Відео

I wish I watched this before my exam today where I was shifty on pushdown automata... great video!

Complicado, mané!!

Kay você já ouviu falar do famigerado Z80?

I loved art attack

I could do with some ket man to understand this

hi Kay, hope you are doing well, Im 25 getting into programming, idk if I should go for functional programing in Ocaml or C++, any advise, love ur videos!!

So the rumore of sanskrit is an artificial language is true, what I person.

Great content! What font are you using throughout the presentation?

Thanks Kay

The Laugh language I think is wrong. How do you process 'haha' given the rules? 'h' -> Head :: 'h' Tail 'a' -> Tail 'a' Tail Now where to?

Honestly I work with this things everyday and never consider casting scenarios in little vs big endian

I knew someday in your video this topics will come … great to hear from you …

I didn't get a degree either! Neither did I go to a bootcamp. I was, I guess lucky, to have a few years of intense boredom and depression at a job I hated, but where I could easily squirrel away at something. I don't think people need to go through what I went through, but I do think that those years where I wasn't doing it for money, there was no pressure except curiosity, made me the engineer that I am. I feel like we have some similarities!

Amazing work! I think Knuth’s research really ought to be touched on more here though. The approach in the recursive descent section is combinatorial parsing (every language has a parser combinator library now, you can write a compiler in basically anything), but Knuth had the idea to do it with lookup tables that tell you when you’ve parsed enough characters for a based on the next character. The new rule for pushdown automata (precedence)? Another lookup table. It’s exponentially harder to scale than parser combinators so it doesn’t hold up today, but it’s an important part of the history!

This guy has the blood of Newton of some great people

I love these videos! My course focused on too much theory and running algorithms by hand like minization of DFA, nfa to dfa, etc., which was a nightmare.

I relate to every word you say, you are a cool person, I also didnt do a degree in computing and choose mechanical engineering for the same reason. although its a bit hard to find time to do what you love when you have so much responsibilities

Nice video! I have some technical questions: What do you use to make animations? What video editor do you use?

nasm is bullshit👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻

Link to source material?

amazing stuff, glad to see theory applied, wish my teachers on uni would show this side of the course

6:41 is there some reason why (Tail ::= 'a' Tail) is only in the right tree?

A lot of other people said it already but this video is just so refreshing to see. I am a software engineer without higher education. Coming from an apprentice ship I knew the basics and could navigate the corporate world quite well. But something was missing. I recently joined an electrical engineering program because I felt that I wanted to go deeper not just the software but also the hardware. I feel like I wouldn’t be able to manage such a program if I didn’t have the desire to move past the surface. Not sure where my path takes me but I am really excited. I think your motivation is very infectious and I appreciate this video a lot because it came “at the right time”.

I tried printing junk data just like at 27:04 on my machine using Clang version 14.0.0-1ubuntu1.1, but the data was not junk. When I used GCC, I got a Segmentation fault. After some research, I found that by setting the -fsanitize=address and -fsanitize-address-use-after-return=always flags, it detects stack use and fails. I wonder why I couldn’t print a junk value on my machine.

This channel is exactly what I've been looking for. Thank you algorithm god 🙌🏻

why do I feel like listening to supergrass all of a sudden

nice video

Long time ago, I wrote a parser after I heard that compilers first tokenize. That concept clicked as it was easy to understand and implement: just group digits into numbers and letters into strings. I thought I was halfway. With a lot of suffering, I implemented what I now know to be a recursive descent parser. Years later I discovered the academic theory and...I still don't understand it. Or rather, I grew to understand how impractical it is for programmers. Firstly, it's explained to 'produce' text, which is already confusing for programmers as that's not what we want to do. Secondly, the grammar notation is not only very abstract but it's also incomplete. You casually mention multiple times that we are assuming a specific order, in case of multiple choices, even labelling a specific order as "greedy". I think no gramnar checker or parser generator uses standard BNF or even EBNF, so if these notations are so flawed, why are academics still teaching them? At least you mentioned that the top down production is not what we want to do but that this theory was initially developed to understand human languages, but you should start with that info! (But even then, no human "produces" sentences in a top down manner - you start with the concept e.g. "swimming" and then build the sentence around it. "I want to go swimming!" Interestingly, notice how in this case we "produced" from the right, starting with the last and most important word of the sentence.) As I'm writing this, I just realised that all this theory has been created to analyse and classify text hut that it's wrong to assume that it's equally useful to practically produce or transform (compile). I know that compiler theory does give some tools to compile text into code, such as the method of merging (reducing) tokens into non-terminal nodes, but you mentioned that highly demanding compilers for systems programming languages still use the "old fashioned" manually written recursive parsers. I think that's a symptom that language and compiler theory may not be that useful, otherwise it would have resulted in more advanced (in the meaning of more capable) compilers.

THAT WAS AWESOME !

3:47: "Lowercase Zero" xD

can you do PEG grammar?

im still curious about the junk data..when not initializing the array..can someone explain ?

i literally lol'd at the example of "the grammar of a laugh". well played.

You will never be a real linguist

Thanks for all the research ! I published an article on this subject half a year ago and I had the Polish and Turing reference but not the Keller and Dijkstra. Would you like to get in touch to discuss about it ?

Damnit ! I had the reference for Turing, but the stack frame was Dijkstra's evil idea !!! Mixing data types was elegant in the 60s but today is a MAJOR headache, in particular for security, creating opportunities to crash or subvert programs !

Awesome vbideo, thanks so much. What do you use to make these visualizations? They're beautiful!

yah lanang

Please, rearrange the ODE5 megalist in chronological order

Thanks.

Nice video. Thank you for sharing. From language communication to social constructs. Religions imprinted from social structures. The check of types. Ask them but knowing they have a imprint structure and things that differ. Bias sets and bias blindness and linking to phrasing/word structure and lexicons/words used.

"those fast counters will know" lol

My face lit up. Thanks, Kay!

Your videos are actually excellent! This has made me a big fan

I've wanted to go through Sipser's computation course on mitocw for a while, already have his book. Maybe this popping up is a sign 😂

Yo, that’s dope. Greetings from Peru

I developed a smart form system a few years ago for my past employer, where users could enter custom formulas in fields that were dependant on other fields and/or other objects within our system. Really typical of a lot of CRM's these days, but we needed to roll-our-own since it was specific to metrology. So, I took a deep-dive into this topic and ended up learning more about ANTLR and g4 syntax than I expected, and now I'm stuck in this rabbit hole forever.

holy smokes this channel has exploded. kinda knew it would tho

This has become one of my favorite channels

I don't know what a modern equivalent would be, but if you want a super simple explanation of recursive descent to just get something working without understanding any of the theory, then Crenshaw's tutorial is the best I've ever found. If it didn't use Pascal and generate 68k assembly it would still be directly usable today, but hardly anyone uses Pascal anymore and fewer still need code generated for a 68k processor and if you're just starting out learning you won't understand how to translate these. If anyone knows of a good modern equivalent that either is written in C or generates C or both, that would probably be what I'd recommend. If not, then I'll have to add that to my project list because someone needs to write one.