Learning Latin continues to be fun. I'm now able to give little forethought to basic sentences, and fill in some of the blanks before I utter the syllables. I'm able to translate more of my thoughts into Latin, and I find myself able to do so with less conscious thought. When speaking to a relative, I thought to jokingly ask where my baculum was, so I could jokingly threaten her with it, if only I knew the right words, but I do and it immediately came to me: VBI EST BACVLVM MEVM
I must be careful not to write invalid Latin in my mind, but I'm doing reasonably well with this. I found myself incorrect on one part, but concerning a tense I was using before my book taught it to me, so that's not nearly so bad.
>>116
I referred to the Q encoding.
Should it suit you I'm going to try to write here regularly on the thirteenth, assuming I have thoughts to say which might be of interest.
Should it matter whether it suits me or not? Sure, do so.
I take it from your translation that this isn't even grammatically consistent.
I'll show another example; interestingly, Latin uses question words similarly to English:
IĀNVS EST DEVS CVI DVAE FACIĒS SVNT (Janus is a god to whom two faces are.)
Meaning MULTĪ isn't an indefinite pronoun of quantity in the nominative and SERVĪ isn't in the accusative.
Both words are plural and nominative there. The singular accusative is SERVVM and the plural accusative is SERVŌS.
Were this the case the grammar would then literally be of the form: "Many are me slaves." as if spoken by a pirate or a celt.
That's close enough to correct.
I wonder if the lack of the article unlike "some of the dogs" is due to this same inheritance.
We'll see.
I read in the logs that you saw the doctor already. Did he indicate a prognosis?
I've some tendinitis, which I'm managing. Proper posture, careful typing, breaks, and occassionally a compression bracelet help.
I assume you're put off by the complexity of most speech recognition systems.
I'm put off by not seeing anything I can install and test. I'm compelled to audit code I get from elsewhere, but these are large systems.
I even wrote a goodbye letter, believe it or not. My thinking has been slightly peculiar recently.
This goodbye letter was for me?
Related to Serpent, it's odd to me that the user-interface to Pest, which seems rather clearly as if it should be a server protocol, was standardized.
Pest has a looser notion of ``standardization'' in this.
Your approach to eschewing the arbitrary backwards compatibility in the interface is obviously correct.
Yes; now I simply need to write the libraries and then the program.
Well, I look forward to this. A healthy obsession to have I imagine.
Ironically, I pursued progressively smaller and simpler things; I'd be finished, were the small core of this not something I'd never written before. Currently, I'm more concerned with a completely different little program I'm writing, as an example of the programming style I wish to begin using; I've done all of the figuring in my mind, and simply need to finish writing it out.
I agree that existing tooling is bad. I haven't seriously studied many languages outside of the lisp family, my only recurring, and passing question concerning programming languages is: what sort of assumptions and mathematics would allow one to solve the programming language problem. I have no insight to make progress on such a question however.
I think the programming style I wish to show may give a decent answer. It's completely different from the high-level language work I'd been imagining for years, but that was always vague, whereas this is solid.
I'm not sure if it would be more appropriate to send these via the comment system perhaps without some of my funny thoughts so that others could avoid asking the same questions.
Simply tell me if adding them to the comments page would be desired. I demand any comments I'm to upload be clearly marked.
Do you consider bit-parallelism an insidious optimization in the same fashion as byte-addressable memory and registers (all together a tyranny of the machine word)?
I currently don't, no. I've not given it much thought.
If bit-parallelism be an insidious optimization do you know a way to reconcile bit-serial operation with a high-level architecture?
It's ultimately irrelevant to that.
I had a funny thought of memory spitting instructions and data together directly to the computers with each instruction being a one-to-one memory transformation such that explicit addresses and memory management more generally could be removed (the idea of removing control-flow made me think of APL, and of removing addresses in this way in turn).
Look at systolic arrays.
(A sort of stack machine with a single stack taking up all of memory (a memory-to-memory stack-machine) could be thought of as just combinators and other functions in RPL, that is operand rather than memory management, but it still doesn't feel quite perfect.)
No machine will ever feel quite perfect, I now believe. There will always be something a design can't do as well as another, and even a good something at that.
I am confused however by the use of the three-bit association in the hextet for the instructions ExxCxx through ExxFxx; likely related, I don't understand the meaning of "routine information" and "routine entry" in the definitions of instructions ExxExx and ExxFxx. Also what does "instate" in the definition of the MMC hook FE5 mean?
The association code refers to how the name maps to the instruction, such as octet, hextet, upper nibble, lower nibble, address, or none. The routine information was the Meta-CHIP-8 routine called to display the instruction; I later examined these, and saw how wasteful they were, leading to the later designs that lack this unnecessary flexibility. Instate is the loading counterpart to save.
>>119
I've largely abandoned thinking about these things, in favour of mulling over non von Neumann designs.
I'm still having posting issues.