At 9:27 AM -0500 11/28/01, lsellers wrote: >At 08:06 AM 11/28/2001 -0600, you wrote: >>now it makes sense. 1k of memory. I can almost do the math in my head. >> >>someone should build a web based IBM 650 computer emulator so that we can >>program in octal absolute... or early versions of assembler. >> >>you know just so when we go to parties with the 60 to 70 (20 somethings in >>the 50's) techie types we can talk about our experience with octal absolute. >> >>(you know start programming on bar napkins... and these days, you might be >>able to load and test your app on your WAP phone.) > >/-) > >It's a true story that when I got my first computer (which had a fat 4k) at >13 I couldn't afford to buy an assembler for it to program with so... I HAD >to learn straight machine language and how to compute hexadecimal >branchings in my head. So I'm already there dude, I'm already there. /-)
Altair? Northstar? Trash-80? My first computer, an Apple ][, had 2 built-in BASIC Interpreters and A mini-assembler. Mainframes had an even lower level of programming (called microprogramming) that was used... it dealt with only a few instructions such as: Open/Close gate, BitFlip, And, Or, etc.) >(And one of the first things I did was write my own dot-matrix graphics >printer driver (in machine) so I could print the pictures I made with the >graphics editor I wrote. Hee.) Complicated, no doubt, by the fact that: a character or image was made up of vertical rows and horizontal columns of dots the printer could print only 1 row at a time to increase speed, you had to print each row, bostrophedonically*, on the fly. * That's the way they talked in those days. Bostrophedonic, is a 2-bit word for row-by-row, bi-directional, start-to-end, end-to-start... similar to the way an ox plows a field. >More seriously though, I think any serious programmer should take a spin >with assembly or machine. It definitely allows you a better understanding >of just exactly what your code (even something so high-level as cf) is >actually doing and why some programming styles or methodologies actually >work better than others. I agree with this... You gain appreciation for the power of CF and, especially, the ease of writing and maintaining a program with CF. My original post to this thread was an attempt to illustrate (humorously?) how ridiculous it is to evaluate a tool (CF, FP, etc.) *only* by its number of users... we'd all be driving Toyotas! Dick >--min > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
