| Philippa | sorear: I believe so |
| matthew-_ | sorear: I've certainly left Epigram running overnight ;-) |
| sorear | what makes nonterminating compiles worse than arbitrarily slow ones? |
| david_ | nmessenger : it's the way the array is made that makes my neuron burn. |
| action | sorear pragmatically equates "forever" with "until the heat death of the universe" |
| sorear | pragmatically equates "forever" with "until the heat death of the universe" |
| david_ | notice how I put neuron at the singular :D |
| augustss | syntaxfree: give me 10 minutes in front of a whiteboard and you'll grok existential types |
| nmessenger | array bounds (zip indeces elemnents) |
| SamB | sorear: I'd say that arbitrarily slow ones are worse when you believe that nonterminating ones are possible |
| matthew-_ | yeah, but you just have this feeling that if you leave it running for 1 more minute it'll termiate |
| Philippa | that slips from "fast enough" to "never" are more common than slips from "fast enough" to "hello Ackerman!" |
| SamB | (because you'd tend to think you had a nonterminating one) |
| matthew-_ | mmm. maybe non-terminating is better because if it's still running after a day you might give up and rework the problem from a different angle with terminating, you're likely to sit there stubbornly until it terminates |
| SamB | hmm. |
| augustss | non-termination is detectable :) |
| yip | this is what progress bars are for =) |
| SamB | well, actually, I'd probably do it anyway in case I was maybe using an exponential algorithm |
| matthew-_ | augustss: in finite memory, sure. Or more generally? |
| SamB | yip: progress bars require analyses of how the algorithm progresses |
| augustss | matthew-_: in finite memory. do you have more than that? |
| sorear | maybe epigram should be modified to non-optionally abort compilation after 10 minutes :) |
| matthew-_ | SamB: not on Windows they don't! sorear: I suspect you can do that with alarm |
| action | allbery_b just saw something about how progress bars are evil because they rarely model what actually takes what amount of time |
| allbery_b | just saw something about how progress bars are evil because they rarely model what actually takes what amount of time |
| SamB | matthew-_: now, you could do one of those "still kicking" bars |
| matthew-_ | augustss: yes, I have 3 times that much! ;-) |
| Korollary | progress bars are useless. |
| SamB | but of course a nonterminating algorithm could be kicking too |
| augustss | matthew-_: then it'll just take slightly longer to detect |
| allbery_b | (case in point: install jdk with documentation on osx :) |
| matthew-_ | augustss: where "slightly" is some exponential function, I'd guess? |
| sorear | @quote matthew-_ <augustss> matthew-_: in finite memory. do you have more than that? <*matthew-_> augustss: yes, I have 3 times that much! ;-) |
| lambdabot | No quotes match. Your mind just hasn't been the same since the electro-shock, has it? |
| sorear | @remember matthew-_ <augustss> matthew-_: in finite memory. do you have more than that? <*matthew-_> augustss: yes, I have 3 times that much! ;-) |
| lambdabot | Done. |
| augustss | matthew-_: yes |
| matthew-_ | cheers sorear ;-) |
| action | SamB wonders if Lemmih's GDB is buggy |
| SamB | wonders if Lemmih's GDB is buggy |