Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
HP Will Release a "Revolutionary" New Operating System in 2015
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Rich
Dec 18, 2014, 11:09:17 PM12/18/14
to
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/533066/hp-will-release-a-revolutionary-new-operating-system-in-2015/
Quoting from the URL above:
Hewlett-Packard will take a big step toward shaking up its own troubled
business and the entire computing industry next year when it releases an
operating system for an exotic new computer.
The company's research division is working to create a computer HP calls
The Machine. It is meant to be the first of a new dynasty of computers
that are much more energy-efficient and powerful than current products.
HP aims to achieve its goals primarily by using a new kind of computer
memory instead of the two types that computers use today. The current
approach originated in the 1940s, and the need to shuttle data back and
forth between the two types of memory limits performance.
"A model from the beginning of computing has been reflected in
everything since, and it is holding us back," says Kirk Bresniker, chief
architect for The Machine. The project is run inside HP Labs and
accounts for three-quarters of the 200-person research staff. CEO Meg
Whitman has expanded HP's research spending in support of the project,
says Bresniker, though he would not disclose the amount.
The Machine is designed to compete with the servers that run corporate
networks and the services of Internet companies such as Google and
Facebook. Bresniker says elements of its design could one day be adapted
for smaller devices, too.
...
Quoting from the URL above:
Hewlett-Packard will take a big step toward shaking up its own troubled
business and the entire computing industry next year when it releases an
operating system for an exotic new computer.
The company's research division is working to create a computer HP calls
The Machine. It is meant to be the first of a new dynasty of computers
that are much more energy-efficient and powerful than current products.
HP aims to achieve its goals primarily by using a new kind of computer
memory instead of the two types that computers use today. The current
approach originated in the 1940s, and the need to shuttle data back and
forth between the two types of memory limits performance.
"A model from the beginning of computing has been reflected in
everything since, and it is holding us back," says Kirk Bresniker, chief
architect for The Machine. The project is run inside HP Labs and
accounts for three-quarters of the 200-person research staff. CEO Meg
Whitman has expanded HP's research spending in support of the project,
says Bresniker, though he would not disclose the amount.
The Machine is designed to compete with the servers that run corporate
networks and the services of Internet companies such as Google and
Facebook. Bresniker says elements of its design could one day be adapted
for smaller devices, too.
...
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 18, 2014, 11:42:29 PM12/18/14
to
thing work, especially if they are hoping to introduce the architecture
as datacenter-bound big iron. Who will write the code for it? Who'll
bet the farm on a brand new, untested architecture?
They should introduce it as an affordable consumer product first, and
then if it's any good a more powerful version will find its way into
the datacenter naturally.
Still I'm excited. I just hope it isn't Linux on a Beowulf cluster of
Itanics (which I secretly suspect it will be!).
RS Wood
Dec 19, 2014, 10:21:03 AM12/19/14
to
On 2014-12-19, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2014-12-19 04:09:15 +0000, Rich said:
>
>> Hewlett-Packard will take a big step toward shaking up its own troubled
>> business and the entire computing industry next year when it releases an
>> operating system for an exotic new computer.
>>
> On 2014-12-19 04:09:15 +0000, Rich said:
>
>> Hewlett-Packard will take a big step toward shaking up its own troubled
>> business and the entire computing industry next year when it releases an
>> operating system for an exotic new computer.
>>
> I am pretty skeptical that HP will be able to make this The Machine
> thing work, especially if they are hoping to introduce the architecture
> as datacenter-bound big iron. Who will write the code for it? Who'll
> bet the farm on a brand new, untested architecture?
>
> They should introduce it as an affordable consumer product first, and
> then if it's any good a more powerful version will find its way into
> the datacenter naturally.
>
> Still I'm excited. I just hope it isn't Linux on a Beowulf cluster of
> Itanics (which I secretly suspect it will be!).
>
I'm curious too, just because innovation is interesting and there's no
> thing work, especially if they are hoping to introduce the architecture
> as datacenter-bound big iron. Who will write the code for it? Who'll
> bet the farm on a brand new, untested architecture?
>
> They should introduce it as an affordable consumer product first, and
> then if it's any good a more powerful version will find its way into
> the datacenter naturally.
>
> Still I'm excited. I just hope it isn't Linux on a Beowulf cluster of
> Itanics (which I secretly suspect it will be!).
>
reason to think the current *nix ecosystem is the end of the line.
Ideally, they've got their old DEC guys working on it. In reality,
those people probably retired or were fired decades ago, and the OS will
be some new x86 architecture thing.
Another thought: whatever innovation comes to consumer hardware at the
moment is bound to have its innovative aspects tightly bound to the
concepts of 'security,' which invariably mean locking things down to
controlled ecosystems, curated app stores, 'trusted BIOS' and the like.
I'm not convinced starting with consumer hardware is necessarily the way
to go.
Wishing these folks the best, though - I'm curious to see what they come
up with!
Rich
Dec 19, 2014, 12:13:11 PM12/19/14
to
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
RS Wood
Dec 19, 2014, 12:22:33 PM12/19/14
to
On 2014-12-19, Rich <ri...@example.invalid> wrote:
> RS Wood <r...@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-12-19, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On 2014-12-19 04:09:15 +0000, Rich said:
>> >
>> >> Hewlett-Packard will take a big step toward shaking up its own troubled
>> >> business and the entire computing industry next year when it releases an
>> >> operating system for an exotic new computer.
> RS Wood <r...@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-12-19, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On 2014-12-19 04:09:15 +0000, Rich said:
>> >
>> >> Hewlett-Packard will take a big step toward shaking up its own troubled
>> >> business and the entire computing industry next year when it releases an
>> >> operating system for an exotic new computer.
>> Another thought: whatever innovation comes to consumer hardware at the
>> moment is bound to have its innovative aspects tightly bound to the
>> concepts of 'security,' which invariably mean locking things down to
>> controlled ecosystems, curated app stores, 'trusted BIOS' and the like.
>> I'm not convinced starting with consumer hardware is necessarily the way
>> to go.
>
>> Wishing these folks the best, though - I'm curious to see what they come
>> up with!
>
> Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing
>
> http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
>
Yeah, I'd read that. It's a good article, but I don't totally agree
>> moment is bound to have its innovative aspects tightly bound to the
>> concepts of 'security,' which invariably mean locking things down to
>> controlled ecosystems, curated app stores, 'trusted BIOS' and the like.
>> I'm not convinced starting with consumer hardware is necessarily the way
>> to go.
>
>> Wishing these folks the best, though - I'm curious to see what they come
>> up with!
>
> Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing
>
> http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
>
with it. There will always be need for general machines, but
increasingly the public doesn't do what you would call "computing"
anyway. They're consuming media, contributing to forums, accessing
services. I'd almost be willing to say locked-down machines are well
suited to those sort of users.
I just want to make sure there's a general machine available *for me.*
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jerry Peters
Dec 19, 2014, 4:09:29 PM12/19/14
to
Hils <hi...@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> sharing." But does he mean sharing by citizens or sharing by Microsoft,
> Google, Apple, the NSA, DHS and their counterparts in "allied" countries?
The latter, *they* get to share *your* data with the governments.
> On 2014-12-19 17:12, Rich wrote:
>> Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing
>>
>> http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
>
> Obama just now: "We need strong cybersecurity laws that provide for data
>> Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing
>>
>> http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
>
> sharing." But does he mean sharing by citizens or sharing by Microsoft,
> Google, Apple, the NSA, DHS and their counterparts in "allied" countries?
The latter, *they* get to share *your* data with the governments.
Rich
Dec 19, 2014, 6:13:57 PM12/19/14
to
consumption only, and therefore sees no direct additional value in a
general purpose device, the remaining 1% of us could find outselves in
a "first they came ..." situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Rich
Dec 19, 2014, 6:14:43 PM12/19/14
to
> > Lockdown - The coming war on general-purpose computing
> >
> > http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
> >
> > http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
> Obama just now: "We need strong cybersecurity laws that provide for
> data sharing." But does he mean sharing by citizens or sharing by
> Microsoft, Google, Apple, the NSA, DHS and their counterparts in
> "allied" countries?
He means "sharing all with the NSA" of course.
> data sharing." But does he mean sharing by citizens or sharing by
> Microsoft, Google, Apple, the NSA, DHS and their counterparts in
> "allied" countries?
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 19, 2014, 9:35:53 PM12/19/14
to
computers - ie the 1980s. In the old days it was expected that a
personal computer would have a BASIC that could access the unique
hardware features on the platform. Once you knew how to program on one
platform, you could program on all of them with some minor mental
adjustments.
BASIC wasn't that fast but it sure was powerful - for the computer
owner. GOTO is much more powerful than pointers if you account for the
fact that anybody can use a GOTO efficiently.
We really lost something when BASIC died. Smalltalk had the promise of
making every user a coder too, but it was too early on the scene and
ultimately it's just a bit of a sideshow. I love Squeak though - it
gives me the same feeling of fun expoloration that I had as a kid with
BASIC on my IIGS. These days kids think programming a web app in
Javascript using a bunch of shims is pretty cool. I think they've been
deprived of the experience that many of us had.
]
Hils
Dec 20, 2014, 3:29:46 AM12/20/14
to
On 2014-12-20 02:35, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> This has been the case essentially since they stopped putting BASIC on
> computers - ie the 1980s. In the old days it was expected that a
> personal computer would have a BASIC that could access the unique
> hardware features on the platform. Once you knew how to program on one
> platform, you could program on all of them with some minor mental
> adjustments.
>
> BASIC wasn't that fast but it sure was powerful - for the computer
> owner. GOTO is much more powerful than pointers if you account for the
> fact that anybody can use a GOTO efficiently.
I did a good deal of coding using QL SuperBASIC, which had user-defined
> This has been the case essentially since they stopped putting BASIC on
> computers - ie the 1980s. In the old days it was expected that a
> personal computer would have a BASIC that could access the unique
> hardware features on the platform. Once you knew how to program on one
> platform, you could program on all of them with some minor mental
> adjustments.
>
> BASIC wasn't that fast but it sure was powerful - for the computer
> owner. GOTO is much more powerful than pointers if you account for the
> fact that anybody can use a GOTO efficiently.
functions and procedures alongside GOTO and GOSUB, so it was possible
for old-school BASIC programmers to easily adopt more structured ways of
writing. It seems that enough people still use it (possibly via
emulators) [1] for the original author to re-edit and release her
handbook [2] as an e-book. [3]
The interpreter added line numbers, but these weren't needed in the body
of the programs.
In some ways BBC BASIC was similar. [4,5]
AFAICT there are no Emacs major modes for either though :-)
> We really lost something when BASIC died. Smalltalk had the promise of
> making every user a coder too, but it was too early on the scene and
> ultimately it's just a bit of a sideshow. I love Squeak though - it
> gives me the same feeling of fun expoloration that I had as a kid with
> BASIC on my IIGS. These days kids think programming a web app in
> Javascript using a bunch of shims is pretty cool. I think they've been
> deprived of the experience that many of us had.
when it seemed to disappear overnight. Even QBasic was useful. Not
everyone can learn C++ overnight...
[1] http://www.dilwyn.me.uk/emu/
[2]
ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/books/QLSuperbasic-TheDefinitiveHandbook(Quanta).pdf
[3]
http://jan-jones.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/ql-superbasic-definitive-handbook.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_BASIC
[5] http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic.html
Gordon Henderson
Dec 20, 2014, 5:36:35 AM12/20/14
to
In article <m72n9i$u9i$1...@dont-email.me>,
Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
(don't ask)
That's not counting the emulators, etc. for all those old 80's micros...
My own BASIC can be used either with or without line numbers and when I
mentioned the no-line number thing at a little conference thing I want
to 6 months back, one chap walked out... Oops. I guess some people have
stronger thoughts on that matter than I do.
I like BASIC - not just because it was the first programming language
I used some 37 years ago now, but because it's still simple enough to
allow newcomers to undersand the basic fundamentals of programming
without bogging them down needlessly in complex debuggers, editors,
windowing systems and so on.
One thing I have noticed is that you need to keep newcomers interested
- esepecially in environemnts where the newcomers (ie. young people
in school) don't have a choice... Then you can quickly cherry pick
the ones you can immediately see have the "knack" and take them on to
bigger better things (which in my case back then was assembler, Pascal,
FORTRAN and eventually, when I found out about it, C) but keep the ones
with less interested still interested enough that they don't get bored.
And BASIC turned 50 this year too!
Long Live BASIC!
(In one form or another!)
Gordon
[1] http://drogon.net/rtb
Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
(don't ask)
That's not counting the emulators, etc. for all those old 80's micros...
My own BASIC can be used either with or without line numbers and when I
mentioned the no-line number thing at a little conference thing I want
to 6 months back, one chap walked out... Oops. I guess some people have
stronger thoughts on that matter than I do.
I like BASIC - not just because it was the first programming language
I used some 37 years ago now, but because it's still simple enough to
allow newcomers to undersand the basic fundamentals of programming
without bogging them down needlessly in complex debuggers, editors,
windowing systems and so on.
One thing I have noticed is that you need to keep newcomers interested
- esepecially in environemnts where the newcomers (ie. young people
in school) don't have a choice... Then you can quickly cherry pick
the ones you can immediately see have the "knack" and take them on to
bigger better things (which in my case back then was assembler, Pascal,
FORTRAN and eventually, when I found out about it, C) but keep the ones
with less interested still interested enough that they don't get bored.
And BASIC turned 50 this year too!
Long Live BASIC!
(In one form or another!)
Gordon
[1] http://drogon.net/rtb
Marko Rauhamaa
Dec 20, 2014, 5:50:05 AM12/20/14
to
Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net>:
> Long Live BASIC!
Oh, no. I'm trying to get nostalgic... but no.
Scheme is the Past, Present and Future.
Marko
> Long Live BASIC!
Oh, no. I'm trying to get nostalgic... but no.
Scheme is the Past, Present and Future.
Marko
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bob Eager
Dec 20, 2014, 7:45:56 AM12/20/14
to
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:24:22 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <m73jet$la0$1...@dont-email.me>, Gordon Henderson
>
> Elliott Autocode on an 803B in 1965. Blimey - that'll be 50 years next
> summer!
I did a bit of Mercury Autocode in 1969. Then a 'local' BASIC in 1970,
plus NEAT (Elliott 4130 assembler).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
> In article <m73jet$la0$1...@dont-email.me>, Gordon Henderson
> <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>
>>I like BASIC - not just because it was the first programming language I
>>used some 37 years ago now, ...
>
>>I like BASIC - not just because it was the first programming language I
>
> Elliott Autocode on an 803B in 1965. Blimey - that'll be 50 years next
> summer!
I did a bit of Mercury Autocode in 1969. Then a 'local' BASIC in 1970,
plus NEAT (Elliott 4130 assembler).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Gordon Henderson
Dec 20, 2014, 8:47:02 AM12/20/14
to
In article <201220141124221148%timst...@greenbee.net>,
It was a backup computer to some new fangled ICL2900 thingy at the (then)
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. The blood analysis machine produced tapes and
IIRC the format changed slightly so I had to update the 903 code to process
them - just in-case...
Gordon
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>In article <m73jet$la0$1...@dont-email.me>, Gordon Henderson
><gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>
>In article <m73jet$la0$1...@dont-email.me>, Gordon Henderson
><gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>
>>I like BASIC - not just because it was the first programming language
>>I used some 37 years ago now, ...
>
>Elliott Autocode on an 803B in 1965. Blimey - that'll be 50 years next
>summer!
I did some programming in SIR on a 903 when I was at uny, one summer - ~1981/82...
>
>Elliott Autocode on an 803B in 1965. Blimey - that'll be 50 years next
>summer!
It was a backup computer to some new fangled ICL2900 thingy at the (then)
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. The blood analysis machine produced tapes and
IIRC the format changed slightly so I had to update the 903 code to process
them - just in-case...
Gordon
Dan Espen
Dec 20, 2014, 1:40:32 PM12/20/14
to
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> writes:
> In article <m73jet$la0$1...@dont-email.me>, Gordon Henderson
> <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>
> In article <m73jet$la0$1...@dont-email.me>, Gordon Henderson
> <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>
>>I like BASIC - not just because it was the first programming language
>>I used some 37 years ago now, ...
>
> Elliott Autocode on an 803B in 1965. Blimey - that'll be 50 years next
> summer!
I win.
>
> Elliott Autocode on an 803B in 1965. Blimey - that'll be 50 years next
> summer!
Autocoder, 1401, 1964.
(I know I'm not the oldest here.)
--
Dan Espen
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 20, 2014, 6:31:58 PM12/20/14
to
Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
> In article <m72n9i$u9i$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> We really lost something when BASIC died.
>
> Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
> variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
> (don't ask)
I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists in
> In article <m72n9i$u9i$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> We really lost something when BASIC died.
>
> Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
> variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
> (don't ask)
many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get to
your familiar old BASIC prompt.
But in a sense it *did* die. It is no longer taught to elementary school
kids, it is no longer included by default on personal computers, and
consequently people are confronted with a much higher barrier to entry for
writing useful programs. BASIC interpreters made it easy to write programs
and experiment. This is much harder now, and few environments give you
good low-level access to your platform's hardware in an easy to use way as
a good BASIC would have been expected to in the old days.
Yeah I'm a bit of a retrocomputing fan but this isn't the norm.
Gordon Henderson
Dec 20, 2014, 6:39:13 PM12/20/14
to
In article <1733968507440810750.753130...@news.eternal-september.org>,
the entry level is too high for newbies.
>Yeah I'm a bit of a retrocomputing fan but this isn't the norm.
My old Apple II and BBC Micros (and Mk14) don't get turned on as often
as they used to...
Gordon
Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>> In article <m72n9i$u9i$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We really lost something when BASIC died.
>>
>> Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
>> variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
>> (don't ask)
>
>I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists in
>many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get to
>your familiar old BASIC prompt.
>
>But in a sense it *did* die. It is no longer taught to elementary school
>kids, it is no longer included by default on personal computers, and
>consequently people are confronted with a much higher barrier to entry for
>writing useful programs. BASIC interpreters made it easy to write programs
>and experiment. This is much harder now, and few environments give you
>good low-level access to your platform's hardware in an easy to use way as
>a good BASIC would have been expected to in the old days.
I'm continually told that Python is the new BASIC, but I really feel
>Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>> In article <m72n9i$u9i$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We really lost something when BASIC died.
>>
>> Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
>> variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
>> (don't ask)
>
>I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists in
>many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get to
>your familiar old BASIC prompt.
>
>But in a sense it *did* die. It is no longer taught to elementary school
>kids, it is no longer included by default on personal computers, and
>consequently people are confronted with a much higher barrier to entry for
>writing useful programs. BASIC interpreters made it easy to write programs
>and experiment. This is much harder now, and few environments give you
>good low-level access to your platform's hardware in an easy to use way as
>a good BASIC would have been expected to in the old days.
the entry level is too high for newbies.
>Yeah I'm a bit of a retrocomputing fan but this isn't the norm.
as they used to...
Gordon
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 20, 2014, 11:28:31 PM12/20/14
to
Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1733968507440810750.753130...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>>> In article <m72n9i$u9i$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We really lost something when BASIC died.
>>>
>>> Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
>>> variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
>>> (don't ask)
>>
>> I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists in
>> many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get to
>> your familiar old BASIC prompt.
>>
>> But in a sense it *did* die. It is no longer taught to elementary school
>> kids, it is no longer included by default on personal computers, and
>> consequently people are confronted with a much higher barrier to entry for
>> writing useful programs. BASIC interpreters made it easy to write programs
>> and experiment. This is much harder now, and few environments give you
>> good low-level access to your platform's hardware in an easy to use way as
>> a good BASIC would have been expected to in the old days.
>
> I'm continually told that Python is the new BASIC, but I really feel
> the entry level is too high for newbies.
I agree, and I will also say that Python isn't good for relatively direct
> In article
> <1733968507440810750.753130...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
>>> In article <m72n9i$u9i$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We really lost something when BASIC died.
>>>
>>> Who says BASIC has died... There are at least half a dozen (probably more)
>>> variants avalable under Linux alone - including one I wrote recently[1]
>>> (don't ask)
>>
>> I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists in
>> many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get to
>> your familiar old BASIC prompt.
>>
>> But in a sense it *did* die. It is no longer taught to elementary school
>> kids, it is no longer included by default on personal computers, and
>> consequently people are confronted with a much higher barrier to entry for
>> writing useful programs. BASIC interpreters made it easy to write programs
>> and experiment. This is much harder now, and few environments give you
>> good low-level access to your platform's hardware in an easy to use way as
>> a good BASIC would have been expected to in the old days.
>
> I'm continually told that Python is the new BASIC, but I really feel
> the entry level is too high for newbies.
access to special platform features.
>> Yeah I'm a bit of a retrocomputing fan but this isn't the norm.
>
> My old Apple II and BBC Micros (and Mk14) don't get turned on as often
> as they used to...
Newtons and an HP 200LX and I love 'em all. I don't feel the emotion of
"love" with new computers - they have no personality.
Kenny McCormack
Dec 21, 2014, 5:55:30 AM12/21/14
to
In article <1733968507440810750.753130...@news.eternal-september.org>,
...
Isn't VB.NET pretty much the most widely used programming language these
days?
(I have a feeling that's true even though the commonly quoted published
sources might not show it. So don't bother quoting those commonly quoted
published sources - I think they are trying to measure the unmeasurable)
--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
...
>I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists in
>many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get to
>your familiar old BASIC prompt.
I don't get it.
>many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get to
>your familiar old BASIC prompt.
Isn't VB.NET pretty much the most widely used programming language these
days?
(I have a feeling that's true even though the commonly quoted published
sources might not show it. So don't bother quoting those commonly quoted
published sources - I think they are trying to measure the unmeasurable)
--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
Marko Rauhamaa
Dec 21, 2014, 6:34:53 AM12/21/14
to
gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack):
> Isn't VB.NET pretty much the most widely used programming language
> these days?
>
> (I have a feeling that's true even though the commonly quoted
> published sources might not show it. So don't bother quoting those
> commonly quoted published sources - I think they are trying to measure
> the unmeasurable)
How do you form your opinion then?
Personally, I have not run into VB.NET during my ~30 years of software
engineering. But then, I haven't had virtually any exposure to Windows
programming since ver 1.0.
Marko
> Isn't VB.NET pretty much the most widely used programming language
> these days?
>
> (I have a feeling that's true even though the commonly quoted
> published sources might not show it. So don't bother quoting those
> commonly quoted published sources - I think they are trying to measure
> the unmeasurable)
Personally, I have not run into VB.NET during my ~30 years of software
engineering. But then, I haven't had virtually any exposure to Windows
programming since ver 1.0.
Marko
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
BartC
Dec 21, 2014, 5:28:16 PM12/21/14
to
On 21/12/2014 20:12, Tim Streater wrote:
> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
I thought it was brilliant. It made a lot of things very easy and
accessible. Trivial to implement too.
Instead of complaining about it, people should have looked at making it
better (a few have), but not to the extent of creating VB.NET, a typical
bloated monstrosity from Microsoft.
I've never used it myself, but I design my own languages so I can
appreciate its simplicity. It uses concepts that everyone can understand
and already use in writing shopping lists, following assembly
instructions from IKEA, or filling in a tax form.
As I imagine so would you, if you needed to leave written instructions
for firing up a boiler or connecting some AV equipment; they would more
likely look like Basic than C++ or Java!
--
Bartc
> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
I thought it was brilliant. It made a lot of things very easy and
accessible. Trivial to implement too.
Instead of complaining about it, people should have looked at making it
better (a few have), but not to the extent of creating VB.NET, a typical
bloated monstrosity from Microsoft.
I've never used it myself, but I design my own languages so I can
appreciate its simplicity. It uses concepts that everyone can understand
and already use in writing shopping lists, following assembly
instructions from IKEA, or filling in a tax form.
As I imagine so would you, if you needed to leave written instructions
for firing up a boiler or connecting some AV equipment; they would more
likely look like Basic than C++ or Java!
--
Bartc
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
BartC
Dec 21, 2014, 7:18:19 PM12/21/14
to
On 21/12/2014 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <3QHlw.809030$u67.5...@fx08.am4>, BartC <b...@freeuk.com>
> out, with no applications and just Basic. Yes, some people messed about
> in the way that has been described here. But many more people bought
> them because this was the way forward, they imagined that with a few
> simple instructions they could replace their sets of 3 x 5 cards they
> had their cooking recipes on. After 5 minutes fiddling about and
> realising what they were faced with, these folk shoved the machines in
> the cupboard where they languished.
>
> Try using basic to write software to control a robot that can follow
> assembly instructions from IKEA. Try as I might, I can't find the BASIC
> instruction that says "Fit slot A into hole B".
>
You'll have the same problem in any other language. But once someone has
created a suitable library for something (using a 'grown-up' language if
you like), then you just use your Basic as a scripting language.
Instead, think of something a bit simpler, such as drawing a diagram or
graph. When Basic was properly integrated on a machine, it would likely
have ready-made commands to instantly draw those graphics without all
the complications you have to worry about these days.
(The first computer program I saw in action was something like this, it
was in 1975:
10 for i=1 to 10
20 print i,sqr(i)
30 next i
This printed a table of square roots directly onto paper. This was quite
impressive (at the time, I had to buy books of such tables to 4 or 5
figures, and this was even more accurate than that). Nearly 40 years
later, I don't think anyone's made it much simpler than that. Slightly
more difficult in fact, as there's quite an elaborate path between the
on-screen program, and a hard-copy device.)
--
Bartc
> In article <3QHlw.809030$u67.5...@fx08.am4>, BartC <b...@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/12/2014 20:12, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
>>
>> I thought it was brilliant.
>
>> On 21/12/2014 20:12, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
>>
>> I thought it was brilliant.
>> It uses concepts that everyone can
>> understand and already use in writing shopping lists, following
>> assembly instructions from IKEA, or filling in a tax form.
>
> I'm reminded of what happened when the first personal computers came
>> understand and already use in writing shopping lists, following
>> assembly instructions from IKEA, or filling in a tax form.
>
> out, with no applications and just Basic. Yes, some people messed about
> in the way that has been described here. But many more people bought
> them because this was the way forward, they imagined that with a few
> simple instructions they could replace their sets of 3 x 5 cards they
> had their cooking recipes on. After 5 minutes fiddling about and
> realising what they were faced with, these folk shoved the machines in
> the cupboard where they languished.
>
> Try using basic to write software to control a robot that can follow
> assembly instructions from IKEA. Try as I might, I can't find the BASIC
> instruction that says "Fit slot A into hole B".
>
You'll have the same problem in any other language. But once someone has
created a suitable library for something (using a 'grown-up' language if
you like), then you just use your Basic as a scripting language.
Instead, think of something a bit simpler, such as drawing a diagram or
graph. When Basic was properly integrated on a machine, it would likely
have ready-made commands to instantly draw those graphics without all
the complications you have to worry about these days.
(The first computer program I saw in action was something like this, it
was in 1975:
10 for i=1 to 10
20 print i,sqr(i)
30 next i
This printed a table of square roots directly onto paper. This was quite
impressive (at the time, I had to buy books of such tables to 4 or 5
figures, and this was even more accurate than that). Nearly 40 years
later, I don't think anyone's made it much simpler than that. Slightly
more difficult in fact, as there's quite an elaborate path between the
on-screen program, and a hard-copy device.)
--
Bartc
Michael Black
Dec 22, 2014, 2:34:37 AM12/22/14
to
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <m768v2$dgs$2...@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack
> <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <1733968507440810750.753130...@news.eternal-september.o
> me.
>
> BASIC was and remains rubbish. And people need to understand that
> writing a program to do anything interesting is not so easy. By the
> time they've learnt to do much of anything in BASIC they will have
> learnt a number of bad habits and have a whole load of wrong
> expectations.
>
I've said similar things, and gotten flack "of course BASIC is useful
language...".
I think what happened is that many of the people who had computer access
before home computers had access to BASIC. Timesharing systems via
Teletype machines in schools, things like the People's Computer Company
that had a storefront in San Francisco or Berkeley and offered computer
time with a timesharing BASIC.
That colored what came later.
PCC launched "Tiny BASIC" since they'd already been running programs in
BASIC, and the ALtair and the other new computers needed BASIC in order to
run those programs. David Ahl had put together that book of computer games
while at DEC, and they required a BASIC interpreter. So that likely gave
BASIC a big boost at the start.
Then of course Swiftwater Bill decided to write a BASIC, and that
reinforced it. It was the programming language most available in the
early days, and once there were computers with more than a monitor in ROM,
those computers came with a BASIC, usually Microsoft BASIC, self
perpetuating it.
The rare exception, and it came later, was the Jupiter Ace, that ran
FORTH.
I remember in the early days, "folk knowledge" was that assembly language
was "too hard" so BASIC was the start. But I think that was
self-perpetuating too, people with BASIC experience telling others, and
those others believing it.
I couldn't run even a Tiny BASIC on my KIM-1 that I got in 1979, only 1K
of RAM and I had no terminal of any kind. So I learned assembly language,
hand assemblying it. Nothing really practical, but that was the first
language I learned to program in. I could then never get excited about
BASIC.
I've used it, but only for simple things. The best part wsa that as an
interpreter, you could just enter some lines and run it immediately.
On the other hand, when I needed something a few years ago, I went and
relearned C. I'd dabbled with it in 1988, but with a 2MHz computer and
two floppy drives, it took quite a while to just compile a simple program.
With a 1GHz computer, compile is nice and snappy, so the immediateness is
there, so one can learn by making mistakes. At 2MHz, the endless stream
of error messages when a few things were off was too much.
So BASIC fails because it's seen as a starter language, but one could
start with a more "complicated" language in the first place, and not waste
the time.
The big thing about BASIC was that for a while, magazines were full of
BASIC programs, the people at home having done something and wanting to
show it off. Some were ridiculous, people entering things as data in
order to display a graphic of some sort, the programs often didn't do much
more than that. Most were not worth entering, all that typing, because
theyw eren't that interesting to begin with.
Michael
> In article <m768v2$dgs$2...@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack
> <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <1733968507440810750.753130...@news.eternal-september.o
>> rg>,
>> ...
>>> I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists
>>> in
>>> many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get
>>> to
>>> your familiar old BASIC prompt.
>>
>> I don't get it.
>>
>> Isn't VB.NET pretty much the most widely used programming language these
>> days?
>
> I have no idea what VB.NET is. Hey, wait, it's OK, don't bother telling
>> ...
>>> I am not claiming that it is gone forever. Obviously BASIC still exists
>>> in
>>> many different variations and one can turn on many old computers and get
>>> to
>>> your familiar old BASIC prompt.
>>
>> I don't get it.
>>
>> Isn't VB.NET pretty much the most widely used programming language these
>> days?
>
> me.
>
> BASIC was and remains rubbish. And people need to understand that
> writing a program to do anything interesting is not so easy. By the
> time they've learnt to do much of anything in BASIC they will have
> learnt a number of bad habits and have a whole load of wrong
> expectations.
>
I've said similar things, and gotten flack "of course BASIC is useful
language...".
I think what happened is that many of the people who had computer access
before home computers had access to BASIC. Timesharing systems via
Teletype machines in schools, things like the People's Computer Company
that had a storefront in San Francisco or Berkeley and offered computer
time with a timesharing BASIC.
That colored what came later.
PCC launched "Tiny BASIC" since they'd already been running programs in
BASIC, and the ALtair and the other new computers needed BASIC in order to
run those programs. David Ahl had put together that book of computer games
while at DEC, and they required a BASIC interpreter. So that likely gave
BASIC a big boost at the start.
Then of course Swiftwater Bill decided to write a BASIC, and that
reinforced it. It was the programming language most available in the
early days, and once there were computers with more than a monitor in ROM,
those computers came with a BASIC, usually Microsoft BASIC, self
perpetuating it.
The rare exception, and it came later, was the Jupiter Ace, that ran
FORTH.
I remember in the early days, "folk knowledge" was that assembly language
was "too hard" so BASIC was the start. But I think that was
self-perpetuating too, people with BASIC experience telling others, and
those others believing it.
I couldn't run even a Tiny BASIC on my KIM-1 that I got in 1979, only 1K
of RAM and I had no terminal of any kind. So I learned assembly language,
hand assemblying it. Nothing really practical, but that was the first
language I learned to program in. I could then never get excited about
BASIC.
I've used it, but only for simple things. The best part wsa that as an
interpreter, you could just enter some lines and run it immediately.
On the other hand, when I needed something a few years ago, I went and
relearned C. I'd dabbled with it in 1988, but with a 2MHz computer and
two floppy drives, it took quite a while to just compile a simple program.
With a 1GHz computer, compile is nice and snappy, so the immediateness is
there, so one can learn by making mistakes. At 2MHz, the endless stream
of error messages when a few things were off was too much.
So BASIC fails because it's seen as a starter language, but one could
start with a more "complicated" language in the first place, and not waste
the time.
The big thing about BASIC was that for a while, magazines were full of
BASIC programs, the people at home having done something and wanting to
show it off. Some were ridiculous, people entering things as data in
order to display a graphic of some sort, the programs often didn't do much
more than that. Most were not worth entering, all that typing, because
theyw eren't that interesting to begin with.
Michael
RJH
Dec 22, 2014, 3:12:33 AM12/22/14
to
On 21/12/2014 22:55, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <3QHlw.809030$u67.5...@fx08.am4>, BartC <b...@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
> In article <3QHlw.809030$u67.5...@fx08.am4>, BartC <b...@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/12/2014 20:12, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
>>
>> I thought it was brilliant. It made a lot of things very easy and
>> accessible. Trivial to implement too.
>
>>
>>> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
>>
>> I thought it was brilliant. It made a lot of things very easy and
>> accessible. Trivial to implement too.
>
>> I've never used it myself, but I design my own languages so I can
>> appreciate its simplicity. It uses concepts that everyone can
>> understand and already use in writing shopping lists, following
>> assembly instructions from IKEA, or filling in a tax form.
>
>> appreciate its simplicity. It uses concepts that everyone can
>> understand and already use in writing shopping lists, following
>> assembly instructions from IKEA, or filling in a tax form.
>
> I'm reminded of what happened when the first personal computers came
> out, with no applications and just Basic. Yes, some people messed about
> in the way that has been described here. But many more people bought
> them because this was the way forward, they imagined that with a few
> simple instructions they could replace their sets of 3 x 5 cards they
> had their cooking recipes on. After 5 minutes fiddling about and
> realising what they were faced with, these folk shoved the machines in
> the cupboard where they languished.
>
I remember as a 12 year old faffing about and writing quadratic equation
> out, with no applications and just Basic. Yes, some people messed about
> in the way that has been described here. But many more people bought
> them because this was the way forward, they imagined that with a few
> simple instructions they could replace their sets of 3 x 5 cards they
> had their cooking recipes on. After 5 minutes fiddling about and
> realising what they were faced with, these folk shoved the machines in
> the cupboard where they languished.
>
routines. Just basic algebra, of course, but it did provide something
approaching 'fun' in an otherwise dull school learning experience.
--
Cheers, Rob
Hils
Dec 22, 2014, 3:18:09 AM12/22/14
to
On 2014-12-22 00:18, BartC wrote:
> You'll have the same problem in any other language. But once someone has
> created a suitable library for something (using a 'grown-up' language if
> you like), then you just use your Basic as a scripting language.
>
> Instead, think of something a bit simpler, such as drawing a diagram or
> graph. When Basic was properly integrated on a machine, it would likely
> have ready-made commands to instantly draw those graphics without all
> the complications you have to worry about these days.
>
> (The first computer program I saw in action was something like this, it
> was in 1975:
>
> 10 for i=1 to 10
> 20 print i,sqr(i)
> 30 next i
>
> This printed a table of square roots directly onto paper. This was quite
> impressive (at the time, I had to buy books of such tables to 4 or 5
> figures, and this was even more accurate than that). Nearly 40 years
> later, I don't think anyone's made it much simpler than that. Slightly
> more difficult in fact, as there's quite an elaborate path between the
> on-screen program, and a hard-copy device.)
I found the same thing with QL SuperBASIC. I was able to generate
> You'll have the same problem in any other language. But once someone has
> created a suitable library for something (using a 'grown-up' language if
> you like), then you just use your Basic as a scripting language.
>
> Instead, think of something a bit simpler, such as drawing a diagram or
> graph. When Basic was properly integrated on a machine, it would likely
> have ready-made commands to instantly draw those graphics without all
> the complications you have to worry about these days.
>
> (The first computer program I saw in action was something like this, it
> was in 1975:
>
> 10 for i=1 to 10
> 20 print i,sqr(i)
> 30 next i
>
> This printed a table of square roots directly onto paper. This was quite
> impressive (at the time, I had to buy books of such tables to 4 or 5
> figures, and this was even more accurate than that). Nearly 40 years
> later, I don't think anyone's made it much simpler than that. Slightly
> more difficult in fact, as there's quite an elaborate path between the
> on-screen program, and a hard-copy device.)
localised astronomical ephemerides which weren't available other than by
interpolating from hard copy almanacs (which would have meant at least a
visit to the city public library). I built my own library of functions
for doing things like converting between co-ordinate systems and
calculating the position of the sun. I could print the results on an
electronic typewriter over an RS232 link (no drivers needed).
The best language I've yet found to do the same kind of programming odd
jobs since then is R. Definitely not Python.
As for the idea that coding in BASIC somehow undermines one's ability to
learn more "advanced" languages, that's like saying that playing blues
prevents one from leaning to play Bach fugues.
Message has been deleted
gareth
Dec 22, 2014, 6:15:32 AM12/22/14
to
"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:211220142012497674%timst...@greenbee.net...
> Also, no one should have any access to the basic hardware of their
> machine.
Writers of OS? Fast DSP?
news:211220142012497674%timst...@greenbee.net...
> Also, no one should have any access to the basic hardware of their
> machine.
Writers of OS? Fast DSP?
gareth
Dec 22, 2014, 6:22:53 AM12/22/14
to
"BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3QHlw.809030$u67.5...@fx08.am4...
a program based around KB, screen, disc and printer, I would unhesitatingly
recommend to them the use of Visual Basic,
As an example, I was contracted to take over from a job leaver, a project
in C upon which the leaver had already spent 6 weeks creating a serial port
driver and had yet to finish it. When I suggested the use of VB, I was met
by the
usual C-based snobbery and yet, when I demonstrated within 1/2 hour that the
basis of the design could be implemented with the MSCOMM driver, they were
hooked.
Once you have the basics of programming under your belt, the representation
of any
information, including alphabets, in binary form, the parts of structured
programming, etc,
then the language of implementation is irrelevant to a good design.
PS. No, I'm not a TYRO; 10 years PDP11 assembler, followed by RTL/2, Pascal,
PL/M,
C, C++, etc, etc.
news:3QHlw.809030$u67.5...@fx08.am4...
> On 21/12/2014 20:12, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
>
> I thought it was brilliant. It made a lot of things very easy and
> accessible. Trivial to implement too.
>
Before the days of VB.net (VB6 and VB5) if a client of mine wished
>
>> BASIC was and remains rubbish.
>
> I thought it was brilliant. It made a lot of things very easy and
> accessible. Trivial to implement too.
>
a program based around KB, screen, disc and printer, I would unhesitatingly
recommend to them the use of Visual Basic,
As an example, I was contracted to take over from a job leaver, a project
in C upon which the leaver had already spent 6 weeks creating a serial port
driver and had yet to finish it. When I suggested the use of VB, I was met
by the
usual C-based snobbery and yet, when I demonstrated within 1/2 hour that the
basis of the design could be implemented with the MSCOMM driver, they were
hooked.
Once you have the basics of programming under your belt, the representation
of any
information, including alphabets, in binary form, the parts of structured
programming, etc,
then the language of implementation is irrelevant to a good design.
PS. No, I'm not a TYRO; 10 years PDP11 assembler, followed by RTL/2, Pascal,
PL/M,
C, C++, etc, etc.
Will Honea
Dec 22, 2014, 2:01:02 PM12/22/14
to
Michael Black wrote:
> I couldn't run even a Tiny BASIC on my KIM-1 that I got in 1979, only 1K
> of RAM and I had no terminal of any kind. So I learned assembly language,
> hand assemblying it. Nothing really practical, but that was the first
> language I learned to program in. I could then never get excited about
> BASIC.
>
When I checked in at the Air Force Academy, they assigned two courses for me
> I couldn't run even a Tiny BASIC on my KIM-1 that I got in 1979, only 1K
> of RAM and I had no terminal of any kind. So I learned assembly language,
> hand assemblying it. Nothing really practical, but that was the first
> language I learned to program in. I could then never get excited about
> BASIC.
>
to teach and 2 projects: build a working machine using the still-to-be-
released intel 8080 and code a working data acquisition program for it.
They sole i/o available in the field was an ASR 33. We had a preview copy
of the data manual for the new chip but all that gave us was the tech info
to build up the circuits - timing, pin assignments, etc. and the instruction
set in assembler/binary form. First order of business (once the circuit
boards were completed) was binary coding enough into EEPROM to get it
talking to the ASR 33 so we were the bootstrap code, so to speak. Boy, were
we happy once we figured out how to load the rest from that paper tape!
In retrospect, it is amazing just how fast the microprocessor went from R&D
to consumer use. There were (literally) no native tools such as assemblers,
definitely no compilers, and even the cross-platform tools on the mainframe
(a B6600 in the beginning) were really sparse. We initially spent far more
time on the mainframe than on the actual device so it was manna from heaven
when we finally got our hands on a (typed) source of that wonder language
BASIC! My take, looking back, is that progress would have been orders of
magnitude faster had we not been shackled by the proprietary and closed
nature of the process.
In a sense, we all wasted 10 years with countless skilled volunteers
twiddling their thumbs to really do something with this new technology.
--
Will Honea
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 24, 2014, 2:46:02 AM12/24/14
to
On 2014-12-21 20:12:49 +0000, Tim Streater said:
> BASIC was and remains rubbish. And people need to understand that
> writing a program to do anything interesting is not so easy.
BASIC was designed to be easy to use and easy to learn. It satisfied
> BASIC was and remains rubbish. And people need to understand that
> writing a program to do anything interesting is not so easy.
many people and allowed them to create programs to support their
studies, hobbies and businesses with a minimum of fuss, as well as take
advantage of the unique hardware in each early computer platform that
had a decent BASIC.
> By the time they've learnt to do much of anything in BASIC they will
> have learnt a number of bad habits and have a whole load of wrong
> expectations.
you think that a person's habits are bad or their expectations are
wrong? BASIC wasn't designed to make medium to large sized businesses'
enterprise operations easier in a synergistic way. It was designed to
do real work, whatever that meant to a person with one of those
new-fangled home computers.
> Also, no one should have any access to the basic hardware of their machine.
secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
hobbyists.
The loss of BASIC was everybody's loss, except the commercial software
house. Everybody used to be a programmer. Now it's tough to get real
excited about plowing into the latest API dox which will probably
change by the time you've found what you are looking for.
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 24, 2014, 2:51:39 AM12/24/14
to
On 2014-12-22 10:29:46 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>> You'll have the same problem in any other language. But once someone
>> has created a suitable library for something (using a 'grown-up'
>> language if you like), then you just use your Basic as a scripting
>> language.
>
> Except that I'd rather not. I'll use PHP instead, which has a large
>> You'll have the same problem in any other language. But once someone
>> has created a suitable library for something (using a 'grown-up'
>> language if you like), then you just use your Basic as a scripting
>> language.
>
> number of libraries for interfacing with other things, such as SQLite.
It's fine to glue together a bunch of decades-old crap but it's hardly
fun or interesting. In fact I doubt a person could pay me to bother -
what's the point unless you're doing it in the salt mine?
>> Instead, think of something a bit simpler, such as drawing a diagram or
>> graph. When Basic was properly integrated on a machine, it would likely
>> have ready-made commands to instantly draw those graphics without all
>> the complications you have to worry about these days.
>
Again, even the programmers are mostly just users these days.
>> (The first computer program I saw in action was something like this, it
>> was in 1975:
>>
>> 10 for i=1 to 10
>> 20 print i,sqr(i)
>> 30 next i
>>
>> This printed a table of square roots directly onto paper. This was
>> quite impressive (at the time, I had to buy books of such tables to 4
>> or 5 figures, and this was even more accurate than that). Nearly 40
>> years later, I don't think anyone's made it much simpler than that.
>> Slightly more difficult in fact, as there's quite an elaborate path
>> between the on-screen program, and a hard-copy device.)
>
> any one of a number of HP pocket calculators which made such tables
> obsolete (I haven't seen log tables, f'rinstance, since leaving
> school).
HP pocket calculators made programmers of many people. There are still
lots of people who use them to solve real-world problems when you just
can't haul around a full-sized computer. RPL is an excellent
programming language for solving mathematical problems, and my HP-50g
is easier to deal with than Mathematica, and just as powerful, for many
tasks. Obviously I can't use Wolfram Alpha from within the HP though.
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 24, 2014, 2:56:34 AM12/24/14
to
On 2014-12-22 11:22:36 +0000, gareth said:
> Once you have the basics of programming under your belt, the
> representation of any information, including alphabets, in binary form,
> the parts of structured programming, etc, then the language of
> implementation is irrelevant to a good design.
Forget "design" - in the heyday of BASIC each (good) machine came with
> Once you have the basics of programming under your belt, the
> representation of any information, including alphabets, in binary form,
> the parts of structured programming, etc, then the language of
> implementation is irrelevant to a good design.
a BASIC that was tailored to the particular hardware facilities, making
it easy to take relatively full advantage of your computer.
Manipulating data, and drawing color graphics, animation, making
sounds, and interfacing with IO devices were all essentially just a
simple command away. In those old days c compilers were way too heavy
to bother with at home, and there was essentially no library support
either. People weren't coding for their bosses, they were writing
programs to satisfy their own needs and the computers of those days
were tailor-made for this. Code readibility and style were what you
made of it, and nobody had any reason to complain.
Jerry Peters
Dec 24, 2014, 4:21:25 PM12/24/14
to
Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2014-12-21 20:12:49 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>
>> BASIC was and remains rubbish. And people need to understand that
>> writing a program to do anything interesting is not so easy.
>
> BASIC was designed to be easy to use and easy to learn. It satisfied
> many people and allowed them to create programs to support their
> studies, hobbies and businesses with a minimum of fuss, as well as take
> advantage of the unique hardware in each early computer platform that
> had a decent BASIC.
>
>> By the time they've learnt to do much of anything in BASIC they will
>> have learnt a number of bad habits and have a whole load of wrong
>> expectations.
>
> This smacks of an almost academic-grade consdescention. Who cares if
> you think that a person's habits are bad or their expectations are
> wrong? BASIC wasn't designed to make medium to large sized businesses'
> enterprise operations easier in a synergistic way. It was designed to
> do real work, whatever that meant to a person with one of those
> new-fangled home computers.
>
>> Also, no one should have any access to the basic hardware of their machine.
>
> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
> hobbyists.
Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
> On 2014-12-21 20:12:49 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>
>> BASIC was and remains rubbish. And people need to understand that
>> writing a program to do anything interesting is not so easy.
>
> BASIC was designed to be easy to use and easy to learn. It satisfied
> many people and allowed them to create programs to support their
> studies, hobbies and businesses with a minimum of fuss, as well as take
> advantage of the unique hardware in each early computer platform that
> had a decent BASIC.
>
>> By the time they've learnt to do much of anything in BASIC they will
>> have learnt a number of bad habits and have a whole load of wrong
>> expectations.
>
> This smacks of an almost academic-grade consdescention. Who cares if
> you think that a person's habits are bad or their expectations are
> wrong? BASIC wasn't designed to make medium to large sized businesses'
> enterprise operations easier in a synergistic way. It was designed to
> do real work, whatever that meant to a person with one of those
> new-fangled home computers.
>
>> Also, no one should have any access to the basic hardware of their machine.
>
> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
> hobbyists.
available, all open source, take your pick.
> The loss of BASIC was everybody's loss, except the commercial software
> house. Everybody used to be a programmer. Now it's tough to get real
> excited about plowing into the latest API dox which will probably
> change by the time you've found what you are looking for.
Oregonian Haruspex
Dec 24, 2014, 4:43:20 PM12/24/14
to
about proprietary hardware remains though - and even if the drivers are
open source, accessing modern hardware is not done easily except
through opaque (even if "open source") driver and library layers.
>> The loss of BASIC was everybody's loss, except the commercial software
>> house. Everybody used to be a programmer. Now it's tough to get real
>> excited about plowing into the latest API dox which will probably
>> change by the time you've found what you are looking for.
>
> ROTFL!
BartC
Dec 24, 2014, 7:06:56 PM12/24/14
to
On 24/12/2014 21:21, Jerry Peters wrote:
(I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
folder called 'usb'.)
It's a long, long way from just doing an inp() or outp() instruction on
some 8-bit port. And some of us don't like Linux or C or gcc
--
Bartc
> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
>> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
>> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
>> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
>> hobbyists.
>
> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
> available, all open source, take your pick.
The Linux kernel is so complicated that it might as well be secret!
>> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
>> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
>> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
>> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
>> hobbyists.
>
> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
> available, all open source, take your pick.
(I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
folder called 'usb'.)
It's a long, long way from just doing an inp() or outp() instruction on
some 8-bit port. And some of us don't like Linux or C or gcc
--
Bartc
BartC
Dec 24, 2014, 7:17:46 PM12/24/14
to
On 25/12/2014 00:06, BartC wrote:
> On 24/12/2014 21:21, Jerry Peters wrote:
>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
>>> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
>>> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
>>> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
>>> hobbyists.
>>
>> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
>> available, all open source, take your pick.
>
> The Linux kernel is so complicated that it might as well be secret!
>
> (I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
> folder called 'usb'.)
Correction: 48,000 files. Apparently it hadn't quite quite finished
> On 24/12/2014 21:21, Jerry Peters wrote:
>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
>>> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
>>> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
>>> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
>>> hobbyists.
>>
>> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
>> available, all open source, take your pick.
>
> The Linux kernel is so complicated that it might as well be secret!
>
> (I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
> folder called 'usb'.)
unpacking its 1GB of data.
(The first hard drive I tested was a 5MB unit from Seagate. We'd only
need 200 of them to store all the Linux sources! All the ones for the
kernel sources anyway; perhaps there are a lot more?)
--
Bartc
Jerry Peters
Dec 26, 2014, 4:12:51 PM12/26/14
to
browse) the code on the internet. And a competent programmer familiar
with driver design & USB hardware should be able to reverse engineer
them for another platform.
>
>>> The loss of BASIC was everybody's loss, except the commercial software
>>> house. Everybody used to be a programmer. Now it's tough to get real
>>> excited about plowing into the latest API dox which will probably
>>> change by the time you've found what you are looking for.
>>
>> ROTFL!
>
> Bwahahahahahaaaa!
>
of programming, design & testing are far more time consuming. I used
to estimate testing as at least half of the time needed for
development.
Linux, at the application level has a very stable API, you should read
some of Linus' rants to developers who try to change an API without a
deprecation period in years, for anything less than a major security
hole. You can still use W R Stevens first edition to do Linux
programming.
Jerry Peters
Dec 26, 2014, 4:20:50 PM12/26/14
to
BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 25/12/2014 00:06, BartC wrote:
>> On 24/12/2014 21:21, Jerry Peters wrote:
>>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
>>>> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
>>>> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
>>>> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
>>>> hobbyists.
>>>
>>> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
>>> available, all open source, take your pick.
>>
>> The Linux kernel is so complicated that it might as well be secret!
>>
>> (I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
>> folder called 'usb'.)
>
> Correction: 48,000 files. Apparently it hadn't quite quite finished
> unpacking its 1GB of data.
? The latest stable kernel source:
> On 25/12/2014 00:06, BartC wrote:
>> On 24/12/2014 21:21, Jerry Peters wrote:
>>> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nowadays it's pointless anyway because practically everything is too
>>>> secret or complicated to bother with. Experimenters are relegated to
>>>> buying USB-dongles with secret drivers just to get RS-232 up and
>>>> running - and it remains the standard interface for DIY computer
>>>> hobbyists.
>>>
>>> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
>>> available, all open source, take your pick.
>>
>> The Linux kernel is so complicated that it might as well be secret!
>>
>> (I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
>> folder called 'usb'.)
>
> Correction: 48,000 files. Apparently it hadn't quite quite finished
> unpacking its 1GB of data.
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 80936088 Dec 16 18:29
linux-3.18.1.tar.xz
That's 80MB, even assuming a 4:1 compression ratio that's still only
~ 320MB.
>
> (The first hard drive I tested was a 5MB unit from Seagate. We'd only
> need 200 of them to store all the Linux sources! All the ones for the
> kernel sources anyway; perhaps there are a lot more?)
>
source includes all of the device drivers and all of the platform
code.
BartC
Dec 26, 2014, 5:51:52 PM12/26/14
to
On 26/12/2014 21:20, Jerry Peters wrote:
> BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 25/12/2014 00:06, BartC wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2014 21:21, Jerry Peters wrote:
>>>> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
>>>> available, all open source, take your pick.
>>>
>>> The Linux kernel is so complicated that it might as well be secret!
>>>
>>> (I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
>>> folder called 'usb'.)
>>
>> Correction: 48,000 files. Apparently it hadn't quite quite finished
>> unpacking its 1GB of data.
>
> ? The latest stable kernel source:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 80936088 Dec 16 18:29
> linux-3.18.1.tar.xz
>
> That's 80MB, even assuming a 4:1 compression ratio that's still only
> ~ 320MB.
Yeah, there was a mistake because there was still a .tar file lying
> BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 25/12/2014 00:06, BartC wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2014 21:21, Jerry Peters wrote:
>>>> Secret drivers for USB serial devices? The Linux kernel has quite a few
>>>> available, all open source, take your pick.
>>>
>>> The Linux kernel is so complicated that it might as well be secret!
>>>
>>> (I've just listed its 42,000 or so files, of which nearly 700 are in a
>>> folder called 'usb'.)
>>
>> Correction: 48,000 files. Apparently it hadn't quite quite finished
>> unpacking its 1GB of data.
>
> ? The latest stable kernel source:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 80936088 Dec 16 18:29
> linux-3.18.1.tar.xz
>
> That's 80MB, even assuming a 4:1 compression ratio that's still only
> ~ 320MB.
around which got added in. The .tar file had an uncompressed size of
580MB, or 545MB when all 48,000 files and directories were listed in
Windows. So only 100-odd drives would have been needed....
> And how many different hardware platforms does Linux run on now? The
> source includes all of the device drivers and all of the platform
> code.
you shouldn't have to be concerned with a hundred different platforms,
only the one you have. (It's very annoying also when you have a nice,
juicy thick manual for a product, but find it's in 50 different
languages with only 4 pages compromising the English section!)
Imagine that someone still had, say, a 64KB Z80 system with a couple of
floppy disk drives (or even a 10MB hard drive), and wanted to implement
a USB interface on it. How would they download that huge file? Probably
it would have no internet access anyway, no space for the files, and
might take a week to uncompress the data even if it could fit.
(And even if a USB driver could be created, would there there be any
change left from the 64KB RAM? I don't know what's involved so I can't say.)
Things then /necessarily/ had to be kept small, simple and efficient.
That was a good thing.
--
bartc
Jerry Peters
Dec 27, 2014, 4:42:08 PM12/27/14
to
been proposals in the past to split the kernel source by architecture
but they were roundly defeated.
I'v got one multi-lingual manual where the imbeciles that designed it
interleaved the paragraphs for the different languages. Makes it
reading it a chore as you have to skip the French, Spanish, and German
paragraphs between th English ones.
>
> Imagine that someone still had, say, a 64KB Z80 system with a couple of
> floppy disk drives (or even a 10MB hard drive), and wanted to implement
> a USB interface on it. How would they download that huge file? Probably
> it would have no internet access anyway, no space for the files, and
> might take a week to uncompress the data even if it could fit.
They'd be doing what the embedded folks do, developing on a PC and
cross compiling for the target. I wonder how long it would take to
compile the kernel on the Rpi for example, assuming you attached
enough disk storage. I don't even build the kernel for this AA1 on it.
Last time I tried it took ~45 minutes.
>
> (And even if a USB driver could be created, would there there be any
> change left from the 64KB RAM? I don't know what's involved so I can't say.)
>
> Things then /necessarily/ had to be kept small, simple and efficient.
> That was a good thing.
devices the kernel can be built without support for things like video
that aren't needed and the X server can be omitted along with most of
the normal applications. And there is ongoing work from the embedded
people to "tinify" the kernel by being able to compile out unecessary
features.
Scott Alfter
Jan 5, 2015, 4:55:36 PM1/5/15
to
In article <m7kjeq$fqh$2...@dont-email.me>,
Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
it's nearly always there forever. I have a scanner on my desk at work (a
Canon N670U) that doesn't work with Windows versions beyond XP (IIRC). On
this Win7 box, I have a Gentoo Linux VM (under VirtualBox) with which I can
still use the scanner. (It's a reasonably up-to-date image, too, not
something that was last updated years ago).
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
>BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> (The first hard drive I tested was a 5MB unit from Seagate. We'd only
>> need 200 of them to store all the Linux sources! All the ones for the
>> kernel sources anyway; perhaps there are a lot more?)
>>
>
>And how many different hardware platforms does Linux run on now? The
>source includes all of the device drivers and all of the platform
>code.
Another consideration: once support for a device finds its way into Linux,
>> (The first hard drive I tested was a 5MB unit from Seagate. We'd only
>> need 200 of them to store all the Linux sources! All the ones for the
>> kernel sources anyway; perhaps there are a lot more?)
>>
>
>And how many different hardware platforms does Linux run on now? The
>source includes all of the device drivers and all of the platform
>code.
it's nearly always there forever. I have a scanner on my desk at work (a
Canon N670U) that doesn't work with Windows versions beyond XP (IIRC). On
this Win7 box, I have a Gentoo Linux VM (under VirtualBox) with which I can
still use the scanner. (It's a reasonably up-to-date image, too, not
something that was last updated years ago).
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Jerry Peters
Jan 6, 2015, 4:10:10 PM1/6/15
to
Scott Alfter <sc...@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> In article <m7kjeq$fqh$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> (The first hard drive I tested was a 5MB unit from Seagate. We'd only
>>> need 200 of them to store all the Linux sources! All the ones for the
>>> kernel sources anyway; perhaps there are a lot more?)
>>>
>>
>>And how many different hardware platforms does Linux run on now? The
>>source includes all of the device drivers and all of the platform
>>code.
>
> Another consideration: once support for a device finds its way into Linux,
> it's nearly always there forever. I have a scanner on my desk at work (a
> Canon N670U) that doesn't work with Windows versions beyond XP (IIRC). On
> this Win7 box, I have a Gentoo Linux VM (under VirtualBox) with which I can
> still use the scanner. (It's a reasonably up-to-date image, too, not
> something that was last updated years ago).
Things tend to get dropped from Linux only after someone notices that
> In article <m7kjeq$fqh$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> (The first hard drive I tested was a 5MB unit from Seagate. We'd only
>>> need 200 of them to store all the Linux sources! All the ones for the
>>> kernel sources anyway; perhaps there are a lot more?)
>>>
>>
>>And how many different hardware platforms does Linux run on now? The
>>source includes all of the device drivers and all of the platform
>>code.
>
> Another consideration: once support for a device finds its way into Linux,
> it's nearly always there forever. I have a scanner on my desk at work (a
> Canon N670U) that doesn't work with Windows versions beyond XP (IIRC). On
> this Win7 box, I have a Gentoo Linux VM (under VirtualBox) with which I can
> still use the scanner. (It's a reasonably up-to-date image, too, not
> something that was last updated years ago).
a driver has been broken for years and no one complained.
0 new messages