|
HoboMan posted:when will people learn? being permissive about having your language forcing you to make sure all your i's are dotted and t's crossed actually makes a language harder by introducing 1,000 more edge cases to get cut on, this kills the developer this is seriously why I kind of like VHDL a bit more than Verilog
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
xml should have looked more like html
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:how do you figure? msie refused to recognize Content-Type: application/xml+html as anything it should attempt to render, and if you sent XHTML as text/html then it would just parse XHTML as if it were regular HTML4. The browser which, at the time, had a virtually absolute monopoly did not recognize XHTML in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
eschaton posted:this is seriously why I kind of like VHDL a bit more than Verilog both are insanely bad
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:msie refused to recognize Content-Type: application/xml+html as anything it should attempt to render, and if you sent XHTML as text/html then it would just parse XHTML as if it were regular HTML4. The browser which, at the time, had a virtually absolute monopoly did not recognize XHTML in any way. worked fine in my browser.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Bloody posted:both are insanely bad at least VHDL has a pretty firm separation between interface and implementation I'd prefer something higher level that generates VHDL though and find Cλash pretty cool
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:worked fine in my browser. ie9 was (iirc) the first version of ie to properly support xhtml, but by then the standard was pretty much dead and buried
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:html5 abandoned legacy stuff the same way so there was no reason to not make html5 xml aside from web "developers" being garbage at everything. what legacy stuff did html5 abandon?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:what legacy stuff did html5 abandon? blink tag 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
You can just write XHTML right now, it'll render fine. I don't see what the problem is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:what legacy stuff did html5 abandon? blink tags efb
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
go play outside Skyler posted:blink tags 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Marquee too. What savages
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Doom Mathematic posted:You can just write XHTML right now, it'll render fine. I don't see what the problem is. The problem is everyone who doesn't write xhtml and doesn't use closing tags, etc. because html5 "allows" it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:what legacy stuff did html5 abandon? it abandoned browsers that didn't support html5. same as moving to xhtml 5 would have abandoned browsers that didn't support xhtml 5.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
eschaton posted:at least VHDL has a pretty firm separation between interface and implementation in practice (in my experience) this has just meant writing everything twice (or 3 times) with no practical gain im hugely in favor of replacement languages and have looked at clash & chisel (among others) and have found basically every extant option lacking. there's this weird desire to shoehorn an existing language into a synthesizable pipeline but it just doesn't make much sense. loads of verilog and vhdl's problems stem from them being simulation languages that happen to support synthesis. making some arbitrary subset of haskell or scala or python or whatever synthesizable still leaves you with a language full of unsynthesizable constructs to trap people with. idk why there's been little progress in a ground-up design of a synthesizable language. everyone's scrambling to synthesize existing programming languages and it mostly is really bad. poo poo i saw a guy on twitter who wants to make a synthesizable javascript like what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Bloody posted:synthesizable javascript i'a i'a f'tagn f'tagn i say as spiders begin crawling out from under my eyelids
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Mondays are great because the software team here usually has a longer meeting discussing the upcoming week and longer term goals. Today we spent the better part of an hour this morning bikeshedding about how to re-architect/improve the software architecture for a new hardware platform we're trying to roll out by around July. I'm pretty sure nothing actually got decided, but it pretty much devolved into the two fattest and loudest coders on the team mostly agreeing but yelling at each other because neither had any good, actual thought-out ideas about how to improve anything, just that 'IT MUST BE IMPROVED/CHANGED AND HERE IS WHY.' Meanwhile the actual thing on the agenda (what exactly to do about supporting same features with different hardware) was never really discussed. I'm pretty sure it will just wind up being hacked together to 'get a demo working' and nothing will ever be systematically improved unless somebody just goes ahead and does it without ever bringing it up in a meeting. But in the end this meant that we all did nothing productive at all before lunch hour, so I'm OK with it. Also quote:synthesizable javascript Sometimes node.js just doesn't bring you close enough to the metal.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
so, being a filthy webdev who is as far away from all this as possible i just want to clarify: when you talk about synthesis you mean taking some code and turning it into XOR gates or whatever?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:The problem is everyone who doesn't write xhtml and doesn't use closing tags, etc. because html5 "allows" it. this is google's fault
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
HoboMan posted:so, being a filthy webdev who is as far away from all this as possible i just want to clarify: when you talk about synthesis you mean taking some code and turning it into XOR gates or whatever? yes, think of it as compiling
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:it abandoned browsers that didn't support html5. same as moving to xhtml 5 would have abandoned browsers that didn't support xhtml 5. what browsers? how were they "abandoned"?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Well i got mame's super serial card emulation talking back and forth to putty via a C program so that's good now I just need my drat serial cable to get here so I can do it with my real crapple
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Doom Mathematic posted:You can just write XHTML right now, it'll render fine. I don't see what the problem is. even the cited problem wasn't really a "problem" as far as I understand it: Internet Explorer would render XHTML as a web page just fine, what it didn't do was render it as a web page when sent with a MIME Content-Type of application/xml+html. (and of course no browser did what they were supposed to do with XHTML, and refuse to render if it was syntactically invalid.)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:what browsers? how were they "abandoned"? older versions of browsers that didn't support html5
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:The problem is everyone who doesn't write xhtml and doesn't use closing tags, etc. because html5 "allows" it. html5 allows and specifies it because people are gonna write it anyways and really, why do you give a poo poo what hosed up html other people write if your browser renders it fine
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:older versions of browsers that didn't support html5 pretty sure that's not true. if you specify <!DOCTYPE html> and the browser doesn't understand that type it falls back on whatever its default doctype is which is probably 4.01.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
yeah but all the html5 features wont work
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
html is dogshit but any "developer" who doesn't close their tags or use /> should be stuffed into a cannon and fired into a loving brick wall
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Bloody posted:making some arbitrary subset of haskell or scala or python or whatever synthesizable still leaves you with a language full of unsynthesizable constructs to trap people with. idk why there's been little progress in a ground-up design of a synthesizable language. I'm not sure but the system developed by Symbolics for their chip development in the 80s may have been targeted at synthesis rather than simulation. I'll see if I can find any details. it grew out of their custom electrical and electronic design system, NS, which was built around schematic capture, as well as their custom PAL/GAL tools look at all those goddamn PALs and 4MW (24MB) of ZIP-packaged RAM  and here's an additional 4MW of 48-bit RAM (this system was a new design that came out in 1989, they should have used loving SIMMS and made the CPU & RAM boards double-width…)  all the I/O (1152×900 display, keyboard/mouse, serial, Ethernet, ESDI, SCSI) is on yet another board almost as dense as these two, also packed with PALs, connected via both VME and a local bus
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
why is 4mw 24mb, google searches for "4mw" brings up call of duty
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
because 24MB / 4M = whatever the word size is qed!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
CRIP EATIN BREAD posted:html is dogshit but any "developer" who doesn't close their tags or use /> should be stuffed into a cannon and fired into a loving brick wall theres no reason for it to be optional.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:older versions of browsers that didn't support html5 so your complaint is that html5 added things that didn't magically retroactively work on old versions of browsers?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:why is 4mw 24mb, google searches for "4mw" brings up call of duty implies 6 bit words. 6 bit characters were popular for a while but i thought the word lengths were usually 12bit? edit: of course by "a while" i mean 50s-80s hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:so your complaint is that html5 added things that didn't magically retroactively work on old versions of browsers? no my complaint is that xml is better than html in every single way and there was no reason for html5 to not be xml based.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:no my complaint is that xml is better than html in every single way and there was no reason for html5 to not be xml based. except like 2 decades of legacy support and now we're back to where we started
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:because 24MB / 4M = whatever the word size is hobbesmaster posted:implies 6 bit words. 6 bit characters were popular for a while but i thought the word lengths were usually 12bit?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:except like 2 decades of legacy support what are you talking about. theres no legacy support lost by using xml any more than there is from using html5
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
eschaton posted:(and of course no browser did what they were supposed to do with XHTML, and refuse to render if it was syntactically invalid.) a bunch of browsers did if you actually served it as xhtml to them
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 03:52
|
|
