On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 03:58:40 +0200, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
>I believe SICP has much culture but not always so great style.
>
>I'm not "learning lisp".
>
>Who are you to know of all lisp learners ?
>
>Why are you associating lisp with functional programming ? CL in itself is
>not really functional
I believe SICP has much culture but not always so great style.
I'm not "learning lisp".
Who are you to know of all lisp learners ?
Why are you associating lisp with functional programming ? CL in itself is
not really functional, but being a metalanguage you can make it so. You
could also make it
s de Grivel wrote:
>
> From: Thomas de Grivel
> Subject: Re: OT: Re: Seems OpenBSD isn't absolutely alone in it's quest,
> atleast on embedded systems.
> To: "misc@openbsd.org"
> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2011, 10:23 AM
>
> [Other shit removed to concentr
te:
From: Thomas de Grivel
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Seems OpenBSD isn't absolutely alone in it's quest,
atleast on embedded systems.
To: "misc@openbsd.org"
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2011, 10:23 AM
[Other shit removed to concentrate on the ignorance of the last line.]
Any hacker
Just wanna say "Thanks" to Thomas and his big, dumb, yet fun show.
But now I think we're all bored.
Le 06/08/11 14:00, Ariane van der Steldt a icrit :
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:24:14AM +0200, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
This really has nothing to do on this list, but here I go...
Pfft, this mail sucks. If you had actually responded properly, instead
of reiterating your arguments, I would have e
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:00:03PM +0200, Ariane van der Steldt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:24:14AM +0200, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> > Just like C, OCaml has skills in its semantics, but they both suck at
> > grammar : parsing ml requires a full lex/yacc above and below gcc. Not
> > really
> > This really has nothing to do on this list, but here I go...
@ Ariane van der Steldt wrote (2011-06-08 14:00+0200):
> I did say that. I said code proof (assisted or manual) is a lot of work.
>
> Yes, we should start over. If we start over we can make it so much
> better! We can do this and t
Here's a helpful start:
http://www.unlambda.com/lisp/mit.page
Enjoy!
Like I said before, there is amply enough work in the ports tree for lisp
hackers.
Go work on porting clisp to other OpenBSD architectures. Give us something
concrete.
Talk is very, very cheap.
I'm not really selling anything. I'm seeing a deeply rooted bug in our
way of thinking programming languages. Struggling is not necessary
unless you want to punish yourself.
My experience, and I feel I have enough in C to speak untroubled, is
that not all languages are like C when it comes to
+1
--- On Wed, 6/8/11, Theo de Raadt wrote:
From: Theo de Raadt
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Seems OpenBSD isn't absolutely alone in it's quest,
atleast on embedded systems.
To: "Nicholas Marriott"
Cc: "Thomas de Grivel" , "Christiano F. Haesbaert"
, "mis
> You are either trolling or just very mixed up, the important thing is
> not how quickly machines can parse it or how quickly you can write a
> lexer but how quickly humans can parse it and what they can do with
> it. C is not the best here but it is way ahead of any kind of useless
> functional l
On Jun 7, 2011, at 19:46, Nicholas Marriott
wrote:
> You are either trolling or just very mixed up, the important thing is
> not how quickly machines can parse it or how quickly you can write a
> lexer but how quickly humans can parse it and what they can do with
> it. C is not the best here but
You are either trolling or just very mixed up, the important thing is
not how quickly machines can parse it or how quickly you can write a
lexer but how quickly humans can parse it and what they can do with
it. C is not the best here but it is way ahead of any kind of useless
functional language.
This really has nothing to do on this list, but here I go...
Languages are like gods : there can be only one, and its perfect, and
everywhere, and we show our faith. Sure.. who wants to believe that crap ?
Languages have flaws, they are (slightly) bugged to the core and we're so
much into their us
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:19:11AM -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Now, think again, parsing a language is nice, but it's almost never
> the most important thing.
> You also should not try to convert old school unix hackers into
> lispers, there may be rape.
>
s/may be/will b
On 7 June 2011 07:08, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> Before even thinking of "fixing it" i'm trying to see if i'm alone in my
> quest. I like code correctness and feel what's done in OpenBSD is epic given
> the shitty language all the devs are dealing with. I love this much epic.
>
Please, C is very f
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:08:26PM +0200, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> Before even thinking of "fixing it" i'm trying to see if i'm alone in my
> quest. I like code correctness and feel what's done in OpenBSD is epic given
> the shitty language all the devs are dealing with. I love this much epic.
I
Before even thinking of "fixing it" i'm trying to see if i'm alone in my
quest. I like code correctness and feel what's done in OpenBSD is epic given
the shitty language all the devs are dealing with. I love this much epic.
Now if you want to know what code I'm writing, first I'm writing english
b
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:17:11PM -0400, goodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> X86 machine language sucks big rocks.
x86 is not executed on x86 processors since the
Pentium 4. Intel (and AMD) are using RISC cores
at the heart of their processors.
x86 instructions are translated into RISC code
and this co
--
>> From: Chris Bennett
>> Sent: Mon Jun 06 18:49:16 CEST 2011
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Seems OpenBSD isn't absolutely alone in it's quest, atleast
on
> embedded systems.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:36:03AM -0400, Eric Furman
X86 machine language sucks big rocks. Everyone should write in microcode for
full speed!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Chris Bennett
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:36:03AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
>> The answer is too write all OS code in Machine language for each
>> A
How about he proves to us he can write good lisp code first, by maintaining
ecl and maxima and sbcl for a while ?
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:33:31PM -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
> Honestly, what are you trying to achieve ?
I bet 10 canadian dollars on his 15 minute fame,
and eternal storage in Google newsgroup servers
of YARGTKBTOD*
(*) Yet Another Random Guy That Knows Better Than
OpenBSD Develope
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:31:29AM -0500, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> do you need a keyboard or two? Now that you have decided to write your
> own OS from scratch in s-expressions like language?
We should send this guy bullshit to the Linux kernel
mailing-list so they can have some fun too. Hey.
Those
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:49:16AM -0500, Chris Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:36:03AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
> > The answer is too write all OS code in Machine language for each
> > Architecture! YEA! We're waiting for your code!
> > I'm super duper excited! :-0
>
> P
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:49:16 -0500
Chris Bennett wrote:
> BareMetal is a 64-bit OS for x86-64 based computers. The OS is written
> entirely in Assembly,
I believe some/all newer models? of the Sonicwall range were rewritten
in assembly, to increase performance. My cousin loves em.
brainfuck OS sould be a good idea too...
:D
of course this is a joke, forth language should be more usefull
>
> From: Chris Bennett
> Sent: Mon Jun 06 18:49:16 CEST 2011
> To:
> Subject: Re: Seems OpenBSD isn't absolutely alone in
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:36:03AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
> The answer is too write all OS code in Machine language for each
> Architecture! YEA! We're waiting for your code!
> I'm super duper excited! :-0
Perhaps he should go work on this project:
BareMetal OS
BareMetal is a 64-bi
On 6 June 2011 06:10, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> I don't want to engage in language wars, as i wrote before there is a gap in
> programming culture and reinforcing trust in my favorite lang or OS won't
> help.
>
> We trust our languages to mean something but writing correct programs
> strangely is
>> I'm super duper excited! :-0
>
> do you need a towel ?
do you need a keyboard or two? Now that you have decided to write your
own OS from scratch in s-expressions like language?
bwaaahh
On 06/06/11 11:36, Eric Furman wrote:
I'm super duper excited! :-0
do you need a towel ?
--
Thomas de Grivel
http://b.lowh.net/billitch
"I must plunge into the water of doubt again and again."
The answer is too write all OS code in Machine language for each
Architecture! YEA! We're waiting for your code!
I'm super duper excited! :-0
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:10 +0200, "Thomas de Grivel"
wrote:
> I don't want to engage in language wars, as i wrote before there is a gap
> in
>
I don't want to engage in language wars, as i wrote before there is a gap in
programming culture and reinforcing trust in my favorite lang or OS won't
help.
We trust our languages to mean something but writing correct programs
strangely is still a struggle even to skilled programmers, and takes mu
What point are you making ? Some scheme code generated uselless C ? Too
bad.. i don't care.
It is actually possible to express the C paradigm in a simple grammar. Would
be quite simple to translate back and forth too. But maybe it's not enough
to prove correctness.
On 5 juin 2011 21:01, "Amit Kul
I was actually referring to the people seeking correctness in software
development. Feel free to say you are not interested. And threats about
killer monkey squads do not apply here, get lost.
On 5 juin 2011 20:38, wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 03:10:42PM +0200, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
>
>> [.
> Actually you're right : the C paradigm is straightforward and perfect to
> handle system code.
there you go. as unfortunate as that is, it is still true. Sometimes,
I am very surprised C is still around for so long, and essentially
unchanged. But its limitations are well known.
> What I meant t
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 03:10:42PM +0200, Thomas de Grivel wrote:
> [..] We should [..]
Those two words are the exact spot where the problem really is.
That "we".
OpenBSD is worked upon by developers. They do it, the hard
work so people like me, users, can benefit from good code,
solid software
Actually you're right : the C paradigm is straightforward and perfect to
handle system code.
What I meant to criticize is its grammar : it sucks that we cannot parse C
with a simple program. It's not KISS at all and we all pay the price when
checking for errors and everytime we wish to process the
Uh isn't the biggest problem that all the system code was written in an
almost unparsable grammar and practically impossible to audit automatically
?
If the language was considered formalized data as well as the data it
operates on, such formalized checking features would be easy to grab. Ever
hea
> Besides that, they use formal proof tools, which are probably much
> more complex than the code thay are trying to verify and thus have
> bugs of their own.
>
> While formal proofs have their utility (by some accident I studied
> with Peter van Emde Boas. The above famous quote comes from a lette
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 06:02:39PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:36:17PM +0200, Erik wrote:
> | Op 31-5-2011 17:51, Kevin Chadwick schreef:
> |
> >http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/working-towards-bug-free-secure-software/5560?tag=nl.e036
> | >
> | Actually they
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:36:17PM +0200, Erik wrote:
| Op 31-5-2011 17:51, Kevin Chadwick schreef:
|
>http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/working-towards-bug-free-secure-software/5560?tag=nl.e036
| >
| Actually they go full steps further. They have produced a formally
| verified OS kernel,
Op 31-5-2011 17:51, Kevin Chadwick schreef:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/working-towards-bug-free-secure-software/5560?tag=nl.e036
Actually they go full steps further. They have produced a formally
verified OS kernel, was in the news august 13, 2009:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/working-towards-bug-free-secure-software/5560?tag=nl.e036
46 matches
Mail list logo
