+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: ORE General (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-39.html)
+--- Forum: Build Discussion (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: Are We Reaching Our Limits? (/thread-1712.html)
Are We Reaching Our Limits? - WrytXander - 12-24-2013
As we all know, the amount of optimization we have done as the "Prof. Dr. Redstone" for years is amazing! Wr have went from 3 wide 8 long 4 high DFF's to Hans
Lemurson's famous stackable RAM. From 100 cubic meters of logic for one bit addition, to 46-48 cubic meter for one bit addition. We developed instant-stuff, derived high-end theorical imprivements or used already existing ones to our advantage, PLA is one of the most obveous example probably.
But, when we will reach our limits, that we can not make it even faster and compacter? Theoritically speaking, the smallest computer in MC is 1x1x1 and it is instant. How close can we actually get to this limit?
Thruout the history of mankind, this question was always being asked, to scientist. People would tell that the mobile phones can not get any thinner, CPU's cant get any faster, you can not render a rectangle faster then this due to this, this is the fastest connection speed you can get...
But as you can see, there is no stopping in the nature if mankind. We always advance further and further. 3 gHz CPU's are considered normal in PC's now. But when you think about it, we are talking about approximetly 3 million operations being done every second! GPU's can render 4K videos at 120 fps, we can have amazing realistic game plays, octrees, hyper-speed voxel renderings, shadow mapping and all that cool stuff!
So, you might say, "Well, then there is no limit to redstone eh?" Well ofcourse there is, but I think we are far away from reaching it.
If you ask me, the main reason we are not even close, divides into two parts: Optimization and practical implementation of these optimizations.
When I was planning the WX 0.1 (a CPU of mine) i wanted to get the fastest clock speed ever reached with a minecraft CPU. I managed to get 8 tick clock speed with it, but due to unreliable pistons being pistons and server-side issues it made my game lag, and I kept it at 10 ticks which is the equivelent of 1 Hz. Now, I dont knoe about you, but I dont usually see a 1 Hz CPU in MC. The reason I was able to achiave such speed was simple, I optimized. The cpu used this concept called "software pipeline", and if you know me well, i love software pipelines :D, which is basically dividing instructions into several parts, so that the distance the data travels at one clock cycle is decreased, thus increasing the clock rate.
PLA is an amazing example of this optimization/implementation rule IMHO. It something that you can explain on a toilet paper if you really wanted to, but It all comes down to optimizing it for our platform, which happrns to be MC, and doing the correct moves to take the full advantage of it in game.
So, these are my reasons why I think we are away from reaching the so called limit, since we are just scratching the surface of things (like analog concepts, networking, standartization, doing BCD in compacter ways this could go on forever). At first what we did was to implement real life concepts, but now we have just started advancing!
Leave your opinions below, and sorry for the big-as# rant :')
And oh, is this the correct sub-forum? :0
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-24-2013
There is no limt but ones imagination because some could make a fast CPU but its large yet another could have a small one that's slow.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - AFtExploision - 12-24-2013
Limits? If we reach limits, move on to mods!
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Iceglade - 12-25-2013
lim redstone = infinity
redstone -> infinity
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - xdot - 12-25-2013
(12-24-2013, 11:25 PM)Chibill Wrote: There is no limt but ones imagination because some could make a fast CPU but its large yet another could have a small one that's slow.
There is a chunk load limit.
Unless mojang continues to enhance redstone, we will soon hit a dead end.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Iceglade - 12-25-2013
Even if we did hit a limit in optimization, the next step would be to move into even more complex stuff. For instance, perhaps computers with an integrated programming interface would become the new standard.
And if, somehow in years we could not go any further, our new goal would be to introduce new people to the amazing concepts of logic.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-25-2013
Xdot that's where vinnila portal chunk loaders coming handy or bukkit chunk loaders
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - xdot - 12-25-2013
(12-25-2013, 05:18 PM)Chibill Wrote: Xdot that's where vinnila portal chunk loaders coming handy or bukkit chunk loaders
Sure. However, sooner or later you will hit the physical hardware limit of your (IRL) computer.
EDIT: Moved to a more suitable subforum.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Iceglade - 12-25-2013
Ehh... if there's a limit that's not it. xD
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-25-2013
Xdot then we must redstone can expand till IRL computers hit there limits.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-25-2013
if you reach binary limits, then go beyond it.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - EDevil - 12-26-2013
Yeah, were definitely reaching our limits. Not necessary because redstone cant do more (which it can) but because cycles of CPU's are waay slower than RL, its going to take at least half an hour to do 1 decent program, in which probably Mort's server will crash at least 2 times.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Iceglade - 12-26-2013
Computing and software isn't necessarily the entire future. Take, for instance, more advanced I/O. Implementing further algorithms and performing more advanced calculations. I've barely ever seen a computer running a program which you can program it on (OS kinda thing), etc, etc.
And when that's all said and done for the current ORE community (and we still have a lot left within us), we become the benevolent teachers for a future generation of computing nerds.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Guy1234567890 - 12-26-2013
Given that the minecraft universe has a fundamental unit of fixed size, there must be a limit to the computational power per unit volume. However, given that the minecraft universe is practically infinite, there is no limit to computational power. This is obvious.
It is my opinion that ORE should try to move out of the hardware stage and into the software stage. This is the next frontier.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-26-2013
Me and Himehowareu are with MCX which still is being deved on a closed private server. For now.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - xdot - 12-26-2013
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Treesin - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
"1. The units used to construct an adder should not also be used to construct
the elements within that adder.
2. An adders type should be independent of the register it uses to obtain
memory." Am I having a stroke?
"The RDF brought instant-repeaters, which harden speed of different and complex circuits." Am I having a stroke?
"There has been a recent increase in the prevalence of I/O heavy instructions which are coupled with compute heavy operations. As the industry trends towards connected and multicore programs, the importance of managing the latency and unpredictability of I/O operations becomes ever more significant." AM I HAVING A STROKE?
"One must understand our adder configuration to grasp the genesis of our results.
We instrumented a real-time deployment on the Adder Units to measure the contradiction of instant logic. We removed 2 ticks of propagation delay from our machines. We added 3 ticks of input access to discover the instruction rate of the CPU performance." Please god help me I think I'm having a stroke...
Like actually, my mind cannot parse a single sentence in this entire thing. What is this thing trying to say?
I think a big reason that I am having so much trouble understanding this is that whoever wrote this decided to use as many big, technical words as possible, deciding that a guess at the definition of a word would make a fair substitute for the actual definition.
Like actually: "One must understand our adder configuration to grasp the genesis of our results."
genesis, as in the first book of the bible, it means the origin of something. "The origin of our results"? That makes no sense. Like zero. Did you mean "How we got our results?" "How we interpreted our results?" I have no idea, because the wrong word was used, so literally any possible definition could have been the one in the author's head.
Also: "We motivate the need for JK flip-flop gates. Continuing with this rationale, to achieve this ambition, we describe a circuit for branching, confirming that cache coherence and flags can collude to fulfill this mission."
So many things wrong with this thing, some parts are decipherable, some are not.
First: "motivating the need" makes 0 sense. Like actually. I understand that it's supposed to say "We suggest that people use JK flip-flop gates", but that doesn't change the fact that the phrase is not proper English (ha ha).
Second: "Continuing with this rationale" only make sense if there is an actual rationale to continue with that is directly before this phrase. As it is, I believe that it refers to the quite confusing jumble of words in the previous paragraph, which amounted to (as far as I could tell after several readings) something about managing latency. (Fun fact: you cannot "mandate the necessity" like wtf would that even mean? Making someone need something? That's very redundant..).
Third: "confirming that cache coherence and flags can collude to fufill [sic] this mission". Wat. Yes, I guess collusion does in part mean agreement between parties, but it is not in anyway a synonym for working together, unless this working together is under some illegal or nefarious purpose. How would a concept be able to work nefariously with another concept to fulfill a mission? "Fulfilling a mission" doesn't even make sense.
Like there are so many things wrong with how this thing was written that it is pretty damn unreadable. I wish I could say those were the worst bits, but pretty much the entire thing was similarly impossible to parse, so I just took two random parts.
I'm not trying to be mean, but this was incredibly frustrating to read, and this frustration could have been prevented if the posts weren't flooded with meaningless stuff. I think this might have been interesting, but I literally cannot read it, despite my English and redstone fluency.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - kosnirr dragoven - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Treesin - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 07:36 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
I disagree completely. If you would've said that the initialism of my response had been the source of the error, than I could have disproved the general conclusion that you just posited. However, you seem to be hinging on the fact that the interest is derived from the mere premise of the lack of proof. Well, to that I say that the response is entirely justified, in that if you can relate the redstone theory presented in the aforementioned text, then the text would read that the missing link between our views would be found when the views were connected by the ambition to create agreement. Now if you told me that the reason for this malice was bad, then I might decide to agree with your argument, but not abandon my own, that is, if obfuscation is presented as a complicating agent, then this is inherently unfaithful to the truth, as obfuscation is in fact a simplification in other ways.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - kosnirr dragoven - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 08:11 PM)Treesin Wrote:There is a great divide in redstone design between the engineers who stress philosophy and values and those who stress history and originalism. It is a split that cannot be bridged, much like the division between farmers and cowboys in “Oklahoma.” My purpose here is not to revisit that controversy and to argue that history and originalism reflect the superior approach, although that is my belief. In my article, I simply assume that the goal of interpretation should be to recapture original meaning because original meaning accords with the decision to ratify the Constitution. If one takes that goal seriously, obfuscating intent is not the way to go.(12-26-2013, 07:36 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
I disagree completely. If you would've said that the initialism of my response had been the source of the error, than I could have disproved the general conclusion that you just posited. However, you seem to be hinging on the fact that the interest is derived from the mere premise of the lack of proof. Well, to that I say that the response is entirely justified, in that if you can relate the redstone theory presented in the aforementioned text, then the text would read that the missing link between our views would be found when the views were connected by the ambition to create agreement. Now if you told me that the reason for this malice was bad, then I might decide to agree with your argument, but not abandon my own, that is, if obfuscation is presented as a complicating agent, then this is inherently unfaithful to the truth, as obfuscation is in fact a simplification in other ways.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Treesin - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 08:26 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 08:11 PM)Treesin Wrote:There is a great divide in redstone design between the engineers who stress philosophy and values and those who stress history and originalism. It is a split that cannot be bridged, much like the division between farmers and cowboys in “Oklahoma.” My purpose here is not to revisit that controversy and to argue that history and originalism reflect the superior approach, although that is my belief. In my article, I simply assume that the goal of interpretation should be to recapture original meaning because original meaning accords with the decision to ratify the Constitution. If one takes that goal seriously, obfuscating intent is not the way to go.(12-26-2013, 07:36 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 04:01 PM)xdot Wrote: http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-1/
http://cactirevolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/a-look-at-the-future-of-redstone-circuit-standards-part-2/
Relevant.
I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
I disagree completely. If you would've said that the initialism of my response had been the source of the error, than I could have disproved the general conclusion that you just posited. However, you seem to be hinging on the fact that the interest is derived from the mere premise of the lack of proof. Well, to that I say that the response is entirely justified, in that if you can relate the redstone theory presented in the aforementioned text, then the text would read that the missing link between our views would be found when the views were connected by the ambition to create agreement. Now if you told me that the reason for this malice was bad, then I might decide to agree with your argument, but not abandon my own, that is, if obfuscation is presented as a complicating agent, then this is inherently unfaithful to the truth, as obfuscation is in fact a simplification in other ways.
I would not take that statement granted, in that, in many opinions, "originalism" can actually be the crux of the argument between our two ideas. While I do agree with the existence of "Oklahoma", I would strongly believe that the formation of its existence is one of the more influential topics to study. Also, recapturing meaning is not possible, in my opinion, as the capturing of meaning in the first place is often said to be a modification itself, also it changes the original thought itself. In this way, obfuscation can be said to be the purest form of a thought, even if it is in fact a difference in the thought itself, as the act of change creates change in other places, equating the two ideas. The seriousness of a goal is always in account, mostly taken, when obfuscating, as the time spent to nurture an idea is again a form of obfuscation. In this sense, neither obfuscation nor originalism, nor indeed intent can be said to truly exist, as no processes are truly indeed static, so anything done will be said to obfuscate by one or another or me, taking away original meaning of the true purpose of intent.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - kosnirr dragoven - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 08:38 PM)Treesin Wrote:(12-26-2013, 08:26 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 08:11 PM)Treesin Wrote:There is a great divide in redstone design between the engineers who stress philosophy and values and those who stress history and originalism. It is a split that cannot be bridged, much like the division between farmers and cowboys in “Oklahoma.” My purpose here is not to revisit that controversy and to argue that history and originalism reflect the superior approach, although that is my belief. In my article, I simply assume that the goal of interpretation should be to recapture original meaning because original meaning accords with the decision to ratify the Constitution. If one takes that goal seriously, obfuscating intent is not the way to go.(12-26-2013, 07:36 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote:(12-26-2013, 07:09 PM)Treesin Wrote: I'm pretty sure that these things don't say anything. Like I understand all the concepts that these cover, but honestly, it seems that these are all excerpts from random, unrelated things. Like I have read every single one multiple times, and I still don't understand the smallest bit of it...
-snip-
Of course if I had in fact initially said something along the lines of your interpretation there would have been no misunderstanding. In that case, Treesin's description of my article as "Open mouth, insert foot" would make no sense, since no apology would be necessary. All this to say that perhaps, to be generous, Treesin, in saying that I "decided to use as many big, technical words as possible," meant "it may have been a good thing." If so, you presented it in the most obfuscated way possible.
I disagree completely. If you would've said that the initialism of my response had been the source of the error, than I could have disproved the general conclusion that you just posited. However, you seem to be hinging on the fact that the interest is derived from the mere premise of the lack of proof. Well, to that I say that the response is entirely justified, in that if you can relate the redstone theory presented in the aforementioned text, then the text would read that the missing link between our views would be found when the views were connected by the ambition to create agreement. Now if you told me that the reason for this malice was bad, then I might decide to agree with your argument, but not abandon my own, that is, if obfuscation is presented as a complicating agent, then this is inherently unfaithful to the truth, as obfuscation is in fact a simplification in other ways.
I would not take that statement granted, in that, in many opinions, "originalism" can actually be the crux of the argument between our two ideas. While I do agree with the existence of "Oklahoma", I would strongly believe that the formation of its existence is one of the more influential topics to study. Also, recapturing meaning is not possible, in my opinion, as the capturing of meaning in the first place is often said to be a modification itself, also it changes the original thought itself. In this way, obfuscation can be said to be the purest form of a thought, even if it is in fact a difference in the thought itself, as the act of change creates change in other places, equating the two ideas. The seriousness of a goal is always in account, mostly taken, when obfuscating, as the time spent to nurture an idea is again a form of obfuscation. In this sense, neither obfuscation nor originalism, nor indeed intent can be said to truly exist, as no processes are truly indeed static, so anything done will be said to obfuscate by one or another or me, taking away original meaning of the true purpose of intent.
I am not entirely sure I understand what you are talking about...
EDIT: I am not entirely sure you understand what you are talking about...
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Magazorb - 12-26-2013
Can't say we are near any limits, we always find new ways to explain on what we always believe to be near limits and then pass those limits, each time we act surprised but reality being; Theirs a lot of real life operations for performance and compacting we could implement into Minecraft systems, For each time a smallest yet ideal performing object is created a record to be broken is set for the next guy, We been leapfrogging each other this way for years now and each time we surprise our self's and more with Clever optimisations that only become apparent when we think we reached all realistic limits to find us self's with even more room to expand into...
It's not even like we can physically say their are limits, being human our brains are always continuously learning via trail and error all the time, once 1 part has been mastered by a individual the limits for that individual seemingly extends as shortly after everyone else learns from the others trail and error, we then come to a point of significant improvement between each individual as the learning is shared between the community.
I'd say if we was even to try to put the efforts in as the community we have came to be as "ORE" we could even innovate real life technologies with our own designs and improvement. Not saying we would render ARM processors useless but at least if we was to put all of us together we definitely have a competitive edge on many electronic engineering establishments' (Yay I put all the E's together)
I guess as a memo id say our perceived limit's is only that as only a touch more then our own personal understanding of the situation, meaning as for physical limits, we can never gauge how far we truly are taking into account our ability to learn. unlike most machines we are not limited to fixed algorithms' which is the beauty of being a irrational being personally
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Treesin - 12-26-2013
(12-26-2013, 08:43 PM)kosnirr dragoven Wrote: -snip-
I am not entirely sure I understand what you are talking about...
EDIT: I am not entirely sure you understand what you are talking about...
By saying that, you prove my argument correct. Understanding is an impossibility in a world where definite truth does not exist.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-26-2013
I think that 2 links tried to show some kind of standard, but picked a wrong way to show it.
I think theres only a coding standard needs to be done.Make sure that the same code, runs everywhere.
I think this will make networking easier, while not blocking the path to advance.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - redstonewarrior - 12-26-2013
Things to do when you get logic in a game:
>Basics
>Build down (optimize)
>Build up (macros, building bigger, better)
>Abstract
The sweetest fruits are yet to come, but they're not in the forms we're familiar with. (Then again, for many, optimized components will always bee the tastiest things.)
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - mort96 - 12-26-2013
My wiew of it is this:
Yes, we are approaching a limit. We are nearing a point where redstone contraptions can't get get any smaller or faster. However, that's when the fun starts.
We will have to start putting devices together. Make standardized protocols. Connect various devices, screens, inputs, etc. to CPUs.
The world of Minecraft software is relatively unexplored. We've put together a ton of CPUs, buy for each CPU, we've just made an adder program for demonstration. Maybe a multiplication program. Some people have implemented line drawing alrithms, but that's pretty much as far as it goes.
I'm working on a CPU, and a programming language to go with that CPU. I'm also writing a compiler for that language: http://mortie.org/?webapp=compiler_16 The plan is to have a function where you can download a schematic of the compiled program, and just //paste that next to the CPU.
I think that kind of projects are the future. Easily programmable CPUs with compilers for high-ish level languages. No more manually placing torches. Just program in a language and //paste the resulting schematic.
Furthermore, we can design a standard instruction set and a standard program ROM design. That way, we can have a bunch of CPUs which can all run the same software. That's when the software revolution will start.
As Berick said, there are no limits to those who see no limits.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - redstonewarrior - 12-26-2013
Quote:>Build downI like mine better.
>Build up
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Iceglade - 12-27-2013
(12-26-2013, 10:10 PM)redstonewarrior Wrote: (Then again, for many, optimized components will always bee the tastiest things.)
Hopefully not for most of ORE members D:
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Xray_Doc - 12-27-2013
This entire thread:
tl;dr
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Magazorb - 12-27-2013
(12-26-2013, 10:22 PM)mort96 Wrote: http://mortie.org/?webapp=compiler_16
2Questions,
Q1). What use will label provide?
Q2). What's the point of having 2 functions for shifting over 1 function with a bit for which direction to shift and just save to the same address as ARG1? (not hard to duplicate if you required the before shift and after)
TBH quite intresting stuff and would love to see how this turns out
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-27-2013
what does it compile to?
And time to finish my external binarry to schematic convertor!
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - mort96 - 12-27-2013
(12-27-2013, 01:43 AM)Magazorb Wrote:(12-26-2013, 10:22 PM)mort96 Wrote: http://mortie.org/?webapp=compiler_16
2Questions,
Q1). What use will label provide?
Q2). What's the point of having 2 functions for shifting over 1 function with a bit for which direction to shift and just save to the same address as ARG1? (not hard to duplicate if you required the before shift and after)
TBH quite intresting stuff and would love to see how this turns out
Labels will let you go to places in the code. You can for instance do this:
LABEL pizza
then a bit further down in your code:
GOTOEQ pizza A 423
That will go back to the pizza label if register A == 423.
I guess whether you want "LSHIFT A" and "RSHIFT A" or "SHIFT A L" or "SHIFT A R" is a matter of opinion.
(12-27-2013, 02:46 AM)Chibill Wrote: what does it compile to?
And time to finish my external binarry to schematic convertor!
It compiles into machine code, that is the 0s and 1s represented by torches in the program memory.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-27-2013
I mean what type of OPcode set like the converting to binary. Like ADD is the same as 0001 ARG ARG
Or ADD is 0100 ARG ARG.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-27-2013
I think the compiler should write into chests.They work like extremly compact tapes, and mutch easier to transport.Then the code can be loaded into the existing memory.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Treesin - 12-27-2013
(12-27-2013, 10:57 AM)Frontrider Wrote: I think the compiler should write into chests.They work like extremly compact tapes, and mutch easier to transport.Then the code can be loaded into the existing memory.
The problem with doing that is that, although chests can hold a lot of information in a tiny space, it is really difficult to get that information out without it being huge. So if the person has already built a reader for chests, it's easy enough, but otherwise, it's kind of a pain, and slow regardless. Also, people usually use Read-only memory for their CPUs, so you can't assume that the existing memory is able to be loaded to. If the person was working with ROM, then in addition to the chest reader that they would have to build, they would have to switch their program memory to be able to be written to, which would make it way bigger. I think it makes a lot more sense to just have the filter turn the code into a ROM unit, which would fix both of the described problems.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-27-2013
once you copied the data from the chest(i mean replicated it) then a 3x3x2 unit (/bit) can read it and store it like an EPROM.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - WrytXander - 12-28-2013
I havent looked at IS optimization/standartization since I left RDF (long time). But, as Guy stated, the future of Redstone is software, protocols and all that - untouched/raw - beautiful stuff. This gets me very excited and pumped about working on those stuff. But, you can not just say "Hey I made a standart." First, maybe we could start out by defining very low-level standarts at ORE and maybe make thread about it on MC Forums ot Reddit? Since not everyone who is capable of making redstone CPU's are in ORE.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-28-2013
(12-28-2013, 11:26 AM)WrytXander Wrote: I havent looked at IS optimization/standartization since I left RDF (long time). But, as Guy stated, the future of Redstone is software, protocols and all that - untouched/raw - beautiful stuff. This gets me very excited and pumped about working on those stuff. But, you can not just say "Hey I made a standart." First, maybe we could start out by defining very low-level standarts at ORE and maybe make thread about it on MC Forums ot Reddit? Since not everyone who is capable of making redstone CPU's are in ORE.
A scripting/machine code standard is everithing what is nessarry.Theres still unexplored terrain, like the item memories,or comperator based computers(this is what im working on, i have a fast and small octal ALU, working on the program memory right now, knowing some standard orders could help).
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - xdot - 12-28-2013
(12-28-2013, 11:26 AM)WrytXander Wrote: I havent looked at IS optimization/standartization since I left RDF (long time). But, as Guy stated, the future of Redstone is software, protocols and all that - untouched/raw - beautiful stuff. This gets me very excited and pumped about working on those stuff. But, you can not just say "Hey I made a standart." First, maybe we could start out by defining very low-level standarts at ORE and maybe make thread about it on MC Forums ot Reddit? Since not everyone who is capable of making redstone CPU's are in ORE.
Indeed, this aspect of redstone is very intriguing. We seriously need a serial data transfer protocol and a way of classifying protocols (based on characteristics such as data word width and rate or potential applications). Is anyone else interested in the developement of such protocols/standards?
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-28-2013
(12-28-2013, 06:07 PM)xdot Wrote:(12-28-2013, 11:26 AM)WrytXander Wrote: I havent looked at IS optimization/standartization since I left RDF (long time). But, as Guy stated, the future of Redstone is software, protocols and all that - untouched/raw - beautiful stuff. This gets me very excited and pumped about working on those stuff. But, you can not just say "Hey I made a standart." First, maybe we could start out by defining very low-level standarts at ORE and maybe make thread about it on MC Forums ot Reddit? Since not everyone who is capable of making redstone CPU's are in ORE.
Indeed, this aspect of redstone is very intriguing. We seriously need a serial data transfer protocol and a way of classifying protocols (based on characteristics such as data word width and rate or potential applications). Is anyone else interested in the developement of such protocols/standards?
Maybe a new thread where everyone has one post to write down what codes he using? Then the designated person/team pick the standards.
And in the programming method what i suggested, you dont need to leave the game, everything can be done in-game.The reading method works, tested on a screen.You want me to post a picture on it, or find it out by yourself?
.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-28-2013
I say the only standard should be a IS that it can understand but it does not have to even be the native one it could be IS add one that it can understand like MCX will have its own but with an interpreter for others.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - xdot - 12-28-2013
(12-28-2013, 06:37 PM)Frontrider Wrote: Maybe a new thread where everyone has one post to write down what codes he using? Then the designated person/team pick the standards.
http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=1757
GOGOGO.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-28-2013
Booo! No standard that it must be but one it must be able to run or interpret.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Frontrider - 12-28-2013
The coding of the orders matter for you? The thread originally suggested standard parts, what you have to use.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Chibill - 12-29-2013
Standard parts are even a harder idea then Minecraft we become boring.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Ntwede - 12-29-2013
xdot Wrote:Sure. However, sooner or later you will hit the physical hardware limit of your (IRL) computer.
(12-25-2013, 09:17 PM)Iceglade Wrote: Ehh... if there's a limit that's not it. xD
I have a decent computer, and it lags with a writable prog CPU I made
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Kernul_Sanders - 01-06-2014
Create an instant redstone mod.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - EDevil - 01-06-2014
YESH. INSTANT REDSTONE FTW! (No, plz dont. rlly)
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Halflife390 - 01-06-2014
(12-26-2013, 10:22 PM)mort96 Wrote: My wiew of it is this:
Yes, we are approaching a limit. We are nearing a point where redstone contraptions can't get get any smaller or faster. However, that's when the fun starts.
We will have to start putting devices together. Make standardized protocols. Connect various devices, screens, inputs, etc. to CPUs.
The world of Minecraft software is relatively unexplored. We've put together a ton of CPUs, buy for each CPU, we've just made an adder program for demonstration. Maybe a multiplication program. Some people have implemented line drawing alrithms, but that's pretty much as far as it goes.
I'm working on a CPU, and a programming language to go with that CPU. I'm also writing a compiler for that language: http://mortie.org/?webapp=compiler_16 The plan is to have a function where you can download a schematic of the compiled program, and just //paste that next to the CPU.
I think that kind of projects are the future. Easily programmable CPUs with compilers for high-ish level languages. No more manually placing torches. Just program in a language and //paste the resulting schematic.
Furthermore, we can design a standard instruction set and a standard program ROM design. That way, we can have a bunch of CPUs which can all run the same software. That's when the software revolution will start.
As Berick said, there are no limits to those who see no limits.
Me and Wrubble are working on something like that right now. Were working on coding a virtual machine into my von neumann that will allow multiple CPU's to run the same instruction set. Im also planning on making a compiler out of redstone for my CPU. Because of the versatility of it I am going to code a BIOS and OS along with programs (Not just adding and multiplying) such as a guessing game.
But i agree with many people here. We need to start to stop making computers and start making compilers and assemblers and proper programming languages for them so we can make advanced software.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - WrytXander - 01-09-2014
I mean, assembly is nice and all that, but we really need a way to control Minecraft CPU's out of game. Since in game higher level language's will require even more contrpations and extremely inefficient.
I have no idea if we have any ways of talking to redstone out of game, i might make a new thread for it though, seems like it requires some coding and it is a topic of its own.
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Halflife390 - 01-09-2014
(01-09-2014, 11:43 AM)WrytXander Wrote: I mean, assembly is nice and all that, but we really need a way to control Minecraft CPU's out of game. Since in game higher level language's will require even more contrpations and extremely inefficient.
I have no idea if we have any ways of talking to redstone out of game, i might make a new thread for it though, seems like it requires some coding and it is a topic of its own.
I agree, higher level languages won't be feasible. The higher you go the slower it takes to complete an operation. One word of a HLL can result in hundreds of different machine code instructions. That will take ages to process and also ages to compile.
For interacting with it outside of the game I imagine it might be possible to code a mod or plugin that allows you to do that. But what could this be used for?
RE: Are We Reaching Our Limits? - Guy1234567890 - 01-09-2014
To take redstone out of game, simply use command blocks and a script to read their output from console. Each command block can correspond to bits in a device.