| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Comments:
<ProN00b> zomg
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey: if you don't get the formal definition, than don't waste your time
<hanumizzle> "A language is a method of communication."
<Sneaky_Bastard> it's not our problem if you aren't properly trained in fundamentals of Comp. Sci.
<headmonkey> language 1. a. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
<headmonkey> does asm communicate thoughts or feelings ?
<headmonkey> no
<hanumizzle> it communicates thoughts, yes
<headmonkey> no it doesnt
<rickest> MOV A,B communicates a thought, yes
<headmonkey> cpu's dont think
<gufymike> does C or any other programming language
<headmonkey> gufymike, no ;)
<Sneaky_Bastard> the standard text on this subject is "Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation"
<headmonkey> language 1 b. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
<koala_man> headmonkey: I'm embarrased on your behalf
<rickest> truly
<headmonkey> asm is only words....no rules
<Sneaky_Bastard> and the formal definition of "language" in Comp. Sci. is related to Automata, not humans
<ProN00b> ***embler or binary code, as each is just a representation of each other can be well treated like a language, as it has opcodes and arguments, which you would call verbs and subjects in a spoken language
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey, of course there are rules
<rickest> headmonkey: PLEASE p*** that ganja
<rickest> good stuff
<headmonkey> language 2. b. A system of symbols and rules used for communication with or between computers.
<arrummzen> How do I compile the kernel with an alternate C compiler?
<Sneaky_Bastard> there is an exact lexical grammar, which if not followed does not result in ***embled machine code
<headmonkey> symbols and rules ... ASM is only a sequence of symbols....without rules
<hanumizzle> If I wrote a natural language proc program, would the English (or Hindi or whatever) text I typed at the prompt qualify as language or no?
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey: I'm sorry, but your ignorance here is abyssmal
<hanumizzle> again, cpus don't think
<koala_man> headmonkey: there are a bunch of rules, which instructions can take what arguments and such
<headmonkey> Sneaky_Bastard, its not my ignorance
<gufymike> arrummzen: CC=mycompiler ?
<Sneaky_Bastard> hanu: you can't argue with the willfully ignorant
<arrummzen> gufymike: is that it?
<headmonkey> koala_man, asm does not specify the rules...the rules are specified by the wiring of the cpu
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey: you haven't studied Comp. Sci. language parsing, have you?
<Sneaky_Bastard> that is what is meant by "formal language"
<Sneaky_Bastard> not common English usage
<headmonkey> asm is merely a sequence of encoded bits
<Sneaky_Bastard> uh, no
<hanumizzle> gufymike, yeah, but linux and gcc are very entwined
<ProN00b> headmonkey, there are rules, a mov doesn't always translate to the same opcode, it depends on what you use the mov on
<headmonkey> uh yes
<gufymike> IRC there is more for tcc which is described on the tcc home page, but yeah essentially, set your CC to a new compiler or it will look for gcc by default
<koala_man> headmonkey: uhm no.
<headmonkey> um yes
<gufymike> IIRC*
<hanumizzle> headmonkey, it wouldn't matter if they were or not...even numerals constitute language
<Sneaky_Bastard> ***embler is a sequence of symbols, which when fed into an ***embler, results in a different sequence of symbols
<headmonkey> hanumizzle, no...a language must have symbols and rules
<Sneaky_Bastard> there are exact rules for how those symbols may be used
<headmonkey> 1 3 4 isnt a language
<headmonkey> until you specify rules
<arrummzen> Are you argueing that ***emlby isn't a programing language?
<Sneaky_Bastard> which, if not followed, to not result in an output file of binary code symbols
<headmonkey> ***embly is not a language
<hanumizzle> headmonkey, yeah, the rules are terminal symbols which can be 0-9
<headmonkey> thats my position
<Sneaky_Bastard> arrumzen: Headmonkey doesn't know what "language" means in Comp. Sci
<hanumizzle> argue that with noam chomsky
<headmonkey> i know what language means
<Sneaky_Bastard> so he's ranting about it not being a *human language*
<headmonkey> and im aware of how people misuse it
<arrummzen> Sneaky_Bastard: to tell you the truth, I don't even know that deffintion of the top of my head...
<headmonkey> and misunderstand it
<koala_man> headmonkey: your argument was recently based on that cpus don't feel
<rickest> headmonkey: you seem to think ASM is not parsed by a *compiler*
<headmonkey> no..my argument is based on the fact that ***embly is merely a sequence of instructions
<koala_man> why am I even bothering with this
<Sneaky_Bastard> This is aspect of computer science is only taught in the most advanced cl***es
<gufymike> arrummzen: its a war of programmers one sticking by the book another who is trying to free think his way through it, both have merits, but in the end this doesn't matter, its not going to change the fact that 90% of the world thinks ***embly is a language or not
<arrummzen> but I have heard of machine language being called "first generation langauge"...
<headmonkey> asm isnt parsed by a compiler...its parsed by an ***embler...which ***embles sequences of asm instructions
<Sneaky_Bastard> yet the theory and technology of it are depended upon by all programmers
<arrummzen> gufymike: =)
<headmonkey> you can program in ***embly without an ***embler
<hanumizzle> headmonkey, if you look at the source of the gnu ***embler, i can guarantee you will find a parser in it
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey: a parser is a program that reads a string of symbols in a formal grammar
<headmonkey> i never said gnu ***embler didnt have a parser
<Sneaky_Bastard> that's all it is
<hanumizzle> what are parsers for?
<headmonkey> i said ***embly isnt a language...its merely a sequence of symbols
<dmbt> breaking up a lanugae
<dmbt> language*
<headmonkey> no...parsers operate on data as well as languages
<dmbt> cmon, were not going to argue about asm not being a language again are we?
<ProN00b> headmonkey, "you can program in ***embly without an ***embler" => "you can generate thoughts in someone elses head without punching it"
<hanumizzle> In computer science, parsing is the process of analyzing an input sequence (read from a file or a keyboard, for example) in order to determine its grammatical structure with respect to a given formal grammar. It is formally named syntax analysis.
<eKo1> a languages is the set of strings that can be produced by a grammar if i'm nto mistaken
<dmbt> its a languagem just like html is
<headmonkey> ProN00b, you can, but sometimes punching it is more effective
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey: a sequence of identifiable symbols with exact rules for their order *IS* the formal definition of "language:" in Comp. Sci.
<dmbt> no matter what people say
<ProN00b> headmonkey, in your case...
<arrummzen> gufymike: so I want to compile my kernel with a differnt version of CC than is installed and normally used. I installed the compiler to /opt/gcc-2.95.3/
<headmonkey> Sneaky_Bastard, ***embly doesnt specify the order...the cpu does
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey
<arrummzen> gufymike: all I have to do is make CC=/opt/gcc-2.95.3/bin/i686-something-gcc ?
<hanumizzle> arrummzen, yes
<gufymike> hmnmm, get over it and lets just say the meanings of the words as by websters where the closest anyone at the time had to use to describe what they were doing to people who didn't understand the magic
<gufymike> So this is what wwe have
<arrummzen> What about when it links? Will it use the linker for 2.95.3?
<gufymike> And arrummzen yeah
<Sneaky_Bastard> there is an exact set of rules for transforming a sequence of ASCII characters in an input file into an output file of binary machine code
<arrummzen> ok, cool =)
<hanumizzle> arrummzen, i think the var is LD...not sure
<Sneaky_Bastard> the correspondance is not one-to-one, either
<ProN00b> while we are at this, can anyone tell me how operating systems handle multitasking ?
<arrummzen> well, it looks like its working at any rate...
<headmonkey> ***embly != language ... ***embly = sequence of symbols .... and those symbols are either executed or not by the cpu...which imposes rules on the order and type and sequence of symbols it will accept...but the ***embly language itself does not impose such order or rules
<headmonkey> therefore, ***embly != language
<arrummzen> ProN00b: SMP OSs or nonSMP OSs?
<rickest> ProN00b: preemptive or cooperative
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey: I'm sorry, but your definition of "language" is incorrect for Computer Science
<hanumizzle> ProN00b, if there is one cpu...it just parcels out CPU time
<Sneaky_Bastard> that's the problem here
<gufymike> OK so hieroglyphics isn't a language headmonkey
<Sneaky_Bastard> you really don't get it
<gufymike> Get over it allready
<ProN00b> one cpu *_*
<Sneaky_Bastard> and you are unwilling to learn different
<arrummzen> rickest: I don't think anyone writes cooperative OSs anymore =)
<headmonkey> hieroglyphs communicate thoughts to people
<arrummzen> programs tend to be very bad at cooperation =)
<Sneaky_Bastard> they are symbols with a particular spacial arrangement
<hanumizzle> headmonkey, and asm communicates thoughts to the cpu
<headmonkey> and the order matters
<Sneaky_Bastard> which is required for their meaning to be understood
<headmonkey> asm does not communicate thoughts
<ProN00b> hanumizzle, so it just stops doing one process and continues with another one, then changes back this focus ?
<hanumizzle> headmonkey, this is called syntax
<Sneaky_Bastard> headmonkey: FFS, yes it does
<rickest> arrummzen: and none too soon
<gufymike> so asm doesn't communicate what I want to the cpu
<hanumizzle> ProN00b, that's the amar chitra katha version...yes
<Sneaky_Bastard> very specific ideas, in fact
<gufymike> Is that what you are saying?
<headmonkey> no...asm does not communicate thoughts to a piece of silicon...as pieces of silicon do not have thoughts
<Sneaky_Bastard> ASM is written for humans
<dmbt> calling something a langage is very sujective
<Sneaky_Bastard> not for the machine
<Sneaky_Bastard> jeebus
<dmbt> you can call binary a language if you wanted to
<ProN00b> headmonkey, "mov a, b" => "do whats in b into a" isn't that a thought ?
<arrummzen> ProN00b: basicly the OS sets up the environment for the proccess then sets the CPU's Instruction pointer to the proper place, at a standard interval the there is a interupt that returns control back to the OS...
<headmonkey> asm is more an alphabet than it is a language
<Sneaky_Bastard> the machine doesn't "understand" anything but binary opcodes
<dmbt> its a language you use to talk to your proc
<Sneaky_Bastard> no headmonkey
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
Detect negative sign in field SQL
Error, dhcpStart: ioctl SIOCGIFHWADDR: No such device +gentoo
usb wg111 fc5
950gma xinerama
apt tetrinet-server
#lisp
#python
wat is lunix
ubuntu APIC error on CPU0: 60(60)
#ubuntu
|
|
