It might be worth only loading and testing vocabularies in core and basis, to
see if GVN works?
On Aug 24, 2012, at 6:50 PM, "Alexander J. Vondrak"
wrote:
> It seems to fail soon after the tools.deploy tests. I tried at one point
> disabling those, but I think it still crashed. I should che
It seems to fail soon after the tools.deploy tests. I tried at one point
disabling those, but I think it still crashed. I should check again...
From: Doug Coleman [doug.cole...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 6:44 PM
To: factor-talk@lists.source
8gb outta be enough for anybody. But It's not, I guess. Try with more RAM
or patch the part that grows to only grow to as much as you have.
Maybe something is using way too much
On Aug 24, 2012 6:01 PM, "Alexander J. Vondrak"
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Mini-update: got the unit tests for the
8 GB.
From: Doug Coleman [doug.cole...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 6:06 PM
To: factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Factor-talk] Out of memory error
How much ram?
On Aug 24, 2012 6:01 PM, "Alexander J. Vondrak"
mailto:ajvond...@csu
How much ram?
On Aug 24, 2012 6:01 PM, "Alexander J. Vondrak"
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Mini-update: got the unit tests for the global value numbering pass more
> up-to-snuff awhile ago (it's like test-driven development in reverse!).
> Still
> seems like I should be doing more to test the new capab
Hey all,
Mini-update: got the unit tests for the global value numbering pass more
up-to-snuff awhile ago (it's like test-driven development in reverse!). Still
seems like I should be doing more to test the new capabilities, but I'm not
sure if I could do much more than what's there.
My efforts a
I think there is a danger in proliferation of too many packages with too
many versions here. One advantage that Factor has had, albeit a mixed
advantage due to reduced resources at times, is one main codebase that can
be improved in wide cross-cutting ways. That has resulted in a lot of
common vo
We have a code coverage tool. If we started using it, one could at
least be guaranteed that every code path is at least hit by the unit
tests.
Doug
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, P. wrote:
> I remember your describing that idea!
> I think it's great - it would allow us to express the interfa
I remember your describing that idea!
I think it's great - it would allow us to express the interface not only in
a more flexible way as you put it, but in a more detailed way (much more
than a type system could provide).
You have my vote.
What are the downsides?
(there's no language doing that now
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:13 PM, P. wrote:
> Joe, I was looking for something more enforced than that - so that I can
> expect a package I download to "just work" and not waste time with
> dependence issues.
A package metadata file could perhaps have a `self-contained` flag
that would restrict th
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, P. wrote:
> Hey Doug, thanks for the link, I'll read it when I'm not at work. (oops :P)
>
> What about mimicking something like OCaml's functors or whatever they call
> their dependency interfaces?
An idea I had was to use test suites to describe dependencies. You
Joe, I was looking for something more enforced than that - so that I can
expect a package I download to "just work" and not waste time with
dependence issues.
Doug, I just read that link but it's a bit over my head for me, not knowing
node, and not having any concrete examples of how it's a bad th
Hey Doug, thanks for the link, I'll read it when I'm not at work. (oops :P)
What about mimicking something like OCaml's functors or whatever they call
their dependency interfaces?
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Joe Groff wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM, P. wrote:
> > Here's an unpo
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM, P. wrote:
> Here's an unpopular vote, but I'll say it anyway.
> How about portable packages?
> As in, if you download package P that is dependent on packages D, E, F, then
> package P comes with the correct versions of D, E, F embedded in it?
> That way we do away
rien,
Read this blog post: http://www.mikealrogers.com/posts/nodemodules-in-git.html
He makes a very convincing argument against bundling packages.
Doug
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, P. wrote:
> Here's an unpopular vote, but I'll say it anyway.
> How about portable packages?
> As in, if yo
Here's an unpopular vote, but I'll say it anyway.
How about portable packages?
As in, if you download package P that is dependent on packages D, E, F,
then package P comes with the correct versions of D, E, F embedded in it?
That way we do away with dependencies altogether.
(yes, there'll be redund
Python's package management is terrible. They have easy_install,
distribute, distribute2, pip, and virtualenv, in addition to having
binaries/interpreters/libraries for python2 and python3. I tried pip
but it couldn't install one of the packages I needed, so I wiped them
all and went back to easy_i
Python's package management is (typically) on a system basis while afaik
npm and gem is per project and user respectively, so this seems to be
comparing apples
and oranges. For example, there is no standard way to download a
Python project and do the
equivalent of npm install.
Some Linux distros d
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tim Allen wrote:
> I'm no expert in these matters, but it worries me a little that you
> mention Ruby Gems as one potential inspiration: I know that (for
> example) Debian doesn't package many Ruby libraries because the Gem
> system interacts poorly with a system-
Thanks much. In this age of erroneous credit reports, that "never
disappearing" aspect of the web is definitely a double-edged sword.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 24, 2012, at 9:41 AM, "Chris Double" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Michael Clagett
> wrote:
>> Back in December of 20
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Michael Clagett wrote:
> Back in December of 2006 in one of your articles on Parser Combinators you
> reference
> a Chapter 5 on Parser Combinators from some larger work. This is a nice
> article and it leads to wonder what the source is that it is taken from an
Chris -- I'm spending some time going back through various key bloggers'
contributions and am working through some of yours at the moment. Back in
December of 2006 in one of your articles on Parser Combinators you reference a
Chapter 5 on Parser Combinators from some larger work. This is a ni
22 matches
Mail list logo
