Theo Verelst Diary Page

Latest: Februari 21 2001

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine that.

Previous Diary Entries

February 21, 2001

C compiler past blues, is more fun to compute?

What is our purpose here on earth?

Another C compiler

I tries another C compiler, hoping it would give me good enough C compatibility, and fast code. Well, I'm at least into reasonable ansi C again, it seems, and do 100kbytes binary writing in 3 secs, isn't that something. With decent fwrite, though without buffer control of any effect, so at least serious enough, portable programs can be planned.

And malloc: 2.7 Meg works quick, with standard interface, and dealing with such a buch of mem reading and writing per byte is a second matter, which should be fine.

So I thought I'd compile some physical modeling source, and found out that of course C is fine, but some compilers are more forgiving than others, so I had to satisfy this one a bit better than the gnu compiler by making sure the function return types are neatly matching their explicit or implicit definitions, and neatly return even void functions. So far, so good, and this all works fine, and compiles in maybe 10 secs, which is a good devcycle time.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>

#define K 1024;
#define MYBS 4096
unsigned char mybuf[MYBS+1];

char *p;
int size;
FILE *fp;

int save(n,p,s)
char n[],*p;
int s;
   int i;
   fp = fopen(n,"wb");
   setbuf(fp,mybuf); fp->bsize = MYBS;  /* std size is 512 */
   printf("%d ",fp->bsize);     /* Nice, but of no (speed) consequence ... */
   if (fp == NULL) return(-1);
   if (fwrite(p,s/4,4,fp) <= 0) { fclose(fp); return(-2); } /* multiple 4 ! */

int main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char *argv[];
   int i,j;
   unsigned ui; unsigned char uc;
   if (argc != 2) { printf("Usage: mt <size>\n"); return(-1); }
   printf("Mallocing %d bytes\n", size);
   if ((p= (char *) malloc(size)) == NULL) { printf("Malloc failed\n"); return(-2); }
   printf("Inverting %d bytes\n", size);
   for (i=0; i< size; i++)
   printf("Testing overflow trap\n");
   for (i=0; i< size/16; i++) p[i]=(char) i;   /* set part to check file */
   j = 1;
   for (i=0; i< 10; i++) {
      p[i]=(char) j; uc = (unsigned char) p[i]; ui = (unsigned) uc;
      printf("%d %d  %d\n",i,j,ui);
   sprintf(p+100,"Testing binary file write!\n(new line)");
   printf("Writing file (");
   printf("%d)\n", save("mtfile",p,size));
   printf("Testing div 0:");
   printf(" %d .\n",i/0);

Maybe not a very clear program, but the essence is that I wanted to find an error in the PM program which generates a trap (9 I seem to remember, what's that?) after a little simulation time, because yes, it does compile at least.

That accounts for the array processing part, the rest is to see wether malloc works (it does), and wether some efficiency can be expected, which seem to be fine enough, going over a few million array elements without register assignments or special precautions and doing so without noticeble delay is fine enough.

And the file stuff onviously checks wether we could be writing wav files for instance, which on this machine is slower than real time except for 8 bit 22.05 kHz, but then again, I wasn't currently planning on doing real time hardisc recording stuff, as long as it writes nice wavs for playback or downloading into my synth, or for inclusion in other software (such as Steinbergs sequencer or wavelab), that's fine.

As it seems, I thus may be able to at least develop as dos program with mouse control in standard enough C (except for the dos specifics), with good enough efficiency, and the required IO mechanisms. So port the zda program to generate data for the synth? Maybe, I'll consider it, and than writing wavs, so that interessees in the wave laboratory page can use the program and maybe have some more samples.

At least it should drive the synth hardware, and at least this c compiler does all math, it seems, so I don't need to prepare sine tables in basic.. With enough memory, I could consider making some effect examples, such as mentioned on the synthesize lab page, maybe with a bit longer samples.

Why all the considerations? Well its good to have a decent and compatible compiler, and in the whole of the IT world, that is quite relevant, and receiving not that much attention in the sense that this sort of development is seen much. Doublessly it is there, but it isworth while considering that the way Unix was and is and Linux at least is built up is a strong way of developing software that is portable, efficient, even overseeably, and can be quite reliable, depending on the decency of the programmer.

I learned these skills quite long ago, and they were at the time desired and not trivial to me, though the programming experience gaining was hindered also by absence of extensive manuals and tutorials.

When I did graphics programming, I knew how to make megabytes of fast operations work on stream basis, and how various dataformats can be used with reliable and highly efficient results in C that ran on various computer systems, from minis to various workstations and pc's (st's at the time).

Looking at dsp development enviroments of various of the biggest and most succesfull companies in the area, I at least learned valuable skills, that apply straight away 15 years later. The idea being that programming a DSP like I mentioned can also be done in recognisable C, with possible end efficiencies of over a even a few giga operations per second, for a $35 dsp. Which is good motivation to do this programming right, when code parts can just be pasted into the development environment for the DSP and run without much change. Not completely when optimization is desired, because the optimizer therein isn't very miraculous I found out in the past, but then again, having good enough code to start with at least can make a synth for instance run, and is not bad starting point to go into the bit, byte and word messin' for realy making it run efficient.

What am I, professoring for free again, or just suffering from some condition making me think I know enough about all this. Lets see. I did graduate as engineer in top enough field for real, with enough official courses in these area. I did know people in these fields at top level enough, and I don't have reason to expent any counterstatements from the kind about the content I was more than enough known in. And I did write software that actually worked, in public in not trivial science. Good. That's reassuring, together with some of my latest products, that should get the socios out of gear that at some treacherous point of my life discarded the Z80 system now generating many strong sounds as nice embroidery with colored wires. Happened, semi- officially even. My gawd.

So why not more enthousiasm? Well a at least few hundred meg pentium or so with linux or cygnus would still take work, but than straight away good enough for products that could be sold and put on the scientific map enough, and letting a bargain of what is it 1k$ for a devboard with complete integrated >1gops devkit go by and by because no one in near enough or capable society seems it fit enough or so seems like craziness.

Anyhow, as for the content, it is important that there is attention for the reason for certain ways of programming, and I do think that when content in (work) society is based on something sensible, that is better, usually. Unless some incredible criminals or general evil persons and companies must be kept away from such holy grails of knowledge and wonder about in irrelevance, redundance or even ridiculousness. Which may be true at times, but this stuff is complicated and rich enough, I don't think it is very needed to keep very secret what in software land actually works. In fact it is a nice idea that many things do, and often lately are even quite readily available, even sourcewise. Maybe not optimal, but at least that makes it possible for people with interest to use things themselves, as they see fit. And that communcation about software can be taken out of the wizardy game for wizardy's sake.

I remember the advent in my environment in such sense all to clear. Seriously, I was in a class where some at points at the almost insane (and eventually utterly unfruitfull) nerve to present themselves as if not better than at least at the same expertise level I accumualted at the time, by simply tying over a program from some magezine, changing the copyright notice to contain their name. Seriously. I at the time publicly enough make a Analog to Digital converter for the machines myself, and made it work, and programmed pretty much all I wanted around, it in assembly just the same, this was close to insanity.

I guess I wasn't very interested in the phenomenon, not because of naivity, but simply because I never expected such kinds to be taken very serious, and in the end of course they weren't. The idea of being utter expert in such influencial field must have ticked some kinds of incredibly, I'm sure now. At the time most seemed to like the idea, why not, not a problem, and I guess I was a nice guy enough, so why bother. Maybe some that do even seriously have the stupidity in them to plan the takeover of the world (whatever that means in practice), even at serious enough education level had a big problem with me making it impossible to delude little victims of who knows how incredible evils by their own little antichrist he-man wannabees. And I wasn't even much christian in any way at all at the time. Well well.

When dealing with the kind that thinks it is better to put all jews on a train to early death, and bookkeep that and than think they're somehow better of, I guess any stupidity is possible.

Lets see. 'OUR SOFTWARE IS THE BEST'. Nah, not even unacceptable advertisement statement, no one would care, not even if it would be true. 'IF YOU USE THIS SOFTWARE, GOD IS ON YOUR SIDE'. Trickier one, major bad connotations, but won't work, I guess. 'OUR SPIRITUAL BEASTWILL LET YOU BUY GREAT ACCESS TO THE NEXT BABYLONIC FREEMASONS CIRCLE, AND REQUIRES THE USE AND UTTER ADMIRATION OF THIS AND NO OTHER SOFTWARE, THAT WILL RULE YOUR LIVE IN ALL GREATNESS WHEN APPLIED RIGHT'. Mmmyes, that may get some dummies going. Abd considering the world is by nature not free, that may do damage. Lets apply murphy to this thinking, how stupid and evil can it get?

Maybe to accept the lie that the wannabee god of this world is worth following even when there is a chance not to. Maybe that in the spiritual, all is compared with the natural, and that life is made in to sacrifices to any damaging deamon that must look greater than and acknowledges by such a dead enough idea of software. And lets make that even worse by sort of alluding only to certain anti revolutionary attitudes that for certain shall not even be found in thy thougts. That Bills' mirror person in the antichrists' own christian circuit would in the end NOT look all to incredible in the temple of software. For instance. I realy have to trie hard sometimes to put myself in stupid (realy that's the main word that comes to mind regularly) mode to try to get an idea of what certain doctrines of deamons may actually be.

I'm very certain I occupy my whatever value IQ rather with programming a musical instrument together than such crap, generally and specifically. Very certain. But thinking about some of the imo at least stupidity I've observed, it may well be needed correct and be aware of certain evils that may well be turned around.

"And they gave their authority to the beast", and the image of the beast was worshipped, and it miraculously spoke, and more of such miserableness, why? What the hell, get a speach program on your pc, or even better, speak your own words or swears to it and make them automatically available for a major part of the workd to perceive, written as mpeg, or as directaudio link... Beats making the think mumble 'trans europe express' all day long in some fun enough vocoder form. A nice screensaver would beat that.

Seriously though, still, I am aware of the fact that the world is a miserable a place in many ways more than the starving africans, and that sin did not become everyones share out of democratical choice, and that many may not have much choice even in the matters I mentioned. But that is no reason not to expose what is bad and stupid for what it is, and prevent misery when possible. When god wants to damn, I don't think He needs stupid people in general to make it succeed, probably rather the reverse.

Meaning that when some want to rule the world or parts of it on the basis of evil and bad doctrines, it can safely enough be assumed that in general it is not good idea to let that happen. At least what a computer isn't is machine that is going to praise the glory of the worlds' number system other than completely natural and tracable mathematics, it is not telling you by its constituency that there the world, man or god is actually so and so. Maybe it can tell some that at least it is possible to make a semi-thinking machine without witchcraft, hocus pocus, some incredible sacrifice, and even without sucking up (much) to the power systems in this world that does as you instruct, and even can be fun enough. And that realy, there is nothing supernatural about every little part of it, and yet it can run all those amazing enough programs by dilligent reliable repetative tasks of natures most can learn to understand

That may well be worth it, at least the thing doesn't mess up the whole of life by its nature or hidden leaders, it just run what it is instructed to do, under complete and utter control of the programmer when they know their job, with maybe randomness, but with complete logic underlying every little bit of sensible machine making and software builtup. Realy, computers can be seen as a machine that is completely predictable in the sense that any other with the same disc and memory contents of the same kind will do exactly the same, so there is nothing miraculous about it, and knowing pretty much all the foundations for pretty much all kinds of software development widely enough known, I can assure everyone that engineering is the only applicable term for the structure of everything from the little bits in the pentium to the high levels of software design that are used, everything is strickly logical and according to rules, unless you want to see something else in it, or built freaky things. Connecting a microphone to your amplifier output, that sort of stuf, that may tell certian people something, but not in general that the god of audio exists or has uttered something we should learn to understand.

I've been made aware of the idea of 'having' or ownership at a lets call it almost boring level. What was it again, Chirst has the formal ownership of the world, and the keys to death and hades, the world and all its fullness ae Gods to begin with, and the rest are trespassers of His law. Thats the starting point, so formal ownership in the spiritual sense of the one that is truthfull is of God.

I remember hearing a professor I now do not want to take for anything give away the idea of 'claiming' a certain area, in this case of science, which I at the time laughingly wrote of as marketing talk for scientific politics, but I assume that there is such a greed idea, no doubt firmly rootable in the catholic system (coming from leuven, that is very possible, and at the time by me not taken serious enough), that makes people play spiritual ownership games, for whatever that is worth. Unbiblical at least in the sense that no one of such kinds is actual owner, let them start with death first. A little wound, the (seeming?) returning of the dead, it seems that that to in some way will be copied in the future, but then again, two christs seemingly both beating death, one evil one offering nothing but misery and destruction, its own greed and insane and laughable attitudes, the other truthfull caring, of divine nature and certainly reliable. Thats not hard, if it were the choice.

Anyhow, legally, I am my own after 18, unless I get paid for limited time slavery 5 days a week, and than still the law is clear enough about the limits of such ownership of labour sources, and scripture is clear enough about the whole spiritual state of affairs to make clear that one human owning another is nothing but spiritual slavery on top of a miserable world to begin with for which there is no specific reason, and which certainly isn't of true christian nature.

Lets do murphy on the idea that a system works on the basis of such depraved concept of ownership, midlle ages equivalent bein enslaved for life to live at all, and be called christian in an evil sense, all that. Lets say that indeed computers are liked by people, and have a significant role in economics. What else is possible, lets try the idea of nazis in babylon, planning lives ahead for some senseless sacrifice because the deamons like it so much and the africans look so nice when they follow theirs, so lets all do the same. Little ritual dance huba huba. Anyhow, lets try the idea of a religeous rite performed for no other reason than to insult god and try to claim what is His. Check. Lets see if the rich and wealthy are prone to fall for the idea or use it to their advantage. No problem. Would they be willing to go legal? I bet they'd want to define the concept damn even more. Check again. Than would they try to make a system? Ask the train drivers and the deathcount bookkeepers in auswitch.

Than what's the point? At least they didn't make it anywhere near the things god lets many have, and never will make it to make him yeleous, they don't have the power, the glory, the riches that do matter, the credibility, or the starting point (indeed being god). And it seems that even though such miseries seem to abound in the world system, He is saving people, and making his laws seen by at least not a few as better way.

On the personal level, I'm sure all the demonology I've been quite aware of years ago still holds, that witches will try their deamons' doctrines, and unbelief, and stupidity, unnaturalness, that satanists will at certain points have their places of worship, and that many, many deamons and their doctrines will work under the authorities in those heavenlies, and work their doctrines and bondages of damnation, that voodoo childs will be born, and that there will be traitors and torturers that cannot bear the idea that all such powers are under the name of christ, and certainly not ever going to prevail against god. Ever. And that the fear, being an open door for demonic oppression, that some may want to induce is not capable of winning it from justified fear of god as in the one that has both final judgement, complete authority which He can give to whom He wants, to begin with to his Son, all knowledge about the lies that were exposed, for instance at pentecost, love and wisdom that should not be given to the pigs but will never be confused with what they would produce themselves, and that his law does not generate braindead, mindless gnomes that are not capable of anything else than performing rather show robotics acts towards some place not even worth the name of bathtub or stadium for anything worth while, and that are trained for not much more than being capable of lying just hard enough to say that someone who puts itself in the temple is realy indeed actually amazingly that what roman emperors by maybe simular demons or states of mind also found a very refreshing invention. Ha, ha.

Gods law is a law of grace, beauty, blessing, and condamnation and damnation of evil, and capable of dealing with the essential ingredients of human being and life, instead of categorically denying them, messing them up or trying to kill or lie about them, and surprising mankind Himself, letting them more instead of less space to find more freedom, blessing, opportunitiees and possibilities, and being an example for both persons, their relations with others in fatherly, motherly, humanly, friendly and even at some point groomly sense, not forsaking and abusing the lost, but being an example in works, too.

Quite a different subject than software, but why restrain myself in my own library pages, I can write what I want, can't I, I'll cut and paste back and forth at some point if I want to make course material, I guess, I dont like to repeat myself all to much, but considering there are readers (it's not my little personal notebook I'm writing in, I don't particularly need it to form my thoughts or stay sane by keeing scores in my secret book or something), an amount of varied repetition of themes server various good purposes.

As I wrote, I tried compiling some waveguide software, an old version, and it generates a core dump equivalent at the point when data waves traveling on the string, which simulates fine until that point it seems, is turned around at the suspension points, for no appearent reason starts to get out of bounds, and then makes the program decide to throw in the towel.


I saw they do reruns of the 'kirk' star track series on bcc. I think I was way under 12 when I was all to interested in the little communicators as idea in life that was incredible, but then again, my digital watch existed, too. That was a red LED version, which should eat batteries, but the size was such that in fact it worked fine, and reliable too. Hip, in that time, or what is the word, it just existed for consumers, anyhow.

I was aware of electrical wires, some electronics, knew how to make various transistor circuits, and started to find out about logic circuits, I think at the time, so I was aware of the technology needed to make such a complicated digital watch, and therefore was quite amazed, interested or thrilled with the idea it could be made. I wouldn't try myself, but at least I could have one, and regularly use it as timetelling flashlight, and as ordinary watch, of course.

A little sigaret package size communicator, even with picture that would actually work was science fiction, and an impossible idea at the time, though it could be imagined to exist in the future, why not. A major development.

Now they exist, I'm not sure on iridium, but at least a wireless with colour camera and screen even, that actually work. Is the world a better place because or in spite of it? I don't know, but certainly it can be used for good, is not intended to damage or do harm, and is at least great fun.

Does God have a purpose for life in general and specifically for individuals, too? That depends on Him, and considering that He occupies himself with the world and its inhabitants, and has even proven He cared, probably He's got purposes. And since we even grant human beings the choice to keep some of them to themselves, He too may have made some clear and others not. He at least did sent prophets, his own son, and apostles and other people as gifts in this world, and the concept of ministries for every person that had the priviledge of being know by His Son is still valid.

Does that mean we live in a world where we live in Gods purpose by visiting or being active in a church, for instance?

The greek word translated with 'church' in the new testament, 'eclesia', means mainly 'called out ones' as I remember. That means the ones that have been called by God, out of their sins, lives, families, the world, and into His lets put it in biblical type of language, light. And than are not normally told to not deal with the world or get out of it altogehter, but the idea of holyfication is there as in being called by God, and being primarily dedicated to Him, and not to other purposes.

I'm sure the principle has been wraped, abused, turned around and backwards, used as excuse for worse sins that I can maybe imagine, and completely taken for ambiguous, but that it is still only reasonable that when Jesus saves someone that such a person at least shows some dedication to what He wants and finds important as an answer. Not that that necessarily happens, or that He enforces it because He can't deal with it otherwise, but I think it is the only right answer, and the best one in the sense that not listening to God when He is realy there must be a bad idea.

Unless He is Allah, and therefore by nature can fuck himself, which I think He is not, luckily.

So does one do a decent job, pay ones dues and taxes, become elected model citizen and highly recommended conservative dignifiee? Most still understand the idea in such an expression, I guess, and the answer is evidently that depends wether the ones recommending are righteous judges, model citizenship is of any use or effect, or possible at all, and wether conservatism preserving something worth while and something to be dignified about.

February 22, 2000

More than compilers

Having decided computer are not the worst things in the world, and that even after divine rule it was desirable that 1/10 of his chosen people (1/12?) would occupy themselves with music and the making of musical instruments, those machines are desirable even after second thought to put to use amoung other things as musical instruments.

What else is there about a humming box with keys and a little screen not glaring back and faithfully showing what hopefully the user intends? Status? For some and in certain circumstances, without question, quite a bit maybe even, in various ways, although luckely the 'rich' priveledged status idea is not that applicable for most comptuter kinds, in normal western life most can afford a good enough one. In another way, mentioned above, the status could be of a kind that is considerable, and possibly with evil intend, as in to show superiority, maybe intellectually, maybe otherwise, to in extreme cases justify certain behaviour, and most of all to try to make people subdue to a certain way of thinking. In the latter case, status should be tested against the reasons for it, and not granted, and contentwise the one taking such a position would better be sure they can afforf the attitude.

My computers currently are quite not status symbols as they are: two o fthem hum regularly, and both have their cover of (a recent one doesn't even have a front), are so outdated their destiny was as it was: garbage, and the rest of things don't look like anything worth while even, old kind of unsubtle mouse (with the driver still on the manufacturers internet), screens at best of old fashioned 'quality' (rest giving non-flickering green small one, and medium size with a color mask of fine enough pitch), keyboards that after washing of would still look old, and technology of a decade ago, which is not forever, but in the field of computers not far from it.

As I wrote about compilers, and some other things that can be well used, at least it is possible to make such machines do usefull work. In terms of synthesis, I installed things such now that at least something can be done.

I did a lot of wire-debugging on my synthesizer circtuit and its connection, as I wrote, parallel ports are portable enough, but when the speed is as I make it (to the absolute max minus a bit was the target in some programs), the simple task of moving bits from on end of a flatcable to the other a meter away in my synth/sampler circuit may become demanding enough. Things messed up yesterday, in strange, unpredictable, and some predictable ways, so that sounds wouldn't load right, and the synth processor, a currently 10MHz cmos Z80, would receive incorrect programs to run, and as a result the whole circtuit dead as a doormat.

Thats the trouble with software, or lets say firmware, cutting the fridge circuit out, it needs to be loaded right or nothing works, and a computer without being able to get a good program is quite useless (there is no disk, and currently no ROM in the system to make it at least start up). I had experiemted running my datatransfer, part of various synthesis related little programs, on a faster machine, and another parallel bus, and the whole of things started to not fall apart, but err in quite a few ways.

In the end diagnosis was as follows. The keyboard cable from the synth had on wire broken of, because I carry the keuboard around the desk all the time. The program to 'dump' or load the program data for synthesizer, sample replay, sequencer, or even big display calculator and text interface software into the microcomputer system was the wrong version, I copied from somewhere in the development directory tree without paying attention it must have been for another version of the hardware. Then the wires connecting the breadboard to the printer cable equivalent looked unreliable, so I added another grounding pin. Further I added a small capacitive load to the 'strobe' or clock line, to prevent double clocking of fast cmos counter chips, probably because of either phase noise, cable load effects or printer port internal behaviour at high pulse rates, which stopped the double clocking where impedance changes and logic level shifts didn't. Then I probably fixed a simple enugh but quite relevant problem by cleaning out the connector holes that might have accumulated quite some dust and make bad contact.

And THAN the job I had planned could be taken serious, to try the new compiler and see wehter it would make a program that would drive the datatransfer to the microcomputer at high speed, enabling sounds to be changed while they sound, with as little as much glitches. The idea is than that the hardware is made to respond fast, and only take very little time per data transfer.

Which only makes sense to test when at least the whole machinery works reliable enough, otherwise what starts to mess up when parameters are pushed?!

Anyhow, the status that now is jsutified enough is that the program for fourier synthesis runs smoothly, showing 14 bar graphf for sound control, doing its job of making a filtered and enveloped sound with 16 sample partials in interaction time, updating the sound in the synthesizer almost instantaneously when the sliders are moved.

And than the contruction is such that a calculator keyboard cotnroled, freely step time prgrammable 16 step sequencer can be run on the synth computer, reproducing the sample made by the additive+ synthesis program with two oscilators and end-looped samples, which can than be given realtime controlled sounds to loop. That means control some harmonic on the controlling pc graphics screen (color, but oh boy, a statusless 256 x 320 pixels only), hit 'reload' and the synth continues playing the sequence, but with the new sound. Better still, maybe, control filter cutoff and resonance, and do the same, should work quite strong on certain types of music, no kidding, this stuff sounds real sweet to quite hard and mean, and mostly strong.

The latest addition puts that setup, not in graphical sense, I'll not try to depict what it all looks like except a lot of wires, into a certain hipness, and certainly status leveraging idea, by adding physically modeled sounds to that setup, which is not ordinary in sequencing and synthesis, and combined with the mentioned setup even in absolute sense interesting enough.