> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 09:13:27 -0500 > From: Will Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: First OS, CLI or GUI > I think it > had something to do with the fact that mainframes are a > 'transaction-based' environment. In other words, most mainframe > programs read, write, or change discrete records in a file. On desktop > computers, however, I thought it was strange to start Lotus, or a word > processor, and then load a whole file to change discrete records, and > then remember to 'Save' the file when I was finished with it. That, > at first, seemed awkward to me. That's why it occured to me that > desktop computers might have been easier for me to learn if I had not > already had experience with mainframes and minicomputers. Computers, in general, have been "cursed" from the beginning by the methods employed by early mainframe programmers. In the days of limited core memory (4k-48k), data handling became more a function of the storage medium ( tape predominantly, with huge, slow disks later ) than one of the computer's capability. That's why sequential record-keeping ( and the inherent bloat of fixed- length records ) became so ingrained. They were unable to "think" in more dynamic terms. ( Still true, too. Even with PC support, you still need some low-level magic to read/write those massive sequential files on a System 36 or AS-400 mini.) Imagine, for a second, a world where this sort of "one-track-mind" had not become the "only way" to do things: a hard disk - *all* of it - would be directly-addressable massive memory. Tape, though slower, would extend your machine's RAM into the terrabyte range; "multi-tasking" of enormous proportions and instances would be possible. We wouldn't be saddled with FATs, Segmentation, or division-of-labor by function ( e.g. - "video" RAM into which all displays must be crammed). But best of all, that most ugly of purposely invented psuedo-programming abortions never would have come about: object-oriented programming. ( Ditto the "shell" structures of Unix-like boxes-within-boxes-within-boxes, disguising and hiding some very straightforward hardware operations as if they really existed only as software "modules", immune from inspection.) The PC-MSDOS-CP/M approach is definitely a step in the right direction, but we won't see the problems resolved until the true ANALOG neural-net computer ( *NOT* a digital simulation of one ) becomes reality. By then, the home machine will learn what you want it do - and put a lot of so-called "computer scientists" ( really "specific applications program specialists") out of a job. Just MHO... - John T. -- Arachne V1.5a;alpha, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://home.arachne.cz/ To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
