Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!gracilis!misha
From: misha@gracilis.ai.mit.edu (Mike Bolotski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Array references cannot be made optimal
Message-ID: <11924@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 90 16:18:55 GMT
References: <6045:Nov1519:34:2290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <11900@life.ai.mit.edu> <13046:Nov1604:16:4390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Lines: 51

In article <13046:Nov1604:16:4390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>See, this is what I mean about computer scientists. 

Actually, Dan, I happen to be an electrical engineer.

> Anyone who bothers
>to think about the problem will understand why, in a general
>computation, converting array references to pointer references is the
>same as finding an optimal addition chain. (Hint: In machine language,
>how are array references implemented?)

Hint: a general computation does not require arrays at all.

>>By the way, why do you insist upon repeatedly misquoting the phrase
>``optimal addition chain in a general computation''? Which word don't
>you understand?

Oh, I understand all of the above words as used in the conventional
literature.  Seeing as you insist on redefining each of them to suit
your current argument of the day, I suppose it would be helpful if
you went ahead and actually defined your terminology.

>> And just how seriously do you expect your opinions to be taken if
>> you haven't read the basic references about compiler construction
>> or theory of computation?
>
>I have read each of the AHU/ASU/etc books. Once. I find none of them
>particularly useful as references, as everything they say is presented
>more to my taste either in Knuth or in original research articles. I
>certainly find it amusing that you consider the currently fashionable
>elementary textbooks to be ``basic references.''

Basic, Dan. As in: "you have to be familiar with the content to be taken
seriously."  Now, either you've read the books and disagree with the
authors,  or you haven't read the books closely enough to comment.

Now, about that quote I provided. Do you agree with the authors
or do your basic definitions differ?

And I'm getting close to Jim's level of frustration with discussing
anything with you. How about steering the discussion away from
ad hominem attacks, accusations of lying, etc, etc, and back to
technical issues.  For starters, you could answer my question about
the ASU quote.





Mike Bolotski          Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT
misha@ai.mit.edu       Cambridge, MA