Got it. In the same document:

"Halfway the functional design of the X1, I guess early 1957, Bram and 
Carel confronted me with the idea of the interrupt, and I remember that I 
panicked, being used to machines with reproducible behaviour. How was I 
going to identify a bug if I had introduced one? After I had delayed the 
decision to include the interrupt for 3 months, Bram and Carel flattered me 
out of my resistance, it was decided that an interrupt would be included 
and I began to study the problem. To start with I tried to convince myself 
that it was possible to save and restore enough of the machine state so 
that, after the servicing of the interrupt, under all circumstances the 
interrupted computation could be resumed correctly."

Thank you again, Peter.


On Sunday, 6 August 2017 12:03:07 UTC+2, Lucio wrote:
> Thank you, Peter.
> Maybe someone else can corroborate my impression that Dijkstra did not 
> immediately accept the idea of interrupts and felt it would make 
> programming too difficult?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to