I have little to report this month. I read five small books irrelevant to our conversation. I have been doing some mathematics, but sadly I haven't finished ECMA-48, nor reread much of your blog. I'll re-assert the routine, and produce something for next month.
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
lol
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.
I'm terrible at correcting mental errors. Part of what I like about sentence diagramming is that it makes checking errors of this sort much simpler being nearly just insuring words of the sentence are exhausted. It doesn't sound like you need it though, and I haven't used it much in my own writing which tends to be reckless.
I'll show another example; interestingly, Latin uses question words similarly to English:
I\u0100NVS EST DEVS CVI DVAE FACI\u0112S SVNT (Janus is a god to whom two faces are.)
Interrogative pronouns aren't the sort of thing I would guess to be common across languages; they have a rather odd combination of functions. Your translation is still odd to read truthfully. Were I to not know the context I would read this translation with ``to'' being a preposition and there being an elided ``there'' after whom rather than attempting to express an indirect object. Maybe I'd need to know Latin to be sold on the elegance.
Both words are plural and nominative there. The singular accusative is SERVVM and the plural accusative is SERV\u014cS.
Ah, so adjectives have concord with the nouns they modify, I think I remember reading this actually. I imagine more like English pronouns of quantity and qualifiers are only distinguished by association or word order.
That's close enough to correct.
It was wishful thinking is all.
I've some tendinitis, which I'm managing. Proper posture, careful typing, breaks, and occassionally a compression bracelet help.
Well, it sounds as if you're doing nearly the best you can, or will do once you find a sufficient means.
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 see.
This goodbye letter was for me?
Aye. I was thinking a bit oddly at the time, as I mentioned. It effectively just said I hoped I could better meet expectations and come back with a steady identity and "proof I'm human" etc. sometime in the next few years (during which I will likely be attending a computer science masters program). Which I hope is the case either way.
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 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.
That's certainly compelling, and a rather bold claim - even with conservative assumptions. I look forward to this.
Simply tell me if adding them to the comments page would be desired. I demand any comments I'm to upload be clearly marked.
Don't then. They would need to be rewritten some, and it's not clear if they would be helpful to others.
I currently don't, no. I've not given it much thought.
I guess the alternative to bit-parallelism being many machines isn't attractive at minimum if each machine presents a unique interface in need of coordination.
Look at systolic arrays.
I will do this, I wouldn't be surprised if my thought was a reflection of something I had partially grasped from before.
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'd believe that.
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.
Okay, that makes sense.
I've largely abandoned thinking about these things, in favour of mulling over non von Neumann designs.
I don't think it is technically a von Neumann architecture, but perhaps it's too close. I did some research after this and my proposal was very similar to a parallel graph reduction machine excluding, well... the graph reduction aspect. That is a graph reduction machine is to some extent an answer to the question of what to do with a large number of stack machines of which I proposed a particular type.
I'm still having posting issues.
Should we speak elsewhere?