January 26th, 2012

beartato phd

Things Turbo Pascal Is Smaller Than

This blog post is small enough that I might as well just quote it in its entirety:

Turbo Pascal 3 for MS-DOS was released in September 1986. Being version 3, there were lesser releases prior to it and flashier ones after, but 3 was a solid representation of the Turbo Pascal experience: a full Pascal compiler, including extensions that it made it practical for commercial use, tightly integrated with an editor. And the whole thing was lightning fast, orders of magnitude faster at building projects than Microsoft's compilers.

The entire Turbo Pascal 3.02 executable--the compiler and IDE--was 39,731 bytes. How does that stack up in 2011 terms? Here are some things that Turbo Pascal is smaller than, as of October 30, 2011:

The minified version of jquery 1.6 (90,518 bytes).
The yahoo.com home page (219,583 bytes).
The image of the white iPhone 4S at apple.com (190,157 bytes).
zlib.h in the Mac OS X Lion SDK (80,504 bytes).
The touch command under OS X Lion (44,016 bytes).
Various vim quick reference cards as PDFs. (This one is 47,508 bytes.)
The compiled code for the Erlang R14B02 parser (erl_parse.beam, 286,324 bytes).
The Wikipedia page for C++ (214,251 bytes).
beartato phd

(no subject)

Favorite talks from this morning:

Jennifer Rexford's talk about software-defined networks and openflow and stuff. I already knew a good fraction of this material from my Penn stint, but it was a extremely well-packaged and -delivered talk; an excellent advertisement for an interesting research area.

Robby Findler's "Run Your Research" talk about Redex and how to reduce errors in research papers by more testing and deeper integration of mechanized reasoning systems with every other part of the research-paper-writing process. Another super-polished and awesome talk, full of casually showing off crazy futuristic IDE awesomeness that I didn't realize was in Racket these days.
beartato phd

(no subject)

Found "Toward Nominal Computation" by some folks out of Warsaw to be pretty interesting. Couldn't quite keep up with the examples in the talk, but the idea is that nominal set theory is also good for things that aren't binding-y or variable-y. There was some sort of automata that was described that turned out to be just the definition of finite automata transported from the category Set to the category of nominal sets.