Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Can it be done effectivly without an FPU? (Score 2) 271

by goertzenator (#38761614) Attached to: Faster-Than-Fast Fourier Transform

DSP with Arduino

What is wrong with this picture?

There's nothing wrong with this picture. The Arduino is for hobbyists to learn and play, not for designing cost effective production grade products. If Arduino users can do DSP on their boards, the more power to them. Note that the upcoming Arduino Due is a Cortex-M3 (32 bit, 96MHz, no-FPU); this thing could do a fair amount of DSP compared to older Arduinos.

Comment: Re:Practicality drives use (Score 1) 338

by goertzenator (#37603038) Attached to: OCaml For the Masses

It's easier for people to approach problem solution in a procedural way than it is for them to think about it functionally. And that's why functional languages, no matter how elegant or "great" they may be, will never really break into the mainstream.

What's easiest is what you're used to. The most popular programming system on earth is Excel, which is firmly in the functional camp.

Comment: Re:Why can't I buy an ARM desktop? (Score 1) 159

by goertzenator (#35431428) Attached to: Pocket Wars and Cores
One problem for ARM is that every ARM processor and board has different hardware, and that hardware is in different places. Compare this to an x86 PC where you are guaranteed to have basic components at known locations; enough so that a generic OS image can boot. An ARM OS image typically needs a lot of static configuration, custom drivers, board specific bootloader, etc.

Comment: but on which hardware? (Score 2, Interesting) 374

Does the GPL require the source code to run on the same piece of hardware? The OP can't build an run new firmware on his router, but can he build and run it on his x86 linux machine with standard tools? If *that* can be done, is it really still a violation? The modified source code has been re-contributed to society. I know that's not really what the OP wants to accomplish though...

Comment: Re:Why abandon LISP syntax in FP? (Score 1) 314

by goertzenator (#20493787) Attached to: Programming Erlang
What those other FP languages have that Lisp doesn't is a clean concept of *pattern matching*. Sure, you can do pattern matching in Lisp (see Termite Scheme), but its much more verbose than languages that have the syntax and semantics for it built-in.

I agree that Haskell is hard to understand, but only because it is easy to make incredibly dense code. Reading one line of Haskell can load your brain as much as reading 12 lines of anything else. ...And monads are just plain hard.

All that said, as an intermediate Erlang programmer, I am often left yearning for the cleanliness of Haskell syntax and also for S-expressions when I get into metaprogramming.

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Working...