Topic for #qi-hardware is now Copyleft hardware - http://qi-hardware.com | hardware hackers join here to discuss Ben NanoNote, atben / atusb 802.15.4 wireless, and other community driven hw projects | public logging at http://en.qi-hardware.com/irclogs
Guest74908 [Guest74908!~rafa@186.137.0.13] has joined #qi-hardware
<zrafa>
again
<zrafa>
hi
<wolfspraul>
hi
Ayla [Ayla!~paul@9.95.112.78.rev.sfr.net] has joined #qi-hardware
rejon [rejon!~rejon@li382-141.members.linode.com] has joined #qi-hardware
cladamw_ [cladamw_!~adamwang@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
cladamw [cladamw!~adamwang@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
xiangfu [xiangfu!~xiangfu@fidelio.qi-hardware.com] has joined #qi-hardware
Openfree` [Openfree`!~Openfreer@116.228.88.131] has joined #qi-hardware
viric_ [viric_!~viric@unaffiliated/viric] has joined #qi-hardware
Ayla [Ayla!~paul@117.188.103.84.rev.sfr.net] has joined #qi-hardware
aw [aw!~Adam@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
cladamwa [cladamwa!~Adam@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
wej [wej!~j@m2.mullvad.net] has joined #qi-hardware
Ayla [Ayla!~paul@178.53.192.77.rev.sfr.net] has joined #qi-hardware
pabspabspabs [pabspabspabs!~pabs@d175-38-179-37.per801.wa.optusnet.com.au] has joined #qi-hardware
Ayla [Ayla!~paul@9.240.112.78.rev.sfr.net] has joined #qi-hardware
cladamw [cladamw!~Adam@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
DocScrutinizer [DocScrutinizer!~halley@openmoko/engineers/joerg] has joined #qi-hardware
cladamw [cladamw!~Adam@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
valhalla [valhalla!~valhalla@81-174-22-51.dynamic.ngi.it] has joined #qi-hardware
losinggeneration [losinggeneration!~quassel@71-34-161-176.desm.qwest.net] has joined #qi-hardware
xiangfu [xiangfu!~xiangfu@fidelio.qi-hardware.com] has joined #qi-hardware
cladamw [cladamw!~adamwang@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
blogic [blogic!~blogic@openwrt/developer/blogic] has joined #qi-hardware
stefan_schmidt [stefan_schmidt!~stefan@guest232.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] has joined #qi-hardware
jekhor [jekhor!~jek@vulture2-nat-43.telecom.by] has joined #qi-hardware
<wolfspraul>
Made in Optimistan
<wolfspraul>
Ben NanoNote and Milkymist One are Made in Optimistan
jivs [jivs!~jivs@193.63.24.97] has joined #qi-hardware
<whitequark>
so... pink
<whitequark>
*brain melts*
cladamw_ [cladamw_!~adamwang@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
cladamw [cladamw!~adamwang@host-222.80-43-115.dynamic.totalbb.net.tw] has joined #qi-hardware
<wpwrak>
whitequark: so that's what happens when barbie goes to university, takes philosophy classes, and finds an HTML editor someone left open in a classroom PC
<wolfspraul>
I see - optimism unleashes its irresistible power :-)
<wolfspraul>
wpwrak: what space/tab convention do you prefer personally?
<wolfspraul>
in c sources
<wpwrak>
linux kernel style. one tab per indentation level. four spaces for wrapped lines. void *foo(int bar)\n{\tvars;\n\tbody;\n} and \tif (cond) {\n\t\t...\n\t}
<blogic>
wpwrak: \o/
<wpwrak>
max 80 characters per line. if you have to wrap anyway, make it < 80.
<blogic>
wpwrak: penalties for using spaces as indentation need to be imposed
<wpwrak>
blogic: oh, lots of editors auto-handle this. what's important is that it's 8 :)
<wpwrak>
i.e., there's a penalty in indenting. keeps you from writing ten levels deep nested madness - simply because there's no room for it :)
<Ayla>
what editor are you using?
<wpwrak>
vim
<Ayla>
hmm
<wpwrak>
(but any vi will do)
<Ayla>
here I get two spaces after a IF without brackets, instead of a real tab
<Ayla>
do you know how to change that?
<wpwrak>
dunno. i don't use auto-indentation :)
<wpwrak>
after a while, your fingers learn to do this on their own :)
<Ayla>
well, then there's litle point to use VIM instead of gedit for instance
<wolfspraul>
wpwrak: 8 or 4? (first you say "4 spaces for wrapped lines" then "important is that it's 8"
<wpwrak>
don't know gedit. i like the compact and logical UI of vi
<wpwrak>
wolfspraul: 8 per indentation level. +4 for wrapping. e.g., \tfoo = very_long_identifier(\n\t argument, argument,\n\t still_more);
<wolfspraul>
ok, got it
jekhor [jekhor!~jek@mx2.promwad.com] has joined #qi-hardware
<wpwrak>
let's see what else ... spaces around operators except for unary and basic arithmetic (+, -, *, /)
<wpwrak>
sizeof(foo) looks like a function. return foo; doesn't. switch and case at the same level (that's a bit of a compromise - otherwise, switch gets too messy to use)
<wpwrak>
space between cast and thing being cast. no pascal parentheses in boolean expressions. (i.e., a == b && c == d and not (a == b) && (c == d) )
<wpwrak>
yeah, i think that's most of it. many more small details, of course )
<wpwrak>
ah, also if .. else follows kernel style. so if (foo) bar; else blah; or if (foo) { bar; ...; } else { blah; ...; } or even if (foo) bar; else { blah; ...; } but not if (foo) { bar; ...; } else blah; instead, use if (foo) {bar; ...; } else { blah; }
<Ayla>
I don't agree with switch/case
<Ayla>
and the kernel guidelines forbid if (foo) bar; else { blah; ...; }
<Ayla>
it should always be if (foo) { bar; } else { blah; ...; }
<Ayla>
when there's a "else", that is
<Ayla>
and even if "bar" is a single line of code
wolfspraul [wolfspraul!~wolfsprau@p5B0AE0A9.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #qi-hardware
kuribas [kuribas!~user@d54C432B2.access.telenet.be] has joined #qi-hardware
<wpwrak>
Ayla: this was discussed sometime ago on lkml and the verdict was that if (cond) one; else { one; two; } is okay
kristianpaul [kristianpaul!~kristianp@unaffiliated/kristianpaul] has joined #qi-hardware
<wpwrak>
the example in CodingStyle is is (cond) { one; two; } else { one; }
<wpwrak>
s/is is/is if/
<qi-bot>
wpwrak meant: "the example in CodingStyle is if (cond) { one; two; } else { one; }"
<wpwrak>
but that was a long long time ago :)
<wpwrak>
anyway, gotta run. dentist is waiting
<Ayla>
ok
<DocScrutinizer51>
wpwrak: which direction are you running?
<DocScrutinizer51>
toward or away from dentist?
mth_ [mth_!oqqatgas@c74072.upc-c.chello.nl] has joined #qi-hardware
antoniodariush [antoniodariush!~antonioda@nat-sta-smtc2.tvu.ac.uk] has joined #qi-hardware
jivs [jivs!~jivs@nat-sta-smtc2.tvu.ac.uk] has joined #qi-hardware
<lars_>
wpwrak: just wanted to ask, when "sometime ago" was. CodingStyle is very explicit about that if one part has brackets the other part should have brackets two.
mstevens [mstevens!~mstevens@fsf/member/pdpc.active.mstevens] has joined #qi-hardware
DocScrutinizer51 [DocScrutinizer51!~lagrange@openmoko/engineers/joerg] has joined #qi-hardware
stefan_schmidt [stefan_schmidt!~stefan@guest232.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] has joined #qi-hardware
stefan_schmidt [stefan_schmidt!~stefan@guest232.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] has joined #qi-hardware
antoniodariush [antoniodariush!~antonioda@193.63.24.97] has joined #qi-hardware
jivs [jivs!~jivs@193.63.24.97] has joined #qi-hardware
<wpwrak>
DocScrutinizer: toward :) it's the fitting of a crown. the nasty bits are already done.
<wpwrak>
lars_: hmm, maybe ~6 years ago. lemme see if there are still any traces around
<wpwrak>
found the thread. was only a bit more than two years ago. and i mis-remembered: if (foo) x; else { y; z; } is still considered objectionable. just if (foo) x; else y; isn't.
<whitequark>
I think that C's operator system can be improved
<whitequark>
greatly
<whitequark>
just borrow from perl
<DocScrutinizer>
yeah, they tried to fix C compilers that way. The first C 'compilers' were actually bloated macro assemblers for a simple reason of hw not allowing anything better. So C isn't designed for coders but for optimal RAM footprint and CPU usage of the compiler itself, and no compiler warnings level will turn C into a decent coding language. Actually the fewer the syntactic alternatives to code one semantic chunk, the better for readability
<wpwrak>
DocScrutinizer: please go on, while millions of happy C programmers productively ignore your ranting ;-)
<DocScrutinizer>
which ranting? I'm just stating age old known facts
<DocScrutinizer>
and I'm happy with assembler even
<DocScrutinizer>
if you want to to start ranting, ask me about my notion regarding redundancy of ms-basic constructs: while 'condition' do bla blub enddo. vs repeat bla blub until not 'condition'.
<DocScrutinizer>
s/to to/me to/
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer meant: "if you want me to start ranting, ask me about my notion regarding redundancy of ms-basic constructs: while 'condition' do bla blub enddo. vs repeat bla blub until not 'condition'."
jekhor [jekhor!~jek@vulture2-nat-43.telecom.by] has joined #qi-hardware
wej [wej!~j@m2.mullvad.net] has joined #qi-hardware
<wpwrak>
rants against ms-basic are about as relevant as placing dinosaur traps ;-)
<blogic>
is ranting about gw-basic ok ? :D
<DocScrutinizer>
whatever, on a human logic level your arguments about readability due to precedence system conflict with your recourse to compiler warnings which for sure weren't invented because nobody ever is messing up a term like a == b && c == d by leaving out one char
<DocScrutinizer>
or put simpler: I don't agree on a == b && c == d being ANY readable
<DocScrutinizer>
a && b << 3 | c == d
<DocScrutinizer>
a & b < 3 || c = d
<DocScrutinizer>
a && b < 3 || c == d
<DocScrutinizer>
a && b < 3 | c == d
<viric>
gcc managed to compile C without any optimal ram footprint
<viric>
does that turn C more decent?
<DocScrutinizer>
neither you nor gcc existed when the compilers were built according to my above rationale
<DocScrutinizer>
C however existed already
<DocScrutinizer>
C is an extremely powerful macroassembler, nothing beyond. A lot of experienced coders will agree on that
<viric>
and what new exactly does your idea bring?
<DocScrutinizer>
eh?
<viric>
:)
<DocScrutinizer>
and what new does your question introduce to the topic?
<viric>
:)
<blogic>
i thinkt the answer is "the above rational" or not ?
<blogic>
+e
<DocScrutinizer>
I think you lost me
<blogic>
s/rational/rationale/g
<blogic>
where is the sed bot ß
<DocScrutinizer>
and the answer is 42, always been
<viric>
Maybe it is me who got lost :)
<viric>
I find C ok for its job
<DocScrutinizer>
another undeniable fact is that *read*ability increases with redundancy, until it crosses a certain threshold. It maybe *write*ability that's better without "redundant" parentheses etc
<viric>
do you like lisp? :)
<viric>
C is quite a good balance between the complexity to write/read and the complexity of writing a compiler for it.
<viric>
giving enough granularity to the programmer to achieve code that runs fast
pabspabspabs [pabspabspabs!~pabs@d122-109-114-89.per801.wa.optusnet.com.au] has joined #qi-hardware
Ayla [Ayla!~paul@11.241.112.78.rev.sfr.net] has joined #qi-hardware
Textmode [Textmode!~boneidle@adsl-syd-2-209.ozonline.com.au] has joined #qi-hardware
kuribas [kuribas!~user@d54C43316.access.telenet.be] has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer>
nonsense, nowadays no high level procedural language lacks the opportunity to allow coders to write fast code
<whitequark>
blogic: sed bot is too stupid to understand perl syntax. just s///, nothing more.
kudkudyak [kudkudyak!~sun@94.72.137.135] has joined #qi-hardware
<whitequark>
btw, this rant is funny
<whitequark>
(note that I'm not saying any of the above is not true. just funny a bit.)
<blogic>
s/rational/rationale/
<blogic>
i thinkt the answer is "the above rational" or not ?
<blogic>
s/rational/rationale/
<qi-bot>
blogic meant: "i thinkt the answer is "the above rationale" or not ?"
<blogic>
*magic*
wej [wej!~j@m2.mullvad.net] has joined #qi-hardware
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer meant: "silly idea to think sedbot would act on all lines starting with "s" ;-D"
<DocScrutinizer>
hahaha
<DocScrutinizer>
ok
<DocScrutinizer>
s/ok/OK/;!seen DocScrutinizer51
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer meant: "OK"
jluis [jluis!~jluis@80.31.92.21] has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer>
in fact, I think: not even that will work
<DocScrutinizer>
s/,//;s/://
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer meant: "in fact I think not even that will work"
<DocScrutinizer>
ooh
<DocScrutinizer>
s/o/(/
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer meant: "((h"
<DocScrutinizer>
MEH!!
<DocScrutinizer>
thete's not been any /g
<DocScrutinizer>
there*
<DocScrutinizer>
I I wonder
<DocScrutinizer>
s/I //
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer meant: "wonder"
<DocScrutinizer>
now THAT is *BAD*
<DocScrutinizer>
ibot/infobot/apt obeys /g
<DocScrutinizer>
qi-bot has a bug
<DocScrutinizer>
am I right in thinking qi.bot has a fine bug in this regex-sustition function?
<DocScrutinizer>
s/in/with/
<qi-bot>
DocScrutinizer meant: "am I right with thwithkwithg qi.bot has a fwithe bug with this regex-sustition function?"
<DocScrutinizer>
:-/
<DocScrutinizer>
who's qi-bot's master?
mstevens [mstevens!~mstevens@fsf/member/pdpc.active.mstevens] has joined #qi-hardware
FrankBlues [FrankBlues!~alex@c-67-182-230-190.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has joined #qi-hardware
<qi-bot>
Ron K Jeffries: @qihardware ( 154695765929897984@RonKJeffries - 22s ago via web )
<qi-bot>
Ron K Jeffries: Private key only bitcoin wallet. Zero trust, Easy Export, No split keys. http://t.co/yjuyx32b [via @zootreeves Ben Reeves]
xiangfu [xiangfu!~xiangfu@fidelio.qi-hardware.com] has joined #qi-hardware
erikkugel [erikkugel!~erik@206-248-184-96.dsl.teksavvy.com] has joined #qi-hardware
<jow_laptop>
yay, Bitcoin spam via twitter relayed to IRC
<wolfspraul>
yay well
<wolfspraul>
I actually clicked on the link to see whether there is open hardware there, but couldn't find it right away
<jow_laptop>
;)
<wolfspraul>
jow_laptop: what do you think about bitcoins?
<wolfspraul>
seems at some point a technology like that begs for dedicated secure hardware
<wolfspraul>
which should be open to be secure imho
<roh>
wolfspraul: bc arent the answer to the question for digital money. they are an experiment stirring stuff up to see whats possible.
<wolfspraul>
yes, roughly my thinking too. but as a transaction medium they work today, I would sell nanos and milkys for bitcoins, no problem.
<wolfspraul>
also the combination of cryptography and networking is so interesting, maybe it can be used for other applications
<wolfspraul>
from a hardware side, I think this stuff cannot work unless there is secure hardware
<roh>
in the end it boils down to a technical issue. how to make sure its an exchange currency and not a currency imploding as the real ones right now due to speculation
<DocScrutinizer>
bitcoin, a chain letter philosophy concept
<wolfspraul>
well I'm a small business man, and I am struggling with payment systems every day
<wolfspraul>
every time I struggle, I think of bitcoin now and there is *hope* :-)
<wolfspraul>
thank you bitcoin!
<wolfspraul>
so I definitely sell hardware for bitcoins, no problem
<wolfspraul>
DocScrutinizer: you send me some bitcoins, I send you a Milkymist One ;-)
<wolfspraul>
I do not believe in the revolutionary part of bitcoins though, they will not replace other currencies etc.
<wolfspraul>
but maybe a small little payment system, for geeks first? right now it seems to work...
<wolfspraul>
unless someone breaks through the crypto part right away and makes an infinite number of them, I think they will continue to stay around
<DocScrutinizer>
I found nobody who was able to convince 9 others and me about bitcoins being a thing worth looking into
<DocScrutinizer>
and tbh I'm not looking for somebody
<erikkugel>
everything has it's merits, but bitcoin's main advantage currently is hiding illegal activity. Once it had OTHER advantages, popularity might grow.