[Icfp04-discuss] why we, the organizers, did not provide a simulator

[Jed Davis]

Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues at wanadoo.fr> writes:

> Jed Davis wrote:
>
>> Michael Levin <milevin at saul.cis.upenn.edu> writes:
>>
>>>*) A source implementation would favor a particular source
>>>   language -- not good;
>> Of course, people writing in some flavor of ML could use much of the
>> pseudocode from the problem description, given some fairly minor edits
>> (switch -> match, etc.).  Hmm... camlp4, anyone?
>
> I copy/pasted most of the code from the document and
> did not have to edit it that much, though the simulator
> is in C.  So I am not sure the description favored ML
> that much :-)

Okay, then: people writing in Algol-derived languages could use much
of the pseudocode.  (-:  I'm not complaining, BTW, just observing; I
certainly didn't pick my simulator's language based on its suitability
for rapid prototyping or anything.


-- 
dn: cn=Jed Davis, o=panix.com  ##          see also jldavis at cs.oberlin.edu
objectclass: person
mail;personal: jdev at panix.com  ##    PGP Key FP:   A098 903E 9B9A DEF4 168F
mail;work:     jld@/           ##  [id 0xF33659F9] AA09 BF07 807E F336 59F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/pipermail/icfp04-discuss/attachments/20040608/aca9450c/attachment.bin