Cool. You could run it on the Olimex ESP32-P4-PC board, which even has a HDMI socket.
4,306 karma · joined November 19, 2018
That was not my topic.
I was (obviously) talking about the influence of Smalltalk to Oberon, and only that.
And don't forget that the Smalltalk 76 and 80 GUI (and language) we know today was Ingalls' work, not Kay's.
> Wirth didn't know Kay well enough to recognize him
The popularity and influence of Kay is generally overstated. And not to forget that he received the Turing award much later, and what he published was not really the kind of topics Wirth was interested in. At least we have access to all relevant documents today and can check ourselves instead of taking the many tales at face value.
Didn't the Synclavier have FM and was on the market even before Yamaha? So I would assume that at least NED must have been interested and have the capabilities of implementing FM.
Even more with Chowning's background as a musician, not an engineer.
> Multiplying sounds just sounded too ridiculous
Is this really the "official" reason, or your interpretation?
Did he? Wasn't there New England Digital (NED) with the Synclavier which had FM on the market before Yamaha? Are you sure Chowning gave licenses? I would rather expect that this was the Standford administration's business, not Chowning's.
Well, PARC was quite big and Wirth was focussed on the work the Mesa people with Buttler Lampson did. If you watch the Q&A session of his 1993 HOPL talk you may notice that Kay asked a question, and it is obvious that Wirth didn't know him in person. And I'm not aware of any Wirth publication before 1987 mentioning Smalltalk. The only publication where Kay appears by name at all (as "Smalltalk (Goldberg and Kay, 1980)") is Wirth's 2008 IEEE paper.
> However, Wirth's style was more influenced by the Smalltalk-inspired GUI being written in Mesa, which would officially give rise to Cedar in 01980
Pretty adventurous claims. Wirth adopted Cedar’s tiled-viewer approach; I'm not aware of any features he adopted from the Smalltalk GUI. Instead he considered Smalltalk an anti-pattern in several respects, which you confirm.
> Smalltalk-76 already had compiled virtual methods and table-based polymorphic dispatch like SIMULA
Right. That's what Ingalls published in his 1978 paper, where he explicitly quotes the 1973 "SIMULA Begin" version and discusses its features.
There is a significant difference between Simula I and Simula 67, and Kay in his 1969 dissertation only referenced the 1966 ACM paper on Simula I. It took many more years until Simula 67 was referenced in a publication by Kay or his team (specifically, "SIMLUA Begin" in Ingalls' 1978 publication about Smalltalk-76). The documented facts (see also Ingalls' 2020 ACM HOPL paper) rather suggest the following relations: Kay - Simula I - Smalltalk-72 and Ingalls - Simula 67 - Smalltalk-76/80
Interestingly, the OO model that Wirth and Gutknecht implemented in the Oberon system corresponds better to Kay's message-based vision than Smalltalk-80. Wirth arrived here not by trying to emulate biology, but by trying to avoid the V-Table.
Java implemented the Simula 67 object model, confirmed e.g. by a 2017 Gosling lecture (as did early C++ and Smalltalk-80 to a significant degree).
There are always benchmarks where the one or the other might be faster; this is the reason why we use benchmark suites and geometric means of the factors to make the comparison more representative.
In the above results, Node.js was twice as fast as C++ in the Storage benchmark, and equally fast in Richards and CD, but overall C++ was twice as fast.
Implementations can differ significantly, which you confirmed with the two C++ implementations you measured. The Are-we-fast-yet suite includes guidelines (see https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet/blob/master/docs/gu...) for this purpose which must be followed by new implementations, and which assure comparability.
Is there evidence on an election fraud with significant scope? How did the fraud work?
Objective-C has indeed some impressive features, but also some inefficiencies and it got a bit out of favour over the years. Coming from the Wirth school I also understand the virtue and challenge of writing a compiler in his own language, but in practice it is often rather an obstacle than a benefit, and if a language is useful, there should never be a lack of representative projects. I thus write my own compilers always in a conservative C++98 subset or even in C so bootstrapping is never an issue and there is no second compiler necessary.
Is your blewit, which sounds yet like another big code base, also AI generated/assisted? If I understand you correctly, you indeed have the engineering expertise to write compilers and to understand its architecture and complexities; so the project is not "vibe coded", but rather "augmented engineering"; I didn't manage to have a detailed look at the large code base yet, but in that case I would expect that it rather looks like a human engineered code base than the often strange looking architecture and code which I already have seen in Claude projects where the AI is just left alone for a few weeks.
A performance within 1.1 to 1.8 on average of optimized Clang is a very good start for such a project.
As I understand, the AI has implemented the frontend and lowering after your spec, which is amazing and demonstrates that it is able to work not only in and for the languages it was trained on. How was the AI able to demonstrate that your spec has been completely and correctly implemented? Is the language and IR spec somewhere on the web? What formalism did you use for the spec?
I well remember GEM and also wrote software for Atari ST many years ago ;-)
Here is my first attempt: http://rochus-keller.ch/Diverses/Polyphonic_Threshold_1.mp3
And here are some Suno v5 tracks with the same prompt for comparison: https://rochus-keller.ch/?p=1428
All in all, Suno still has much better musicality (or at least had in version 5), but the sound quality of elevenmusic is clearly better.
I think it will take many more years until an AI is able to compose like e.g. John Williams and play a score and sound like e.g. the London Symphony Orchestra. So there is room left for human contribution. On the other hand, the majority of humans even before AI was not able to value good vs. bad musical composition and performance, and instead satisfied with the commercial slop the market was flooded over the last thirty years. Studies of e.g. Spotify consumer behaviour demonstrated for many years before AI that more and more people consume anonymous playlists never caring who composed or played the music, just using music for its functional purpose like a commodity. It's depressing, but that's how society develops.
> a curiosity, someone who does things the hard way for their own amusement
That development already started long ago. In the eighties and nineties, music schools florished and children wanted to learn instruments and play in bands or orchestras. That completely changed over the last thirty years. Musical instruments will be a curiosity in a decade or two people are going to watch in a museum, wondering why anyone would have learned these skills in the past.
Sound quality doesn't seem to have improved, especially the grand pianos still sound detuned. I hear new musical and sound features such as wild Paganini violine solos and more progressive arrangements. But in general I don't think it is better from what I've heard so far than what we had in v5 (here some of my v5 experiments for comparison: https://rochus-keller.ch/?p=1428).