Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Patentable? (Score 1) 241

Indeed - lets look at that: What is claimed is: > 1. A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method > comprising: > providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data > with an input format into data with an output format; Every file convertor ever written does this part. Nothing new here. > for the first packet of the message, This is standard patentese - it does not mean anything > identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the > output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in > the sequence; and So, this is claiming the ability to recognize a sequence of components that need to run to do the conversion from the first packet. But this is just a function of the input data. It just means the data is "flat" in some sense. Absolutely nothing new here. > storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to > be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and > for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence, > for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence, > retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the > > previous packet of the message; So this looks like a claim on software pipelining. You do a bit of processing, save some state, and send the data on its way. There must be hundreds of uses of this prior to 1999. Its probably even in the textbooks in 1999. > performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and > storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message Well, yeah, how else would you do it?

Comment Programming in Go? (Score 1) 512

I wonder if they managed to use just black and white stones or whether they have a (countable?) infinity of colors of stones.

Presumably its a co-ordination language and data flows between stones down and to the right. Perhaps Black and white might just represent arity and what a stone actually did might not be denoted by color. You would have monadic stones (white?) and dyadic stones (black?) and the syntax would require that monadic stones have at most one stone above or to the left since they can only accept one input at a time.

Either that or the language would be weakly typed and data arriving from above or from the left would be processed separately.

The board would have a left and a top which would accept inputs from the environment but could extend infinitely to to bottom and right.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...