skaller wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:24 -0400, Chris King wrote:
>
> > Certainly you can do the same thing in Felix, and because Felix
> > doesn't have a silly global lock the generator would
> actually run in
> > parallel with the calling code; what's more, you could
> abstract this
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 04:23 +1000, skaller wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:24 -0400, Chris King wrote:
> Stackless Python has been able to do that for ages. Generators
> are based on it, but they didn't go the whole way for the
> same reason Felix can't interleave function execution:
> the C sta
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:24 -0400, Chris King wrote:
> On 4/17/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An example: folds and STL style iterators are control
> > inverse. Iterators rock for users -- folds suck big time.
> > Folds rock for implementors -- iterators suck for implementors.
>
> Ah,
On 4/17/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I quite follow the argument. It is certainly
> possible to have higher order channels .. channels that
> you read channels off :)
Yep, that was all I was getting at.
> > Overall I like the idea but I disagree that it's any more modular
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 22:55 -0400, Jacques Carette wrote:
> I should have mentioned LabVIEW too (don't know about Max/MSP). It
> appears that Chris and I are completely on the same page on this one.
Actually Simula was probably the pre-cursor of a lot of this:
It was around in 1973 on Syd Uni's
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 22:12 -0400, Chris King wrote:
> > Here Sin is a *design* for a chip,
> This reminds me a lot of Pict [1]... Pict is based on the pi calculus
> and has channels which are much like Felix's channels (except that
> they are asynchronous).
See also JoCaml which is a high lev
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 22:04 -0400, Jacques Carette wrote:
> shine. Though wire+connectors view of software architecture is > 20
> years old (at least in the theory world...). Fiadeiro's "Category
> Theory for Software Engineering" has a nice chapter on that.
So does my text-book by RFC Walter
I should have mentioned LabVIEW too (don't know about Max/MSP). It
appears that Chris and I are completely on the same page on this one.
Felix seems to have all the right 'stuff' (including axioms, etc) in
which to specify high-level components (by various means), and then
connect then togethe
On 4/16/07, Jacques Carette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And remember one thing that we learned the hard way (on a doomed project
> at a company I used to work for): do NOT try to find a circuits analogy
> to classical imperative programming -- it's a fool's errand. We wasted
> a lot of time on th
On 4/16/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the model:
>
> spawn_fthread { Sin (xin, yout); };
>
> shows that a chip is different from a procedure.
> Here Sin is a *design* for a chip, but it is actually
> the fthread which is the chip: in other words,
> this is a dynamic instantiation of
Not that I want to be a party-pooper, but you seem to be describing a
cool but textual version of what Simulink does for Matlab. Actually,
if you look at the .m files that Simulink generates, they look like
Matlab code which is not that different from the Felix code you showed.
HOWEVER, Simul
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 08:35 +1000, skaller wrote:
> Felix supports a radical new programming paradigm -- programming
> with circuits.
Ok, here are some more comments and ideas.
In the model:
spawn_fthread { Sin (xin, yout); };
shows that a chip is different from a procedure.
Here Sin is a
Felix supports a radical new programming paradigm -- programming
with circuits. In this game, the players are wires and chips:
we have a powerful concept of modularity and components.
Below is a 'realistic' example. Two things need to be noted.
The first is that the technique can be difficult to
13 matches
Mail list logo
