From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,b1f4420d01b2c4eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: LLVM--Low Level Virtual Machine--and Ada Reply-To: anon@anon.org (anon) References: <1184730995.862147.208590@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:42:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.168.20 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1185201747 12.65.168.20 (Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:42:27 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:42:27 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16552 Date: 2007-07-23T14:42:27+00:00 List-Id: The Non-Microsoft programmers of the world need to think of the future. Not what going on today but what they wish and hope for the future. From a old saying: Ones Life and Time is way Too Short to waste it. Or you will be out of work and a has been before you even get started. Programmers need to think 5, 10 and 15 years into the future. And that's only a small precent of the time for a "Software Patent" which is 75 plus years. Like at the movement Microsoft is not waiting around. They are using a small force to patch Vista, maybe 5 to 10%. But the rest aka primary force is working on the replacement for Vista which should be out in 2009-2010. Now, Linux and the GNU forces are still just playing catch up. With alot of software functionabillty being that of Win 98, almost ten years outdated. The problem is that some want to reinvent the wheel over and over. Its one thing to do this in a classroom environment, but it is another to waste one time staying in a place that has limited growth. An example is KDE and GOME which are the two main DeskTop for Linux and if you look at them, they are just a GNU version on Microsoft Windows Desktop. Linux need it own Dektop but the Linux designers are just playing catch up with Microsoft. If these programmers put half of their time in writing code for the future functionabillty of Linux and GNU, they would help push Microsoft off the mountain with a black eye to boot. And who does not want to give Microsoft a black eye. Now, most programmers write code for two reasons: love of programming, and money. Love of programming is great and when it done with the future in mind or a purpose in the future it can bring a lot of profit with it. But reinventing the wheel has no profit and can actually leave you alone and homeless. As for FPGA. They are like summertime TV just something to pass the time until ZISC processors are out in force. Those who use the FPGA as deciated processors will be OK for the time begin. But as the ZISC comes out these programmers will be put out to paster, like a lame horse. Not to stud, but to wait for the glue factor. And for those who are learning and writting code for the future like ZISC will be the leaders of tomorrow! Or even the next Bill Gates! Of course, you might use FPGA to make a ZISC procesor, but I guess the true invening should be left up to Microsoft. Or IBM which created the 8 / 7 operational processors on a chip in the Playstation 3 which they have stated will be out in a general processor system design in the future. But I guess that writtng programs for a emulator that has no farseeable future is more exciting than writting code for a 7 o perational processors system. Which will lead somewhere. People who will pay for code wants multi-processors code, not some outdated emulator code. In , Colin Paul Gloster writes: >On 2007-07-21, anon wrote: > >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"The question should be. Should Ada be ported or is it a waste of time? | >|" | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >What one does with one's time is not necessarily wasteful even if it >could instead be expended on something more worthwhile. It would be a >worse waste to simply stop now. > >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|"The LLVM is based on RISC concept and the RISC is being replaced by | >| the ZISC aka (Zero Instruction Set Computer). The reason is that today | >| most newer computer systems are based on parallel cpus and artificial | >| neural networks. While RISC and CISC are based on a single processor | >| which came from the early days computers using time-slicing to | >| emulate a parallel system. | >| | >| In today world parallel cpu are here and in the next few years should | >| replace all single cpu system and designs such as RISC and CISC." | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >So will Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) replace RISCs in the >meantime? Are Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs) obsolete because of >FPGAs? Do you dislike the way combinatorial loops are not an easy >accident with PLDs? Were RISCs up-to-date when Hennesy and Patterson >claimed to have invented the idea in the 1980's with a publication of >theirs cited in their book "Computer Architecture - A Quantitative >Approach", despite the claims of users of Microchip PICs that >Microchip invented RISCs (without the term RISC) in the 1970's? Should >sequential programs which achieve what is required of them be replaced? >I own a lot of video tapes. Many of them were bought after DVDs became >common. Should I have bought their alternatives on DVDs instead, >simply to spend more money for something which someone else thinks is >better? > >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >|" This | >| suggest that LLVM to be on the cuting edge, [..]" | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >I do not expect the Ada to C part of LLVM to be even nearly as good as >Taft's Ada 95 to C with POSIX compiler, so how could it be cutting >edge? Do you criticise people for using GNAT instead of compilers >which perform better? I would rather have choices. > >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| >| | >|"[..] We should have surpass both designed long | >| ago, but the companies that create the CPU are still operated by those | >| that think CISC [..] is the way to go. It will be fun to watch | >| those guys sell their stock as newer designs finally take hold. | >| | >|[..]" | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > >Did you commend those of Intel who ceased Intel's production of the >CISC family of MCS51 processors for realizing that it is impure; >illogical; and out of date, or did you laugh at Intel for leaving what >is probably still the biggest market by volume of sales in the >computer industry and for disclosing the 8051 non-zero instruction set >which has been copied by many chip manufacturers? > >C. P. G.