freenode/#sicl - IRC Chatlog
Search
3:12:32
no-defun-allowed
I think so. I noticed that some of the cuts I did were too distracting, and I had a slip of the tongue in the Q&A section, but otherwise it seemed about right.
3:13:27
no-defun-allowed
Your presentation was great, though I don't have anything in particular to say.
3:20:05
beach
There used to be a direct flight Bordeaux Porto, but it may not have survived the virus situation.
3:34:52
no-defun-allowed
(Google suggested that I'd save A$1000 flying to Lisbon though, and the train rides between the two are probably cheaper. I dunno, I haven't planned any flights before.)
3:38:00
no-defun-allowed
One of the stops was Sydney, and two were US airports. I'm not sure if that's normal or not.
3:41:19
beach
It would be a bit strange to go that way, but I guess it is possible. Porto is close to as far as you can get from Melbourne, no matter which way you go.
3:43:20
no-defun-allowed
One moment, I am now occupied with bugging to someone trying to scam me with a non-existent Amazon Prime video account or something.
3:47:56
no-defun-allowed
Apparently they have now sent the cancellation form to Jeff Bezos's email account.
3:47:56
beach
Heh, the train from Bordeaux to Porto (771km) takes 38 hours and 28 minutes, with 8 changes. And it costs more than 100€. This has got to change if we are going to save the environment.
3:49:55
no-defun-allowed
I didn't get it exactly, apparently they were checking something about account cancellation. But that's over now.
3:55:52
no-defun-allowed
I had heard something similar about the train system in the United Kingdom, particuarly that it was cheaper to fly some (relatively) short distance than take the train.
3:56:55
beach
Possibly. But they have improved the train service in the UK a lot the past few decades.
3:57:26
no-defun-allowed
A news article from two years ago suggests that is the case for 60 percent of long-distance journeys in Britain: https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/9794151/flying-uk-cheaper-than-train/
3:57:35
Bike
isn't that pretty usual? i've heard the shinkansen is pretty comparable to taking an airplane if you don't factor in how often they come and so on
3:59:13
beach
Well, six months or so ago, France banned domestic flights between destinations that can be reached by train in less than 3(?) hours.
4:01:11
beach
Besides, by train you can arrive 2 minutes before departure. With a flight, you have to be there 30 minutes in advance. And then you end up far from the center city, so you have another hour of transportation at either end.
4:01:52
beach
In Paris, there are two small and nice Ibis hotels within walking distance from the train station.
7:40:39
jdz
I traveled from London to Paris (ELS2014), and it was absolutely better than a plane. The ride itself might be longer (I think 2.5h), but considering getting to and from airports, waiting in the airports, ample legroom on the train, comfortable seats, possibility to do stuff on laptop all the way. It was way more enjoyable experience.
7:48:42
no-defun-allowed
Here is an amusing but unimportant question: long ago one might use hardware acceleration for an efficient implementation of a dynamic language. But now that isn't necessary, of course. So could you remove a significant amount of hardware by using a safe language, and using the language for isolation instead of that hardware?
7:48:59
no-defun-allowed
I think something like this was mentioned in #sicl once, but I forgot what exactly.
7:50:16
Duuqnd
I mean, the Lisp machines lacked pretty much any security whatsoever, but if Genera had been built with security in mind I'm sure it could've been a very secure system.
7:50:35
beach
Let's see. I don't plan to remap memory with CLOSOS, so I think the memory-management unit is superfluous.
7:51:08
MichaelRaskin
Economies of production scale for computation power have made it cheaper to get performance from using same thing as everyone that an actually fitting thing
7:51:31
beach
I also plan to run it in supervisor mode, so the distinction between user/supervisor modes might be unnecessary.
7:53:04
no-defun-allowed
What would be used to map disk addresses to where they are cached in primary memory if not a MMU? I was thinking it could be simplified, but not eliminated.
7:54:57
moon-child
rather than a complete mmu based on pages, they have a flat memory space with byte-granular permissions (rwx, or just rw for the mill since it's a harvard arch)
7:54:58
no-defun-allowed
MichaelRaskin: Yes, it's as impractical as proposals to add more hardware support. But doing the opposite of that was, again, somewhat amusing.
7:56:10
moon-child
no-defun-allowed: also, proposed in _the birth and death of yavascript_ https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript
7:57:29
splittist
(From Geneva to Porto by train a mere 42 hours with 7 changes. Or a 2:15 EasyJet flight.)
9:38:14
beach
Oh, and we are still debating whether default methods are specialized to the CLIENT parameter.
9:38:54
heisig
The we should finish this debate and write things down. Because I am pondering this very thing right now.
9:43:09
heisig
The trouble with specializing on the T client is that it makes it hard to debug custom protocols. Default methods might hide some bugs and prevent 'no-applicable-method' from being called when it should be.
9:45:20
heisig
The question is whether we should go even further and have each protocol define both a CLIENT class, and a STANDARD-CLIENT class inheriting from the former.
9:46:30
beach
Nah, a protocol class is good enough. Client code should create a "normal" class, using the protocol class as a superclass.
9:47:25
beach
CLIM is different in that it also defines its own instantiable classes, and it is expected that the very nature of those classes can differ.
9:49:28
heisig
beach: I recall you had this document about protocol design. Can you give me an URL for that?
9:56:35
jdz
beach: In section 5.3 do you intentionally write "simple dispatch" instead of "single dispatch"?
10:31:15
beach
heisig: Last time I thought about type inference, I found it useful to consider two different purposes. The first purpose is absolutely crucial, but also fairly simple, namely optimization by avoiding unnecessary type tests. The second purpose is good, but can be considered a bonus, and it is giving the programmer compile-time feedback about incorrect types. The second one is much harder, so you might want to consider only very
10:32:40
beach
heisig: For the first purpose, it is good to know whether an object is of one of the immediate types, or on the contrary, if it is a standard object. Also, the type LIST might be useful, because then a single test (for CONSP) is enough to distinguish the cases.
10:33:21
beach
Arrays of different element types are important. You can assume that we are not allowed to CHANGE-CLASS of an array.