I’m a former programmer who programmed in Unix and C in the early eighties. We used to refer to the “!” (Explanation point) as “bang” or “baseball bat”. I could not find that in any dictionary on the web. I worked at bell labs in Homdel NJ. Anyone ever heard of this? Just a little nostalgia
How would I make a 2D raycast? Also, how would I check if 2 line segments intersect (relativity the same thing in my eyes, probably different though). I am not using unity or anything, I am just using plain python (I can translate from most languages to python so I don't really care what language you use) and don't want to use a library so I can learn. But every article I look at has no actual explanation, it just shows code. I've looked at the Geeks4Geeks one and that also really only shows code and does not explain what it does. So if someone could explain it that would be helpful.
I have the similar question as described here: MAC-1 assembly recursion
But I am a total newbie for MIC-1 / MAC-1 and looking for some ideas / samples on how to start. I need to calculate a faculty via recursion in MAC-1 ...
Thanks!
Well to get used to the MIC-1 simulator, use the following link:
http://www.ontko.com/mic1/mal.html
But before that, I guess you want to understand how the MIC-1 microprocessor works. Use chapter 4 of this textbook to understand all that is involved:
Structured Computer Organization 6th edition by Andrew S. Tanenbaum
I'm maintaining code for a mathematical algorithm that came from a book, with references in the comments. Is it better to have variable names that are descriptive of what the variables represent, or should the variables match what is in the book?
For a simple example, I may see this code, which reflects the variable in the book.
A_c = v*v/r
I could rewrite it as
centripetal_acceleration = velocity*velocity/radius
The advantage of the latter is that anyone looking at the code could understand it. However, the advantage of the former is that it is easier to compare the code with what is in the book. I may do this in order to double check the implementation of the algorithms, or I may want to add additional calculations.
Perhaps I am over-thinking this, and should simply use comments to describe what the variables are. I tend to favor self-documenting code however (use descriptive variable names instead of adding comments to describe what they are), but maybe this is a case where comments would be very helpful.
I know this question can be subjective, but I wondered if anyone had any guiding principles in order to make a decision, or had links to guidelines for coding math algorithms.
I would prefer to use the more descriptive variable names. You can't guarantee everyone that is going to look at the code has access to "the book". You may leave and take your copy, it may go out of print, etc. In my opinion it's better to be descriptive.
We use a lot of mathematical reference books in our work, and we reference them in comments, but we rarely use the same mathematically abbreviated variable names.
A common practise is to summarise all your variables, indexes and descriptions in a comment header before starting the code proper. eg.
// A_c = Centripetal Acceleration
// v = Velocity
// r = Radius
A_c = (v^2)/r
I write a lot of mathematical software. IF I can insert in the comments a very specific reference to a book or a paper or (best) web site that explains the algorithm and defines the variable names, then I will use the SHORT names like a = v * v / r because it makes the formulas easier to read and write and verify visually.
IF not, then I will write very verbose code with lots of comments and long descriptive variable names. Essentially, my code becomes a paper that describes the algorithm (anyone remember Knuth's "Literate Programming" efforts, years ago? Though the technology for it never took off, I emulate the spirit of that effort). I use a LOT of ascii art in my comments, with box-and-arrow diagrams and other descriptive graphics. I use Jave.de -- the Java Ascii Vmumble Editor.
I will sometimes write my math with short, angry little variable names, easier to read and write for ME because I know the math, then use REFACTOR to replace the names with longer, more descriptive ones at the end, but only for code that is much more informal.
I think it depends almost entirely upon the audience for whom you're writing -- and don't ever mistake the compiler for the audience either. If your code is likely to be maintained by more or less "general purpose" programmers who may not/probably won't know much about physics so they won't recognize what v and r mean, then it's probably better to expand them to be recognizable for non-physicists. If they're going to be physicists (or, for another example, game programmers) for whom the textbook abbreviations are clear and obvious, then use the abbreviations. If you don't know/can't guess which, it's probably safer to err on the side of the names being longer and more descriptive.
I vote for the "book" version. 'v' and 'r' etc are pretty well understood as acronymns for velocity and radius and is more compact.
How far would you take it?
Most (non-greek :-)) keyboards don't provide easy access to Δ, but it's valid as part of an identifier in some languages (e.g. C#):
int Δv;
int Δx;
Anyone coming afterwards and maintaining the code may curse you every day. Similarly for a lot of other symbols used in maths. So if you're not going to use those actual symbols (and I'd encourage you not to), I'd argue you ought to translate the rest, where it doesn't make for code that's too verbose.
In addition, what if you need to combine algorithms, and those algorithms have conflicting usage of variables?
A compromise could be to code and debug as contained in the book, and then perform a global search and replace for all of your variables towards the end of your development, so that it is easier to read. If you do this I would change the names of the variables slightly so that it is easier to change them later.
e.g A_c# = v#*v#/r#
I'm more or less attempting to determine crypography algoirthms and how they work. I'm a little confused on proving how one is trivial.
For example:
MAC(xbit_key,Message) = xbit_hash(Message) XOR xbit_key
Take a look at this for a general explanation and that for a good example. If it's still not clear, come back with a more specific question.