Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Programming languages don't exist

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 8:50

Have you noticed how awkward it to read out loud a chunk of source code? Since the word root of `language' is `tongue' through Latin and then French. Humans pass down from parents to children sequences of uttered sounds with the tongue, mouth and lungs, and cobble together squiggles to half-ass symbolize discrete sound productions that spike concepts from one brain to the other. Computers don't have tongues, thus programming languages can never exist, generative linguistics is set theory, and the true power of human harnessed computation modeling is yet to be discovered.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 8:55

Sure. What do you wish to call what we, at the moment, refer to as programming languages?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 8:56

Awkward? I don't think so.

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
    puts("Hello World!");
    return 0;
}


is read somewhat like this:
From the include path include the standard input and output header. Enter function main, which takes no parameters and returns an integer: Use puts to print Hello World!. Function returns 0 and exits.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 8:58

Have you noticed how awkward it to read out loud a chunk of a wiring diagram?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 9:07

Computers don't have tongues, thus programming languages can never exist
10/10 would rage again.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 9:42

how awkward it to read out
but it not

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 10:01

>>3
A human cdecl upgrade.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 12:36

>>7
cdecl does declarations, not whole programs.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 13:10

So mute people can't use the English language?

Huh.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 21:48

>Computers don't have tongues, thus programming languages can never exist

>Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 4:19

Somebody's confusing a word's origin with its meaning again.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 4:34

``It is very easy to confuse the essence of what we are doing with  the tools that we use.''

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 4:35

``Bloomers are better than panties.''

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 4:46

``To transform into a little girl, it is needed to eat one whose name starts with the letter N.''

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 5:11

Explain that shit: they keep saying everything is software now on GPU but R600 still has hardware fog support.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 5:52

>>15
It doesn't have hardware fog support, whoever said that doesn't know what they're talking about. If you're using shaders, you need to do your own fog falloff calculations and blending in the vertex shaders.

That said, there are some things which will never make sense to do in pure software, and that is the texture sampling/filtering operations, and those have specialized hardware on all current nVidia and AMD GPUs.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 6:19

>>16
http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/R6xx_3D_Registers.pdf, page 121, there are 3 registers controlling hardware fog interpolation for use within shaders.

Name: F r o z e n V o i d !!mJCwdV5J0Xy2A21 2011-11-21 6:54

Why would you need fog at all? Its very annoying to players, obscures terrain, lowers range of vision and degrades quality of final frame severely. Its like paying to be more blind.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 7:14

>>18
That's the point of fog.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 7:20

>>18
Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ngfE279uk. The brain would have much more difficulty evaluating the bullets' depth coords without fog.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 7:24

>>18

more fps's

Name: F r o z e n V o i d !!mJCwdV5J0Xy2A21 2011-11-21 9:29

>>21
Fog should cost extra processing which would lower fps(in theory:hardware fog is much faster)

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-21 10:32

>>22

I don't know about that... I would imagine that it would reduce number of total passes to fill the (lesser number of visible) tris.

Name: F r o z e n V o i d !!mJCwdV5J0Xy2A21 2011-11-21 11:00

>>23
 such calculations as fog(and especially per-pixel fog) come late at stage of rendering, so you have already rendered most of stuff and then you apply fog to scene(preferably hardware fog, or some fast blur effect(which is mostly what is required from fog)) globally, instead of making Objects disappear(this is unintuitive) you make them transparent(blurry) relative to fog layer/effect applied(which is more realistic).

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List