Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:10:51 -0700
On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:31:34 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<kensmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 12, 8:12 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[....]
show off how tricky they can be. Something without pointers. Something
that is impossible to crash.
No nontrivial language can ever be proven to be imposible to crash.
I'd be satisfied with no known crash instance in the history of the
language. Provability was a CS fad, until they discovered that they
couldn't prove anything useful.
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: Martin Brown
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- References:
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: MooseFET
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: John Larkin
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: krw
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: John Larkin
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: krw
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: John Larkin
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: krw
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: John Larkin
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- From: MooseFET
- Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- Prev by Date: Re: Bad Circuits in the Wild
- Next by Date: Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- Previous by thread: Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- Next by thread: Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading