in reply to (Placeholder) Imagine!
I'm just not up to speed here, what's the issue with opcodes? what problem(s) are you trying to solve?
But, why not throw one problem up here and test market the concept? ;)
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: (Placeholder) Imagine!
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 30, 2016 at 21:52 UTC | |
what's the issue with opcodes? what problem(s) are you trying to solve? It's not really about "solving a problem"; more, 'providing some entertainment with the possible side effect of producing something useful'; and, perhaps, widening the pool of people with internals skills. The perl opcodes are very clearly defined set of essentially stand-alone functions with a gazzilion existing tests. If their textual descriptions aren't yet readily available, they should be relatively easy to derive from the existing code. But, why not throw one problem up here and test market the concept? ;) I'm not sure this is the best way to go about this; but here goes. This is the latest relased version of substr:
Can it be improved? With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] [d/l] |
by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Nov 30, 2016 at 23:34 UTC | |
Can it be improved?Possibly. Possibly not. But that one function does quite nicely demonstrate why perl internals are complex and hard to work with. That "clearly defined" op has to cope with (from a quick perusal of the src):
Putting all that together makes it really easy to break things, even with an extensive test suite. Dave. | [reply] |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2016 at 00:28 UTC | |
Putting all that together makes it really easy to break things, even with an extensive test suite. Indeed. That's why for it to have any merit at all it would need the indulgence of someone like you. Not to do the testing, but to guide us on how best to test. To establish some procedure that would allow us to arrive at a high degree of certainty before we request someone from p5p take a look at what has evolved. If anything. Maybe the idea is just too half-baked, but I've seen some extraordinary results produced here ... I was just looking to see if there is a way to tap into that for the benefit of Perl5. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
by stevieb (Canon) on Dec 01, 2016 at 03:48 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2016 at 08:12 UTC | |
by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Dec 01, 2016 at 10:14 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2016 at 15:41 UTC |