On 5/22/2020 3:34 AM, Rico Pajarola via cctalk wrote:
cool, but...

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 more.


Reply via email to