to bootstrap it)
        > 7. Fortran 77 (g77) - available on GNU sites.
        > 8. Haskell - Glasgow Haskell Compiler or ghc. It is written in Haskell,
        > and requires itself to be compiled.

        You forgot Chill

        --
        "I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
        looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
        -- Wichert Akkerman (on debian-private)| easier, more seductive.
        For public key, finger moshez@... |http://www.{python,debian,gnu}.org
      • Oleg Goldshmidt
        ... I don t know about it. Can anyone confirm? A bit of personal reminiscences: For a few years I worked for a company that was writing tons of Fortran code,
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

          > The stand-alone Fortan-to-C compiler was ditched in favor for a
          > Fortran front-end withing gcc.

          I don't know about it. Can anyone confirm?

          A bit of personal reminiscences:

          For a few years I worked for a company that was writing tons of
          Fortran code, with the main development compiler being f2c/gcc (in the
          fort77 incarnation). Worked like a charm (better than commercial
          compilers we had on our target platforms), last time I recall a
          problem was years ago, and the fix was really fast.

          For probably something like a couple of years, when g77 reached some
          sort of maturity, I used both f2c and g77. Both worked fine, g77 was a
          bit stricter about standards as I recall. there were some differences
          regarding debugging information, overall I think that f2c/gcc
          combination worked better with gdb (as I recall this stuff was very
          well explained in some pretty obvious place in the info pages, for the
          inquisitive). Maybe I was simply more used to it though.

          One benefit of f2c/gcc combination is that you can look at the C code,
          which may come handy if you mix C and Fortran. One must be cautious,
          of course, since f2c is not guaranteed to do the same thing as other
          Fortran compilers, but it's useful and instructive nonetheless.

          > So what are the real benefits in this monolithic approach?

          [Irrelevant for GCC]: Financial? You can charge for separate
          compilers... ;-)

          > Is it the better optimization possibilities? Wouldn't this problem
          > be solved if C optimizers are improved?

          Maybe the fact that different languages follow different models, and
          it is not always optimal (in many senses) to twist a language to
          produce something fairly contorted in C, something that a C compiler
          may have trouble dealing with or optimizing or...

          --
          Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
          "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
        • Oleg Goldshmidt
          ... I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything into a portable assembler . Or into lisp (to have both a compiler and an
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Oleg Goldshmidt <ogoldshmidt@...> writes:

            > Maybe the fact that different languages follow different models, and
            > it is not always optimal (in many senses) to twist a language to
            > produce something fairly contorted in C, something that a C compiler
            > may have trouble dealing with or optimizing or...

            I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
            into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
            and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.

            --
            Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
            "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
          • Shlomi Fish
            ... I didn t forget, I just didn t knew a Chill front-end (or the Chill language for that matter) existed in the first place. But now we have 9 front-ends and
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Moshe Zadka wrote:

              > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
              >
              > > In any case, how many language front-ends there are to gcc anyways. Here
              > > are the ones I'm aware of:
              > >
              > > 1. ANSI C (gcc)
              > > 2. C++ (g++)
              > > 3. Objective C (comes with the gcc distribution)
              > > 4. Pascal (gpc and perhaps also Free Pascal)
              > > 5. Java and Java byte code (gcj)
              > > 6. Ada (GNATS - it's written in Ada, so you need to bootstrap it)
              > > 7. Fortran 77 (g77) - available on GNU sites.
              > > 8. Haskell - Glasgow Haskell Compiler or ghc. It is written in Haskell,
              > > and requires itself to be compiled.
              >
              > You forgot Chill
              >

              I didn't forget, I just didn't knew a Chill front-end (or the Chill
              language for that matter) existed in the first place. But now we have 9
              front-ends and going strong.

              Regards,

              Shlomi Fish

              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
              Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
              Home E-mail: shlomif@...

              A more experienced programmer does not make less bugs. He just realizes
              what went wrong more quickly.
            • Nadav Har'El
              ... But that was my original point, if you view C as a portable assembler . After all, C is very low level. Surely, if C has some constructs that cannot be
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@...: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]":
                > I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
                > into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
                > and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.

                But that was my original point, if you view C as a "portable assembler".
                After all, C is very low level. Surely, if C has some constructs that
                cannot be optimized without knowledge of the architecture of the specific
                machine, then you'll have the same problem with any portable assembler
                you devise. If you do a loop in assembly language, and can't assume that
                a called function (or another thread) doesn't change the loop pointer, then
                you face the same optimizing problem you have when compiling C...

                I'm sure that there is some optimization pentalty in compiling to C, but
                I would be suprised if that penalty is substantial when using a good C
                compiler. Of course, this wouldn't be true if another language was chosen
                instead of C - the assumption is that it is a very low-level language quite
                close to the machine language.


                --
                Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Apr 10 2001, 17 Nisan 5761
                nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Can Microsoft make a product that
                http://nadav.harel.org.il |doesn't suck? Yes, a vacuum cleaner!
              • Oleg Goldshmidt
                ... Precisely. I was concerned that my previous posting would be regarded as a disagreement, so I wrote the appendage. -- Oleg Goldshmidt |
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

                  > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@...: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]":

                  > > I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
                  > > into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
                  > > and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.
                  >
                  > But that was my original point,

                  Precisely. I was concerned that my previous posting would be regarded
                  as a disagreement, so I wrote the appendage.

                  --
                  Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
                  "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.