[fonc] new document

[karl ramberg]

http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf

Karl

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[DeNigris Sean]

On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
> http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf

It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually 
play with it!

With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so many 
talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded. Given the 
vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go into preparing 
the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this knowledge with only the 
few academics who happen to be at the various conferences. I attend about 6 
conferences a year and still feel like I'm missing all the fun. Why doesn't 
VPRI just take the bull by the horns and record them even if the conferences 
don't? Consumer video equipment is so good now, it probably wouldn't cost 
anything but a few conversations - even an iPhone video could work!

Sean
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Joel Healy]

+1

Joel Healy


On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>
> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to
> eventually play with it!
>
> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so
> many talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded.
> Given the vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go
> into preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this
> knowledge with only the few academics who happen to be at the various
> conferences. I attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm
> missing all the fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and
> record them even if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so
> good now, it probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even
> an iPhone video could work!
>
> Sean
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Kevin Driedger]

+1 !!

]{evin ])riedger

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:

> +1
>
> Joel Healy
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean wrote:
>
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>>
>> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to
>> eventually play with it!
>>
>> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so
>> many talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded.
>> Given the vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go
>> into preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this
>> knowledge with only the few academics who happen to be at the various
>> conferences. I attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm
>> missing all the fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and
>> record them even if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so
>> good now, it probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even
>> an iPhone video could work!
>>
>> Sean
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[David Barbour]

I would like to see dedicated papers or links on Gezira and Nile - enough
to re-implement them in another language.

I expect techniques as used in Vertigo [1] or GPipe [2] could put Nile
directly on a GPU, via pixel and geometry shaders. This would be a far
better proof-of-concept, IMO, than relying on user threads across 40 cores
to get a 30x speedup.

[1] http://conal.net/Vertigo/
[2] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GPipe/Tutorial

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:08 PM, karl ramberg  wrote:

> http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>
> Karl
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Kevin Driedger]

Both are available on github.

Gizera:
https://github.com/damelang/gezira

Nile:
https://github.com/damelang/nile

Perhaps that could get you started.

]{evin



On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, David Barbour  wrote:

> I would like to see dedicated papers or links on Gezira and Nile - enough
> to re-implement them in another language.
>
> I expect techniques as used in Vertigo [1] or GPipe [2] could put Nile
> directly on a GPU, via pixel and geometry shaders. This would be a far
> better proof-of-concept, IMO, than relying on user threads across 40 cores
> to get a 30x speedup.
>
> [1] http://conal.net/Vertigo/
> [2] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GPipe/Tutorial
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>
>> http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[David Barbour]

Thanks.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Driedger wrote:

> Both are available on github.
>
> Gizera:
> https://github.com/damelang/gezira
>
> Nile:
> https://github.com/damelang/nile
>
> Perhaps that could get you started.
>
> ]{evin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, David Barbour  wrote:
>
>> I would like to see dedicated papers or links on Gezira and Nile - enough
>> to re-implement them in another language.
>>
>> I expect techniques as used in Vertigo [1] or GPipe [2] could put Nile
>> directly on a GPU, via pixel and geometry shaders. This would be a far
>> better proof-of-concept, IMO, than relying on user threads across 40 cores
>> to get a 30x speedup.
>>
>> [1] http://conal.net/Vertigo/
>> [2] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GPipe/Tutorial
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> ___
>>> fonc mailing list
>>> fonc@vpri.org
>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Julian Leviston]

+1

On 09/11/2011, at 6:30 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote:

> +1 !!
> 
> ]{evin ])riedger
> 
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:
> +1
> 
> Joel Healy
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean  wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
> 
> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually 
> play with it!
> 
> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so many 
> talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded. Given the 
> vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go into 
> preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this knowledge with 
> only the few academics who happen to be at the various conferences. I attend 
> about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm missing all the fun. Why 
> doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and record them even if the 
> conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so good now, it probably 
> wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even an iPhone video could 
> work!
> 
> Sean
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[David Barbour]

`+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this
manner.

If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something specific
and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts interested you?

If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events,
please consider moving it to another topic.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:

> +1
>
> On 09/11/2011, at 6:30 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote:
>
> +1 !!
>
> ]{evin ])riedger
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Joel Healy
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>>> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>>>
>>> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to
>>> eventually play with it!
>>>
>>> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so
>>> many talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded.
>>> Given the vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go
>>> into preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this
>>> knowledge with only the few academics who happen to be at the various
>>> conferences. I attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm
>>> missing all the fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and
>>> record them even if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so
>>> good now, it probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even
>>> an iPhone video could work!
>>>
>>> Sean
>>> ___
>>> fonc mailing list
>>> fonc@vpri.org
>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Dan Amelang]

Hi David,

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:09 PM, David Barbour  wrote:
> I would like to see dedicated papers or links on Gezira and Nile - enough to
> re-implement them in another language.

I see you've already been given links to the code in the github
repositories, so there's that. Unfortunately, a lot of code with
almost zero-documentation isn't too helpful, and I don't have any
papers I can point you to.

Reimplementing Nile is tough, as all we have right now is the
OMeta-based compiler. And that compiler doesn't document the language
too well because the compiler has a lot of left-over cruft from early
prototyping. And several intended language features weren't
implemented in that compiler.

I'm slowly working on a new, Maru-based Nile compiler. The parsing is
complete, and I'm working on the type inference phase now.
Unfortunately, I only have about a day a week to work on it, and I'm
still learning my way around Maru, so the going is slow.

That said, you can ask me specific questions here about Nile or Gezira
and I will try to answer them.

> I expect techniques as used in Vertigo [1] or GPipe [2] could put Nile
> directly on a GPU, via pixel and geometry shaders.

I'd go the OpenCL route, as it is more general than OpenGL.
Regardless, the main difficultly is that Nile provides a different
model of computation than the GPU does. Only a subset of Nile programs
would be both possible and efficient to execute on a GPU. And this is
assuming that the data set is large enough to make the transfer
to/from the GPU worth it.

That said, one could write a Nile-to-OpenCL compiler that statically
detects the parts of the program that might benefit from GPU
execution, and compiles just those parts. I've thought about how to go
about this quite a bit. But I need to finish my dissertation first.

> This would be a far
> better proof-of-concept, IMO, than relying on user threads across 40 cores
> to get a 30x speedup.

Depends on what concept you're trying to prove :) Our main focus with
STEPS is expressive software systems. The parallelism proof-of-concept
was only to demonstrate that Nile's model of computation allows for
parallel execution, nothing more.

Regards,

Dan

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[David Barbour]

Can you elucidate the distinctions between Nile and Gezira? Based on the
(undocumented) code, I guess that Nile is more of a process model (queues,
heaps, threads) and Gezira is more of the rendering. In that case, it may
be Gezira I was thinking would compile well to shaders on a GPU.

OpenCL is certainly one approach to leveraging a GPGPU to a reasonable
degree. Might be worth pursuing that route. But I've been surprised what
can be done with just the rendering pipelines. Pure functional graphics
convert to shaders + uniforms quite well.

Regards,

Dave


On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Dan Amelang wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:09 PM, David Barbour 
> wrote:
> > I would like to see dedicated papers or links on Gezira and Nile -
> enough to
> > re-implement them in another language.
>
> I see you've already been given links to the code in the github
> repositories, so there's that. Unfortunately, a lot of code with
> almost zero-documentation isn't too helpful, and I don't have any
> papers I can point you to.
>
> Reimplementing Nile is tough, as all we have right now is the
> OMeta-based compiler. And that compiler doesn't document the language
> too well because the compiler has a lot of left-over cruft from early
> prototyping. And several intended language features weren't
> implemented in that compiler.
>
> I'm slowly working on a new, Maru-based Nile compiler. The parsing is
> complete, and I'm working on the type inference phase now.
> Unfortunately, I only have about a day a week to work on it, and I'm
> still learning my way around Maru, so the going is slow.
>
> That said, you can ask me specific questions here about Nile or Gezira
> and I will try to answer them.
>
> > I expect techniques as used in Vertigo [1] or GPipe [2] could put Nile
> > directly on a GPU, via pixel and geometry shaders.
>
> I'd go the OpenCL route, as it is more general than OpenGL.
> Regardless, the main difficultly is that Nile provides a different
> model of computation than the GPU does. Only a subset of Nile programs
> would be both possible and efficient to execute on a GPU. And this is
> assuming that the data set is large enough to make the transfer
> to/from the GPU worth it.
>
> That said, one could write a Nile-to-OpenCL compiler that statically
> detects the parts of the program that might benefit from GPU
> execution, and compiles just those parts. I've thought about how to go
> about this quite a bit. But I need to finish my dissertation first.
>
> > This would be a far
> > better proof-of-concept, IMO, than relying on user threads across 40
> cores
> > to get a 30x speedup.
>
> Depends on what concept you're trying to prove :) Our main focus with
> STEPS is expressive software systems. The parallelism proof-of-concept
> was only to demonstrate that Nile's model of computation allows for
> parallel execution, nothing more.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Dan Amelang]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, David Barbour  wrote:
> Can you elucidate the distinctions between Nile and Gezira?

Nile is the programming language. Its syntax is a bit like Haskell.
The high-level model of computation is a variation of Kahn process
networks. The low-level part is a single-assignment,
mathematics-oriented language for specifying the internal behavior of
a process.

> Based on the
> (undocumented) code, I guess that Nile is more of a process model (queues,
> heaps, threads)

You're looking at the implementation details of one of the Nile
execution environments (i.e., runtimes), the multithreaded C-based
one. The queues, threads, etc. are used for implementing the process
network part of Nile on multithreaded CPUs.

> and Gezira is more of the rendering.

Gezira is a 2D vector graphics renderer written in Nile.

> In that case, it may be
> Gezira I was thinking would compile well to shaders on a GPU.

Certain parts of Gezira belong to the subset of Nile that could be
efficiently executed on a GPU.

> OpenCL is certainly one approach to leveraging a GPGPU to a reasonable
> degree. Might be worth pursuing that route. But I've been surprised what can
> be done with just the rendering pipelines. Pure functional graphics convert
> to shaders + uniforms quite well.

Certain stages of Gezira's rendering pipeline would not convert to
shaders very well. Gezira covers different territory than, say, Pan,
Vertigo, etc. None of Conal Elliot's "pure functional graphics"
projects ever tried to perform, say, anti-aliased rasterization
(AFAIK). They always relied on non-"pure functional" systems
underneath to do the heavy lifting.

Gezira, on the other hand, strives to do it all. And in a mostly
functional way. The processes of Nile are side-effect free, with the
exception of the final WriteToImage stage.

Regards,

Dan

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Joel Healy]

I started this +1 thing.  It was indeed referring to Sean's comment (that
is why Sean's comment was quoted).

I thought about this post before I made it.  Normally I would not "spam" a
thread with a "me too" comment, but in this case I thought that it was
important to let everyone know that there are people who read this list and
website who may not feel qualified to participate much but none the less
rely on them as a vital source of information.

Dave, I did not realize that you owned this topic.  I wasn't even aware
that you started this topic.  If I infringed on your intellectual property
rights, I apologize.  As far as moving my comment to a new topic, that just
doesn't seem reasonable to me.  Starting a new topic with "I agree with
what Sean said in another topic" seems to me to be a poor organizational
structure.

If I violated some list etiquette by expressing my opinion as +1, I do
sincerely apologize.  Perhaps my opinion is of no value.  I doubt that I
will offer any in the future, so there is no need to chastise me further.

Regards,

Joel



On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM, David Barbour  wrote:

> `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this
> manner.
>
> If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something
> specific and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts
> interested you?
>
> If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events,
> please consider moving it to another topic.
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On 09/11/2011, at 6:30 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote:
>>
>> +1 !!
>>
>> ]{evin ])riedger
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Joel Healy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean wrote:
>>>
 On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
 > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf

 It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to
 eventually play with it!

 With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so
 many talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded.
 Given the vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go
 into preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this
 knowledge with only the few academics who happen to be at the various
 conferences. I attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm
 missing all the fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and
 record them even if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so
 good now, it probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even
 an iPhone video could work!

 Sean
 ___
 fonc mailing list
 fonc@vpri.org
 http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> fonc mailing list
>>> fonc@vpri.org
>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Dan Amelang wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, David Barbour  wrote:
> > Can you elucidate the distinctions between Nile and Gezira?
>
> Nile is the programming language. Its syntax is a bit like Haskell.
>
The high-level model of computation is a variation of Kahn process
> networks. The low-level part is a single-assignment,
> mathematics-oriented language for specifying the internal behavior of
> a process.
>

I've been reading through Nile and Gezira code and understand the model
better at this point. It's basically pure functional stream processing,
consuming and generating streams. I understand that `>>` generates one
output, and `<<` seems to push something back onto the input stream for
re-processing.

Which Nile operators do you anticipate would translate poorly to shaders? I
guess `zip` might be a problem. SortBy and pushback operators - at least if
finite - could be modeled using shader global state, but that would be a
bit of a hack (e.g. receive some sort of EOF indicator to emit final
elements). Hmmm

I think I'd be in trouble actually writing Nile code... I don't have a text
editor with easy Unicode macros. Which do you use?


>
> None of Conal Elliot's "pure functional graphics"
> projects ever tried to perform, say, anti-aliased rasterization
> (AFAIK). They always relied on non-"pure functional" systems
> underneath to do the heavy lifting.
>

I agree that Conal Elliott's focus has certainly been on composable,
morphable, zoomable graphics models - primarily, everything that happens
before rasterization. Anti-aliased rasterization can certainly be modeled
in a purely functional system, or even via shaders in a graphics pipeline.

Are you trying anything like sub-pixel AA? (seems a bit too system
dependent for me, but it's an interesting subject.)

My own interest in this: I've been seeking a good graphics model for
reactive systems, i.e. rendering not just one frame, but managing
incremental computations and state or resource maintenance for future
frames. I don't think Gezira is the right answer for my goals, but I'll
study and learn more from it.
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Andrey Fedorov]

>
> there are people who read this list and website who may not feel qualified
> to participate much but none the less rely on them as a vital source of
> information


Fellow lurker here. Thanks for pointing that out! Still, e-mails that say
simply "+1", "me too", or "I agree" are a pain to receive on e-mail clients
where they appear as a separate message, so it's usually courteous to avoid
sending them to mailing lists.

Back to the original topic, I wanted to drop a quick congrats to everyone
on the amazing progress. It was a real treat to read this update, thanks
for your hard work!

Is there any chance I (someone with general programming knowledge, but
without much intimacy with STEPS) could get Frank running on a virtual
machine on OSX, or is that not worth attempting just yet?

Cheers,
Andrey
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Julian Leviston]

Whether I use one or two thousand words to clothe my meaning is relevant?

I put just as much consideration into writing "+1" as I did in writing this 
email.

I could therefore also summarise your emails below as "-1" for the entire 
amount of meaning that it contains.

Allow me to expand on my "+1":

"I too agree that it would be lovely to be able to experience these events and 
presentations via a video."

Julian

On 09/11/2011, at 10:32 AM, David Barbour wrote:

> `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this 
> manner.
> 
> If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something specific 
> and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts interested you?
> 
> If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events, 
> please consider moving it to another topic.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:
> +1
> 
> On 09/11/2011, at 6:30 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote:
> 
>> +1 !!
>> 
>> ]{evin ])riedger
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Joel Healy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean  wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>> 
>> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually 
>> play with it!
>> 
>> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so many 
>> talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded. Given the 
>> vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go into 
>> preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this knowledge 
>> with only the few academics who happen to be at the various conferences. I 
>> attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm missing all the 
>> fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and record them even 
>> if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so good now, it 
>> probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even an iPhone 
>> video could work!
>> 
>> Sean
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[David Barbour]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:

>
> Dave, I did not realize that you owned this topic. I wasn't even aware
> that you started this topic.  If I infringed on your intellectual property
> rights, I apologize.


I have offered no pretense of owning the topic, and now I feel insulted by
your strawman apologies.

I would object to someone littering in my city's streets. That doesn't
require I own the streets, only that I use them.

If nobody else had followed your example, I would have said nothing. But
three people saying `+1` indicates a noisy, unproductive pattern that
should be discouraged, much like spam or chain letters.



As far as moving my comment to a new topic, that just doesn't seem
> reasonable to me.  Starting a new topic with "I agree with what Sean said
> in another topic" seems to me to be a poor organizational structure.
>

I'm not asking you to behave foolishly.

Instead start another topic with a dedicated subject-line and something
like: "Sean, in this other topic, suggests we record all VPRI outreach
events. . I agree and would like to see what can be done to
achieve this." If you are fishing for agreement, you could indicate "Please
add your voice..."


>
> If I violated some list etiquette by expressing my opinion as +1, I do
> sincerely apologize.  Perhaps my opinion is of no value.  I doubt that I
> will offer any in the future, so there is no need to chastise me further.
>

Your opinion may be valuable. But `+1` is not very valuable, at least not
on this forum. On a mailing list `+1` is just noise, whereas
community-moderated fora (like Stack Exchange or Slash Dot) offer some
mechanism to express exactly this.

Regards,

Dave


>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM, David Barbour  wrote:
>
>> `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in
>> this manner.
>>
>> If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something
>> specific and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts
>> interested you?
>>
>> If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events,
>> please consider moving it to another topic.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 09/11/2011, at 6:30 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 !!
>>>
>>> ]{evin ])riedger
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy wrote:
>>>
 +1

 Joel Healy



 On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean 
 wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>
> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to
> eventually play with it!
>
> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so
> many talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded.
> Given the vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go
> into preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this
> knowledge with only the few academics who happen to be at the various
> conferences. I attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm
> missing all the fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and
> record them even if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so
> good now, it probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - 
> even
> an iPhone video could work!
>
> Sean
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>


 ___
 fonc mailing list
 fonc@vpri.org
 http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc


>>> ___
>>> fonc mailing list
>>> fonc@vpri.org
>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> fonc mailing list
>>> fonc@vpri.org
>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Casey Ransberger]

+1 is a low-bandwidth way to express "yes, let's explore what this person is 
talking about some more because this is interesting."

If it's a problem, maybe the rule should be to place [+1] before the subject 
line. But that's going to split the thread in lots of mail readers...

Especially when there's a strong polar dispute between people on squeak-dev, 
this has worked really well in the short time I've been around. 

One time I got in trouble for saying "+1000." I guess I'm only allowed one. 

:)

Casey

On Nov 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:

> I started this +1 thing.  It was indeed referring to Sean's comment (that is 
> why Sean's comment was quoted).
> 
> I thought about this post before I made it.  Normally I would not "spam" a 
> thread with a "me too" comment, but in this case I thought that it was 
> important to let everyone know that there are people who read this list and 
> website who may not feel qualified to participate much but none the less rely 
> on them as a vital source of information.
> 
> Dave, I did not realize that you owned this topic.  I wasn't even aware that 
> you started this topic.  If I infringed on your intellectual property rights, 
> I apologize.  As far as moving my comment to a new topic, that just doesn't 
> seem reasonable to me.  Starting a new topic with "I agree with what Sean 
> said in another topic" seems to me to be a poor organizational structure.
> 
> If I violated some list etiquette by expressing my opinion as +1, I do 
> sincerely apologize.  Perhaps my opinion is of no value.  I doubt that I will 
> offer any in the future, so there is no need to chastise me further.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joel
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM, David Barbour  wrote:
> `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this 
> manner.
> 
> If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something specific 
> and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts interested you?
> 
> If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events, 
> please consider moving it to another topic.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:
> +1
> 
> On 09/11/2011, at 6:30 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote:
> 
>> +1 !!
>> 
>> ]{evin ])riedger
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Joel Healy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean  wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>> 
>> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually 
>> play with it!
>> 
>> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so many 
>> talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded. Given the 
>> vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go into 
>> preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this knowledge 
>> with only the few academics who happen to be at the various conferences. I 
>> attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm missing all the 
>> fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and record them even 
>> if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so good now, it 
>> probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even an iPhone 
>> video could work!
>> 
>> Sean
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Casey Ransberger]

"+1" is a lot less noise than this whole etiquette thread. 

From previous experience: listen to a song you like. Read a book that cheers 
you. Just let it ride. Otherwise you'll burn much more bandwidth complaining 
than was burned in the original post. 

That's what happened with me anyway. I made so much noise about a post that I 
didn't like that I'll spend a long time regretting my griping. 

Better to live and let live. 

Think about it: how many bytes have I wasted saying this? A *lot* more than 
"+1."

:)

Casey

On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:54 PM, David Barbour  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:
> 
> Dave, I did not realize that you owned this topic. I wasn't even aware that 
> you started this topic.  If I infringed on your intellectual property rights, 
> I apologize.  
> 
> I have offered no pretense of owning the topic, and now I feel insulted by 
> your strawman apologies. 
> 
> I would object to someone littering in my city's streets. That doesn't 
> require I own the streets, only that I use them.
> 
> If nobody else had followed your example, I would have said nothing. But 
> three people saying `+1` indicates a noisy, unproductive pattern that should 
> be discouraged, much like spam or chain letters.
> 
>  
> As far as moving my comment to a new topic, that just doesn't seem reasonable 
> to me.  Starting a new topic with "I agree with what Sean said in another 
> topic" seems to me to be a poor organizational structure.
> 
> I'm not asking you to behave foolishly.
> 
> Instead start another topic with a dedicated subject-line and something like: 
> "Sean, in this other topic, suggests we record all VPRI outreach events. 
> . I agree and would like to see what can be done to achieve 
> this." If you are fishing for agreement, you could indicate "Please add your 
> voice..."
>  
> 
> If I violated some list etiquette by expressing my opinion as +1, I do 
> sincerely apologize.  Perhaps my opinion is of no value.  I doubt that I will 
> offer any in the future, so there is no need to chastise me further.
> 
> Your opinion may be valuable. But `+1` is not very valuable, at least not on 
> this forum. On a mailing list `+1` is just noise, whereas community-moderated 
> fora (like Stack Exchange or Slash Dot) offer some mechanism to express 
> exactly this. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM, David Barbour  wrote:
> `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in this 
> manner.
> 
> If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something specific 
> and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts interested you?
> 
> If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events, 
> please consider moving it to another topic.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Julian Leviston  wrote:
> +1
> 
> On 09/11/2011, at 6:30 AM, Kevin Driedger wrote:
> 
>> +1 !!
>> 
>> ]{evin ])riedger
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joel Healy  wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Joel Healy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM, DeNigris Sean  wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>> > http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>> 
>> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually 
>> play with it!
>> 
>> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so many 
>> talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded. Given the 
>> vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go into 
>> preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this knowledge 
>> with only the few academics who happen to be at the various conferences. I 
>> attend about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm missing all the 
>> fun. Why doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and record them even 
>> if the conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so good now, it 
>> probably wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even an iPhone 
>> video could work!
>> 
>> Sean
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> fonc mailing list
>> fonc@vpri.org
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
> 
> 
> ___
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_

Re: [fonc] new document

[Steve Taylor]

-1

David Barbour wrote:
`+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in 
this manner.


If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something 
specific and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts 
interested you?


If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events, 
please consider moving it to another topic.


___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Benoît Fleury]

Unless I missed it, there is no mention of Dynabook Junior in the last
report.

Has it been abandoned? replaced?

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Steve Taylor  wrote:

> -1
>
>
> David Barbour wrote:
>
>> `+1`? Really? I seriously do not appreciate having my mail spammed in
>> this manner.
>>
>> If you're offering an opinion on the article, try to say something
>> specific and relevant to those who might have skimmed it. Which parts
>> interested you?
>>
>> If you're referring to Sean's comment for recording the outreach events,
>> please consider moving it to another topic.
>>
>
> __**_
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc
>
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[karl ramberg]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM, DeNigris Sean  wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
>> http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
>
> It's so exciting to watch the project come along. I can't wait to eventually 
> play with it!
>
> With every annual report, I think what a shame it is that there are so many 
> talks given about it (~20 this year) and so few (~3) are recorded. Given the 
> vital importance of this project, and all the work that must go into 
> preparing the talks, it seems like a great waste to share this knowledge with 
> only the few academics who happen to be at the various conferences. I attend 
> about 6 conferences a year and still feel like I'm missing all the fun. Why 
> doesn't VPRI just take the bull by the horns and record them even if the 
> conferences don't? Consumer video equipment is so good now, it probably 
> wouldn't cost anything but a few conversations - even an iPhone video could 
> work!

I really enjoy the presentation on sites like http://www.infoq.com/
where the slides and the presenter get their separate space. I would
very much like to have the VPRI talks available in such a format. I
also think the presentations deserve it as they often are long the
making and can give better understanding than a paper can.

Most of the software from VPRI is available but it is often hard to
get a grasp without the whole context. And much of the systems I'm not
familiar with so it's very a steep learning curve. A few videos from
presentations could really enlighten here :-)

Best regards
Karl

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] new document

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 09.11.2011, at 23:15, Benoît Fleury wrote:

> Unless I missed it, there is no mention of Dynabook Junior in the last report.
> 
> Has it been abandoned? replaced?

Evolved into Frank.

- Bert -



___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

[fonc] New document, Appendix II Maru sample

[David Girle]

I am trying to learn a little about Maru, so (jumping in the deep) I
took the FFT code out of the Appendix II of tr2011004_steps.pdf and
attempted to run it through Maru, taken from
http://piumarta.com/software/maru/.  I got successive errors, which I
corrected by adding utility functions taken from boot.l , for:

define-form
define-function
cadr
concat-list
quasiquote

Unfortunately I am stuck with errors in quasiquote, assuming that such
errors manifest as:

"eval.k: undefined variable: quasiquote"

Any guidance, other than start with baby steps ?

Thanks,

David

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Re: [fonc] New document, Appendix II Maru sample

[Kurt Stephens]

See:
http://code.google.com/r/kurts68-maru/

or the original repo:

http://code.google.com/p/maru/

On 11/8/11 8:09 PM, David Girle wrote:

I am trying to learn a little about Maru, so (jumping in the deep) I
took the FFT code out of the Appendix II of tr2011004_steps.pdf and
attempted to run it through Maru, taken from
http://piumarta.com/software/maru/.  I got successive errors, which I
corrected by adding utility functions taken from boot.l , for:

define-form
define-function
cadr
concat-list
quasiquote

Unfortunately I am stuck with errors in quasiquote, assuming that such
errors manifest as:

"eval.k: undefined variable: quasiquote"

Any guidance, other than start with baby steps ?

Thanks,

David

___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc



___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc