On 5/22/2020 3:34 AM, Rico Pajarola via cctalk wrote:
these are "translated" sources (presumably from some generic source that is
run through a tool that generates x86 asm). I just wish they had also
released the "source of the source" and the translation tool. Because that
was the interesting part of it.
The page notes they tried:
"Each of the assembly source files contains a header stating
|Thistranslation created 10-Feb-83byVersion4.3|
Since the Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) of the early processors
used in home and personal computers weren’t spectacularly different from
one another, Microsoft was able to generate a substantial amount of the
code for a port from the sources of a master implementation. (Alas,
sorry, we’re unable to open-source the ISA translator.)"
I'm assuming it's a language thing, but your comments seem overly
dismissive. You're essentially saying that the resulting generated ASM
is of no interest (the tool was the interesting part, you note) and
devoid of value. The comments I am sure are verbatim from the meta
source, and by investigating the source, I think folks could gain key
insights into what the tool did.
Yes, we can lament the inability to gain access to the meta-source, but
I don't think the resulting source code is uninteresting. And, if
comments like these get back to MS (some folks on this list work there),
how will the folks within the company feel about it? "Yeah, we worked
for months with Legal to cut through the red tape and get GW-BASIC
source online, but folks were dismissive we didn't give them everything,
so I'm not sure it's worth the effort to open anything else up...."
How we appreciate what is given probably dictates if we receive anything