On 30 July 2013 16:22, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of
> some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, what if it could fall back to the
> suboptimal but conceptually simpler "Occam's explanation?"
>
This is something the Erlang folk hav
Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not existing programming languages and
paradigms.
Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not your troubleshooting for your
current job.
Use the list for what it's said to be for.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones <
tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com>
John - that discussion strikes me as perfectly suitable for this list.
And your comment doesn't.
- Original Message -
From: "Fundamentals of New Computing"
To:"Fundamentals of New Computing"
Cc:
Sent:Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:49:35 -0700
Subject:Re: [fonc] D
This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc.
Cheers,
Alan
From: Casey Ransberger
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM
Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
Thought I had: when a program hits an
: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM
> Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
>
> Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often
> there's a hook to log the crash somewhere.
>
> I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized versio
sday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM
> Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
>
> Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often
> there's a hook to log the crash somewhere.
>
> I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of
t; Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> From: Casey Ransberger
> To: Fundamentals of New Computing
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM
> Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
>
> Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often
> there's a hook to l
has always treated its primitives, etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> From: Casey Ransberger
> To: Fundamentals of New Computing
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM
> Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
>
> Thought I had: when a program hits an unhan
John, I really don't think this list is for you.
Jason
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:51 PM, John Pratt wrote:
>
> The problem is that Alan Kay is a passive-aggressive twerp
> who can't reply directly to people.
>
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>
> > Below.
> >
> > On Ju
It's true, I actually do things.
On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Jason Ives wrote:
> John, I really don't think this list is for you.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:51 PM, John Pratt wrote:
>
> The problem is that Alan Kay is a passive-aggressive twerp
> who can't reply directly t
I'm confused about what you're asking. If you apply an optimizer to an
algorithm, it absolutely shouldn't affect the output. When we debug or
report errors, it should always be in reference to the original source code.
Or do you mean some other form of 'optimized'? I might rephrase your
question i
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Casey Ransberger
wrote:
> Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often
> there's a hook to log the crash somewhere.
>
> I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of
> some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, wh
Hi Dirk, yes I am aware of dynamic VMs that deoptimize when their heuristics
for what to precompile fail. Most of the JIT/PIC VMs do this. But my gut says
what I'm asking about is a bit different than that. Of course, maybe it isn't.
Falling back to interpreter logic, now that you mention it, is
Specifically, I think there are some VMs that rely on the hardware to raise
exceptions to catch the failure caused by the violated assumption, in which
case this is quite similar to handling a crash ...
-- Dirk
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Casey Ransberger
wrote:
> Hi Dirk, yes I am aware of
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Casey Ransberger
wrote:
> Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often
> there's a hook to log the crash somewhere.
>
> I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of
> some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, wh
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:52:39PM -0300, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Casey Ransberger
> ><[1]casey.obrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we
When we speak of separating meaning from optimization, I get the impression
we want to automate the optimization. In that case, we should validate the
optimizer(s). But you seem to be assuming hand-optimized code with a
(simplified) reference implementation. That's a pretty good pattern for
validat
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:26 PM, David Barbour wrote:
> When we speak of separating meaning from optimization, I get the
> impression we want to automate the optimization. In that case, we should
> validate the optimizer(s). But you seem to be assuming hand-optimized code
> with a (simplified) re
18 matches
Mail list logo
