4497. Max (mheath.stu.wesleyan.edu) –
01 May 2006 16:04:06
[ Random Results ]
There were more than 8 runners in the race, right? |
| |
4496. Anonymous (ppp-70-227-53-216.dsl.dytnoh.ameritech.net) –
29 Apr 2006 18:31:46
[ BAD SAT SCORES ]
is a 1540 bad? |
| |
Moral: decide for yourself what "expressive power" means, by trying to express your favorite programs and invariants in various languages. Exercise: how would you express abstraction invariants in lisp, seeing as how it lacks a static type system? |
| |
|
|
| |
The main point I'm getting out of this is "I should take another look at SML," and I will. Previously, pretty much everything I'd read about the language was bad: Lisp users bashing it for being static and thus lacking expressive power; Haskell users bashing it for being impure and non-strict and thus lacking expressive power; and users of the language who say it's "dead" and they need to make a new dialect of it so they can add much-needed features (thus "Successor ML"). I figured if the language is criticized from all these different angles, it must suck. But now I'll look at it again.
The licensing argument may not be applicable specifically to SML, but it applies to Ocaml, which you also mentioned. I need C either way for my operating system, and, I'd guess, for parts of the language's runtime system, so that's moot. Also, gcc is not the only C compiler out there: there's TenDRA, for example.
Conclusion: We're both right.
Also yes, the wording in the first post from this IP address was ill-chosen. Sorry about that.
|
| |
Aww, when I say "you guys" I of course mean "you guys and gals!" Unfortunately there isn't a good plural 'you' in English! |
| |
4491. Kirima/mm (45.124.79.83.cust.bluewin.ch) –
28 Apr 2006 19:42:10
[ UPD: Escape Beta 3 ]
You guys?
(-; |
| |
4490. Anonymous (adsl-75-2-210-46.dsl.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net) –
28 Apr 2006 10:38:26
[ CT Info ]
New Haven CT is the 9th ring of hell. Proof? GWB, the Antichrist, was born here. I rest my case. Beyond that, there is no middle class, the poorest are being gentrified, and all of our elected officials are going to jail for outrageous corruption-related scandals, such as stealing money from state coffers, molesting children or dealing with the mob. Oh yeah, what a wonderful place. Connecticut: More Than Just a Pit Stop On I-95 Between Boston and New York!!!
God, I hate it here.
-From a life-long resident. |
| |
4489. Steve in Oklahoma (adsl-70-142-44-159.dsl.tul2ok.sbcglobal.net) –
27 Apr 2006 14:13:09
[ Bathroom? Mushroom! ]
Good news for me. It was the seal on the toliet, also my toliet had been running some, which provided a source for the mushroom to grow. I called a plumber, he replaced the seal, and put a $2 part in the tank of the toilet. I had no permanent water damage under the toilet. My advice is if you see any kind of mushroom in your bathroom that means you have a problem. Call a plumber and get it fixed asap, and never eat anything that grows in your bathroom. |
| |
Ah, I see. That makes sense since unicode embeds ASCII; I was just surprised that ESCAPE would be a unicode character, for instance, but I wasn't thinking carefully.
I guess I'll try it and you guys can tell me how it works! |
| |
I guess, all ASCIIs 1-127 should be properly handled with unicode. Equality of sym and uni depends on the keyboard-layout and the mapping of course.
F.e. the parentheses on QWERTZ-keyboards (or only on german?) are <shift>-<8> and <shift>-<9>, brackets are <r-alt>-<8> and <r-alt>-<9> and the sym will be 8 or 9 for each. But unicode is set to the correct ASCII value. Sorry, i said that wrong before.
unicode even handles the numbers right with AZERTY-mappings (french), where they are reached with <shift>. |
| |
Thanks wowei and welcome! This sounds like a good solution. How can I tell what SDLK_ constants work for both unicode and sym? Is that documented somewhere? I'd love to fix this since Escape players are quite geographically diverse.
BTW, I just uploaded a new source archive yesterday, so the [d] key should be there now. |
| |
hi tom,
i found this board for the first time (blush), I always thought this feedback-thingy would pop up a mailto-link.
I read here, you are working on the prob with different keyboard-mappings. I think, that only a minor change is needed for that, because SDL comes with all the translation-stuff within. For my german-keymap I successfully changed the keyboard-event-handler stuff in edit.cpp and play.cpp like this:
split the event.key.keysym switch into two parts, where you can look at the keysym.unicode in one part and the keysym.sym in the other:
switch(event.key.keysym.unicode) {
/* here goes everything that is identical for unicode and sym */
case SDLK_ESCAPE:
...
/* and the only important part for a _german_ keymapping is this */
case SDLK_LEFTBRACKET:
...
}
switch(event.key.keysym.sym) {
/* here goes everything else that isnt handled properly by unicode
that should be only cursor-keys, f-keys or */
case SDLK_DOWN:
...
}
it's working fine here with a small drwaback: the <d>-key-"cheat" isnt included in the sources of 2005-10-13 yet, and so i have to decide, if i want to zoom or wanna see destinations while playing. ;) (switching the keymapping is the alternative and is fast to do in linux, but its annoying anyway)
greetz, and thanks for a really great game
|
| |
Bummer. This is with the binary distribution, or are you trying to compile it yourself? Adam and I worked this out in a way so it is "supposed" to work on all systems. Urgh. I suck at linux too. Why is it so hard to make binary distributions of software for linux? |
| |
Hey Tom!
I suck at Linux, so I was maybe wondering if you could tell me why I can't get Escpe to work on my box. Here is the message I get:
bash-3.00$ ./escape.exe: /usr/local/libexec/gcc-3.2.3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_3.3' not found (required by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5)
I tried finding out what version of GCC I had, but it said I had a newer version than 3.3. (3.4.2) I'm on a facilitized machine though so maybe I cannot be helped. :( |
| |
dc-dc: Okay, well I am glad you mostly agree with me. I don't understand what it is about my style that offends you, but honestly with comments like "go back to your proof toys" (etc.) I'm not sure I want advice on this subject from you.
I agree that C still has its niche, and wasn't suggesting that we have any good replacement for it today. The same methods, like type systems, that we use to ensure the safety of high-level languages also apply to low-level languages, and there is plenty of research into low-level languages with no more memory or disk usage than C.
But for the vast majority of its applications and the the vast majority of its users, C is an inappropriate language. This is especially true if the project's foremost goal is security.
Using C++ for Escape was probably a mistake; it is very painful to use and often keeps me from getting around to adding features that I want to add. The reason was that at the time I started the project, it was not easy to link to the SDL graphics library using mlton nor compile for platforms other than linux. I hope that I get the time to rewrite it in ML some day.
I disagree with point #3, especially in the case of SML. SML is the most formally defined real-world language that I know of, and the only one for which people have proved properties about the language itself in a mechanized way. C changes (like with the C99 standard) from time to time like any language (SML was revised in 1997 and is undergoing another revision process right now). C is a much broader target in the first place because of all of the stuff that is implementation defined. (In fact, I would claim that the implementation- and un- defined behavior is really at the heart of the security issue.)
Additionally, the licensing argument is a canard because I'm suggesting switching away from gcc (which is GPL, of course) to compilers that are BSD licensed. Thus the situation is exactly the opposite of what you say.
You're right that a compiler like any program is subject to the same arguments. Proving a compiler correct would mean stating its behavior as a proposition, which means defining the source language formally and formalizing some subset of the architecture. Xavier Leroy is working on something rather like this for a simple language. We also have compilers like TILT that produce typed assembly language, certifying that the binary that is produced is at least memory safe.
As for things we can do today, it's totally possible to write compilers in safe languages and enjoy memory safety and other properties for them as a result. Every SML compiler I know of (at least 5) is written in SML, but that's mostly just because ML is a great language for writing compilers.
I have a feeling this argument is coming to a close, so let me just summarize my position again:
1. Since code reviews don't catch all bugs, but security relies on catching all bugs, we want methods that are more infalliable.
2. Some methods are available today (like safe programming languages) that would instantly make applications for which they're appropriate more secure. In particular they'd make the largest classes of security problems in unix software impossible.
3. Looking towards the future, it's important to not be dismissive of technology that can make programmer's jobs easier. Technology is nearing that would make formal analysis practical for a wider variety of programs and properties. Formal analysis is less falliable, scales better, and is more maintainable (because it does not require a human to look at the entire code every time more code is introduced). Like high-level langauges, getting a computer's help is easier and works better, but that doesn't make it a toy. OpenBSD's charter should be about security, not suffering. |
| |
4481. Anonymous (71-10-253-54.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com) –
24 Apr 2006 20:57:41
[ BAD SAT SCORES ]
i got a 2340 is that good? jk its great in all of our faces
|
| |
Looks like Mr. Anonymous has some personal interest in OpenBSD and defends it by attacking its critics. Not very scientific, but it's often effective in the real world, just ask George "you're either with me or against me" Bsh. Such behavior has no right to claim high ground...
|
| |
|
|
| |
4478. Anonymous (h197.131.28.71.ip.alltel.net) –
24 Apr 2006 11:15:41
[ BAD SAT SCORES ]
I got a 1730 too |
| |
I think it's funny that this entry is called "Question and Answer Session" |
| |
4476. Carolyn (toronto-hse-ppp4247246.sympatico.ca) –
23 Apr 2006 00:49:24
[ Bathroom? Mushroom! ]
HAHAHHA O my GOodness! From the angle where i sit on the toilet i noticed this bulge comming from the side of the wall underneith the wall paper beside the shower. Lately i have seen a water puddle near my shower as well. Earlier today my mother noticed it too and she pealed it back and saw 3 mushrooms. We were so discusted. I nearly vomited on the spot. But its so cool! We laughed so hard. But, the mushrooms do not look like the one in the picture above. They look like actual long mushrooms with a hat on the top. Are these edible? Not that i want to eat them. But really, are they edible?
and WHAT DO I DO ABOUT THEM? haha
Thanks
Carolyn |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr Tom7, have yourd heard of The Unicorns? They are great, and head in the same direction of your album a day. It's a tom7 must ;) |
| |
OMG LOL
That's my comment on the above back-and-forth. :) |
| |