When release
Michael Engelhart
breathing down my neck and was just wondering what the status of the NTK was.
Is the current release still 1.0b7? When is final release *supposed* to be.
Just curious now that I have time to get back to some newtonscript.
Also - how is the Newton DU course? Is it worth $1800.00 or should I just
wait for the McMehan(?) & Rhodes book?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
Mike Engelhart
Milton Lachman
>In <940322162...@rvik.ismennt.is> ein...@ismennt.is (Einar Karlsson) writes:
>>I saw an article on The Tasc R30 chess computer in the British Chess
>>Magazine. I wonder if someone has an address, phonenumber or faxnumber
>>of the manufacturer. The company is called TASC B.V. and it is
>>stationed in Rotterdam, Holland.
>
>>I understand from the review that this is one of the strongest risc-
>>based chess-computers now. Any comments on that?
>
>TASC may be contacted at:
>TASC BV
>POSTBUS 55178
>3008 ED ROTTERDAM
>HOLLAND
>Telephone: 010-4865630
>FAX: 010-4866964
>If you want to try a much cheaper version than the Tasc/ARM engine, check
>out Chessmaster 4000 - Johann de Koning did the port himself. The strength
>is very good - the current SSDF list has CM4000 on a 486/50 rated at 2.297.
>King 2.0 on a 30 MHz ARM Chessmachine is rated at 2.330, Schroeder 3.1/30 Mhz
>is 2.327. I believe CM4000 can be found for around $40, whereas the ARM
>Chessmachines are several hundred. BTW, I'm somewhat biased, since I was
>one of the programmers on the CM4000 team :-).
>- Pat McCarthy
>mcca...@well.sf.ca.us
Why aren't any of the top-ranking ARM-based chess programs available for the
Newton? It should be an easy port for you brilliant Newton programmers out there.
-Milton
H. Davis Nadig
: >Chessmachines are several hundred. BTW, I'm somewhat biased, since I was
: >one of the programmers on the CM4000 team :-).
: >- Pat McCarthy
: >mcca...@well.sf.ca.us
: Why aren't any of the top-ranking ARM-based chess programs available for the
: Newton? It should be an easy port for you brilliant Newton programmers out there.
: -Milton
I for one, would pay handsomely for even a mediocre chess game for newton.
Heck, I'd probably pay for a board representation to run problems on
without *any* algorithims....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Nadig, David, David of Gower, Grot, gr...@trantor.cc.umb.edu
##! My opinions are only tentatively my own, much less anyone elses !##
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Schneider
Nadig) wrote:
[snip]
> : Why aren't any of the top-ranking ARM-based chess programs available for the
> : Newton? It should be an easy port for you brilliant Newton programmers out there.
Chess algorithms are computationally expensive. There are a lot of layers
between us and the processor. This would be very difficult right now.
> I for one, would pay handsomely for even a mediocre chess game for newton.
> Heck, I'd probably pay for a board representation to run problems on
> without *any* algorithims....
>
There is just such a product in development -- I have a beta version. It
allows for either just dragging pieces (like a traveling chess set) or to
run problems/famous games right there, with commentary and analysis. It's
pretty wonderful. I'll try to remember to bring in the name of the guy
doing it Monday.
-des
______________________________________________________________________________
| [X] Standard "I'm often wrong, I speak for no one else, and I can't spel"
| disclaimer applies.
M. Lachman
In article <2nh5pm$l...@cs.umb.edu>, gr...@trantor.cc.umb.edu (H. Davis
Nadig) wrote:
[snip]
> : Why aren't any of the top-ranking ARM-based chess programs available for the
> : Newton? It should be an easy port for you brilliant Newton programmers out there.
> : >- Pat McCarthy
do...@holonet.net (Don Schneider) wrote in <dondo-010...@schneider-don.apple.com>:
:Chess algorithms are computationally expensive. There are a lot of layers
:between us and the processor. This would be very difficult right now.
The post did say "brilliant Newton programmers" i.e. those who would not
find it difficult to get the program only to look a few plys deep and to bypass
the character recognition mess in order to cut down on the number of layers.
(It would also help to do away with 3-D animation of the pieces.)
Milton
lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
Kevin Fox
Lachman) wrote:
> do...@holonet.net (Don Schneider) wrote in <dondo-010...@schneider-don.apple.com>:
>
> :Chess algorithms are computationally expensive. There are a lot of layers
> :between us and the processor. This would be very difficult right now.
>
> The post did say "brilliant Newton programmers" i.e. those who would not
> find it difficult to get the program only to look a few plys deep and to bypass
> the character recognition mess in order to cut down on the number of layers.
> (It would also help to do away with 3-D animation of the pieces.)
>
> Milton
> lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
Handwriting recognition and graphics aren't the problem, as they aren't
taking up processor time (or layers) when you're analyzing a move. The
problem lies in the fact that this is an interperted language. It looks to
me like Newton Chess will either have to wait for a faster processor, or
native mode compiling.
Does anyone know if any microchips have ever been designed specifically for
chess algorhythms? Putting one of these in a PCMCIA card along with a chess
program in ROM would be *very* interesting...
Kevin
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<< Kevin Fox >>
<< Paladin Sys. >>
<< kf...@ocf.berkeley.edu >>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark Eaton
: In article <2nh5pm$l...@cs.umb.edu>, gr...@trantor.cc.umb.edu (H. Davis
Porting a chess algorithm to the Newton is doable, but it would be extremely
slow (or dumb - you pick). As the previous poster said, there are currently
alot of layers between the programmer and the processor. Not handwriting
recognition, as you seem to think, but the fact that Newton programs are
written in NewtonScript - which is currently interpreted by the OS. Wait
until native code generation is possible with NTK...
: Milton
: lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark Eaton | MacXPerts - Custom Mac Software
ma...@infi.net | 3228L W. Cary St.
| Richmond, VA. 23221
| (804) 353-7122 FAX: (804) 358-3847
Milton Lachman
{
Handwriting recognition and graphics aren't the problem, as they aren't
taking up processor time (or layers) when you're analyzing a move. The
problem lies in the fact that this is an interperted language. It looks to
me like Newton Chess will either have to wait for a faster processor, or
native mode compiling.
Does anyone know if any microchips have ever been designed specifically for
chess algorhythms? Putting one of these in a PCMCIA card along with a chess
program in ROM would be *very* interesting...
}
Believe it or not, the ARM has instructions which one could say were designed w/
chess in mind. All instructions can be conditionally executed. All arithmetic ones
(except multiplication of course) can have a shift pre-applied to one register,
without needing an extra clock cycle to perform the shift. (Chess decision trees
have nodes which could be described as "conditionally executed code",
while power of 2 multiplication of variables is common. ) AFAIK the ARM is the
only RISC processor used in commercial chess products from Mephisto,
ChessMachine, and TASC. In terms of computational power (nodes/sec)
it is also the cheapest processor, RISC or CISC.
Milton
lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
Pulp & Paper Centre
Univ. of British Columbia
"In the age of Einstein, Newton has a lot of catching up to do."
Steve Klingsporn
that you could customize and initiate with different people different
chess games over NewtonMail. Would be easy to do. The soup entry you
send back and forth gets bigger with history information and grid status.
Steve
--
Steve Klingsporn moo...@apple.com
"If you reach for the heavens, you just might make it to the moon."
Disclaimer: My opinions only, I do not represent Apple Computer, Inc.
Milton Lachman
{
Porting a chess algorithm to the Newton is doable, but it would be extremely
slow (or dumb - you pick). As the previous poster said, there are currently
alot of layers between the programmer and the processor. Not handwriting
recognition, as you seem to think, but the fact that Newton programs are
written in NewtonScript - which is currently interpreted by the OS. Wait
until native code generation is possible with NTK...
}
Well, I was wary of buying a Newton, when I heard that there was no included
user programming language, which now seems to be "Newton Script." Which
leads to the following question: why is NTK sold as a "Developer's Toolkit"?
First, there seems to be no way of calling machine code subroutines.
Secondly, as you say, native code generation in not possible in NTK.
This is a pretty lame "Toolkit". Sounds more like you were sold a "Toybox."
There are already interpreted languages for the ARM that run from a command
line interface and allow you to call machine code subroutines, or even entire
programs masquerading as subroutines. One is BASIC which has a built-in
assembler, another is an object-oriented LISP. Newton Script sounds pathetic
in comparison. Although it's probably adequate as a user programming language,
I wouldn't want to develop serious applications with it.
Milton
lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
Pulp & Paper Centre
Faculty of Applied Science
University of British Columbia
Craig Richmond
Lachman) wrote:
> Well, I was wary of buying a Newton, when I heard that there was no included
> user programming language, which now seems to be "Newton Script." Which
> leads to the following question: why is NTK sold as a "Developer's Toolkit"?
> First, there seems to be no way of calling machine code subroutines.
> Secondly, as you say, native code generation in not possible in NTK.
> This is a pretty lame "Toolkit". Sounds more like you were sold a "Toybox."
The days of built in BASIC are gone (and a good thing too). Increasing
numbers of unix machines ship with no C compiler. The Newton is not
targeted as being a techno geeks plaything. Yes, a large number of the
people that rushed out and bought them were techno geeks, but that is
beside the point. The main market of the MessagePad was as a high end
personal organiser and it does an OK job at this particular task.
[step of marketing soapbox]
[step onto computer science ideology soapbox]
One of the nicest features of the Newton is that if tomorrow Apple
unexpectedly announce that there is a pentium powered Newton available that
has built in DSP's for voice recognition, there is a very good chance that
ANY program I have written will without the need for recompilation. And
any code that uses floating point will rush because there is now a built in
floating point unit.
There are a lot of benifits to abstraction. They are all down the track
and there are almost no visible benefits in the here and now. This is why
computer manufacturers have usually gone for the minimal interface to
implement their systems so that the full speed of the processor can be
available for the user tasks. It took the the 386 to make windows popular.
A task that the 68000 managed for the macintosh from day one. And there
was a very good reason that the original IBM went for text based displays.
80% of OS CPU time on the macintosh (approx 65% of run time in an average
program) is consumed doing screen display work.
> There are already interpreted languages for the ARM that run from a command
> line interface and allow you to call machine code subroutines, or even entire
> programs masquerading as subroutines. One is BASIC which has a built-in
> assembler, another is an object-oriented LISP. Newton Script sounds pathetic
> in comparison. Although it's probably adequate as a user programming language,
> I wouldn't want to develop serious applications with it.
The Newton is not an arm based machine!
Programming for Newton means writing programs to run under NewtonOS. They
have specifically made it impossible to get access to the internal hardware
of the Newton from Newtonscript (well my guess is that you can do it if you
know the magic incantation, but they're not telling) specifically so that
you must obey the rules and generate portable programs through no fault of
your own. With Apple's new focus on the PowerPC it would be reasonable to
expect to see a PowerPC Newton one day in a powerbook type configuration.
All the programs should (cross fingers) run on it with no modification.
The Newton is not a general purpose computer yet!
Craig
(Who thinks that Newtonscript is a very cool language)
--
Craig Richmond, Computer Officer, ECEL Computing Services +61 9 380 1405
The University of Western Australia or 380 3860 Email for FAX Number
cr...@ecel.uwa.edu.au Dvorak Keyboards RULE! "Messes are only acceptable
if users make them. Applications aren't allowed this freedom" I.M.VI 2-4
Dan Hildebrand
Surely a C compiler for the ARM chip can be found, and GNU chess easily
ported as a result? Does everything have to be written in Newtonscript?
--
Dan Hildebrand email: da...@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. QUICS: danh (613) 591-0934 (data)
(613) 591-0931 x204 (voice) mail: 175 Terence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8
Kent Sandvik
> line interface and allow you to call machine code subroutines, or even entire
> programs masquerading as subroutines. One is BASIC which has a built-in
> assembler, another is an object-oriented LISP. Newton Script sounds pathetic
> in comparison. Although it's probably adequate as a user programming language,
> I wouldn't want to develop serious applications with it.
I would suggest to try to write a serious application before uttering
statements. It' really pretty lame to complain unless you have a serious
point. I don't complain about Visual Basic because I've never written
an application using this environment.
I'm sure assembler is the future of programming languages... WordPerfect
also thought this was the case.
--Kent
--
Kent Sandvik
san...@apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
Craig Richmond
(Kent Sandvik) wrote:
> I would suggest to try to write a serious application before uttering
> statements. It' really pretty lame to complain unless you have a serious
> point. I don't complain about Visual Basic because I've never written
> an application using this environment.
You're so nice Kent. Me, I complain about Visual Basic on principles but
that's because Microsoft write it and I have a problem with Microsoft :-)
Ignore the facts!
> I'm sure assembler is the future of programming languages... WordPerfect
> also thought this was the case.
The WriteNow people still do :-) Their only claim to fame is that Writenow
is probably the fastest Word Processor on the mac. Look what ASM has done
for them.
Craig
P. Douglas Reeder
Milton Lachman <lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca> wrote:
:assembler, another is an object-oriented LISP. Newton Script sounds pathetic
:in comparison. Although it's probably adequate as a user programming language,
:I wouldn't want to develop serious applications with it.
So, do you think all applications for the Newton are not "serious
applications"? They're all written in NewtonScript, including the built-in
applications. (Aside from a few routines in C.)
Doug Reeder Internet: ree...@reed.edu USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
reeder := {_proto: protoHomoSapiens, _parent: |Paul&Janet|,
viewChildren: nil, stepChildren: nil,
study: func(money,effort) self.education:= self.education+money*effort }
--
Doug Reeder Internet: ree...@reed.edu USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
reeder := {_proto: protoHomoSapiens, _parent: |Paul&Janet|,
viewChildren: nil, stepChildren: nil,
study: func(money,effort) self.education:= self.education+money*effort }
Milton Lachman
{
I'm sure assembler is the future of programming languages... WordPerfect
also thought this was the case.
}
I'm sure interpeted languages ( esp. that cannot call machine code subroutines)
are the future of programming languages.... Apple "Computers" seem to think so.
You lost a sale of a Newton by not providing a user programming
environment as standard. I'm now glad I did not buy one when Newtons
1st came out. It now seems that you do not even provide your developers
with decent tools to work with. There are 2 things I'd like to see on a
Newton: a good chess program and intelligent software for music scoring.
If they are forced to run in an interpreted language, I doubt if they'll ever
happen.
Milton
lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
Pulp & Paper Centre
Univ. of British Columbia
"You are what you sing..."
Milton Lachman
:I wouldn't want to develop serious applications with it.
ree...@reed.edu (P. Douglas Reeder) writes :
{
So, do you think all applications for the Newton are not "serious
applications"? They're all written in NewtonScript, including the built-in
applications. (Aside from a few routines in C.)
}
Ideally, my preference is for compiled languages over interpreted ones
that do not let you run machine code routines. So, just how does the Newton
run the "few routines" that were written in C? If it can run a few small routines,
then it should be able to run one large one, e.g. a chess program.
There are many small programs which play a good game (USCF 2000+) and
only need 64K (RAM+ROM). Some would have been an easy port for a Newton
developer, but not with the development tools that you were given, it seems.
I think chess is a "serious" application. Intel have even said so as well. They
are also sponsoring the Professional Chess Association. Maybe Newton
Script is the best of all languages for typical applications, but I would not want
to use an interpreted language w/no recourse to machine code for chess, let alone
a power spectrum analyser, which I just finished for an ARM600-based embedded
controller.
Milton
lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
Pulp & Paper Centre
Milton Lachman
{
The Newton is not an arm based machine!
Programming for Newton means writing programs to run under NewtonOS. They
have specifically made it impossible to get access to the internal hardware
of the Newton from Newtonscript (well my guess is that you can do it if you
know the magic incantation, but they're not telling) specifically so that
you must obey the rules and generate portable programs through no fault of
your own. With Apple's new focus on the PowerPC it would be reasonable to
expect to see a PowerPC Newton one day in a powerbook type configuration.
All the programs should (cross fingers) run on it with no modification.
}
At first I was going to ignore your post, but I think I know what you're saying:
'The Newton is a processor-independant machine' is what you're implying.
So if Apple decides to come out with a NewtonOS for its PowerMac, there should
be as few problems as possible. I heard rumours about such a thing recently, but
I took it as a joke, and I myself was guilty of making fun of it in one of my posts.
Powerbook Newton, though? I haven't even heard anything about a Powerbook PowerMac!
{
The Newton is not a general purpose computer yet!
}
The most informative post I've read today!
Milton
lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca
Pulp & Paper Centre
Craig Richmond
Lachman) wrote:
> At first I was going to ignore your post, but I think I know what
> you're saying:
>
> 'The Newton is a processor-independant machine' is what you're implying.
>So if Apple decides to come out with a NewtonOS for its PowerMac, there should
>be as few problems as possible.I heard rumours about such a thing recently, but
>I took it as a joke, and I myself was guilty of making fun of it in one of my >posts. Powerbook Newton, though? I haven't even heard anything about a
>Powerbook PowerMac!
The developer community would kill for an arbitrary size, MacNewton or
PCNewton that runs in a window on your Macintosh. You could even forego
the handwriting input and just type into boxes. To be able to program for
it and not have to have it there with you would be great.
Also just for people who want the features that the Newton provides like
integration of names, to do lists etc. It would be really cool.
Also, expect to see PowerPC macintosh Powerbooks in 6-12 month timeframe
and you will be able to upgrade the 040 powerbooks that are released on May
16th (well that is what we were told for Australia) to PowerPC as a user
operation.
Consider the Powerbook Newton to be the A4 sized newton that has been in
the rumourmill since the day the Newton was released.
Craig
Greg Friedman
: san...@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
: {
: I'm sure assembler is the future of programming languages... WordPerfect
: also thought this was the case.
: }
: I'm sure interpeted languages ( esp. that cannot call machine code subroutines)
: are the future of programming languages.... Apple "Computers" seem to think so.
: You lost a sale of a Newton by not providing a user programming
: environment as standard. I'm now glad I did not buy one when Newtons
: 1st came out. It now seems that you do not even provide your developers
: with decent tools to work with. There are 2 things I'd like to see on a
: Newton: a good chess program and intelligent software for music scoring.
: If they are forced to run in an interpreted language, I doubt if they'll ever
: happen.
What is the thinking behind this? You think that the fact that a language
is interpreted makes it impractical? That's a bunch of baloney. I think
we are on an obvious trend towards intrerpreted object oriented languages.
Newtonscript is a step in the right direction. From what I've read,
Telescript is also going to be an interpreted language. Think about
it. You end up with a more secure platform when an interpreter layer
exists between code or scripts and the cpu. The problem right now
is not the fact that the language is interpreted, it's the speed
of the cpu. I think the entire Newton experience, not just the
hypothetical chess software, would benefit from a speedier
processor.
Greg.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Greg Friedman - - internet: frie...@netcom.com -
- Sentient Software - - voice: (415) 595-2523 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bailey
Lachman) wrote:
> san...@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> I'm sure interpeted languages ( esp. that cannot call machine code subroutines)
> are the future of programming languages.... Apple "Computers" seem to think so.
>
> You lost a sale of a Newton by not providing a user programming
> environment as standard. I'm now glad I did not buy one when Newtons
> 1st came out. It now seems that you do not even provide your developers
> with decent tools to work with. There are 2 things I'd like to see on a
> Newton: a good chess program and intelligent software for music scoring.
> If they are forced to run in an interpreted language, I doubt if they'll ever
> happen.
You should at least get a demo of the language before you flame. Languages
like NewtonScript are the future of applications programming (just don't
ask me when :-). NewtonScript allows incredibly rapid development of
serious business applications and a lot of other types of applications that
don't require a lot of number crunching or iteration on data (before you
flame I realize that many business apps require loads of number crunching
too). Apple will have to release a compiler sometime soon because not
everything can be done with newtonscript on the current generation of
hardware. But probably more for device driver stuff more than for chess
programs. Some of us are happy that Apple hasn't released a compiler yet
since it guarantees that programmers will at least give NewtonScript a
chance before going the C/C++ route.
--
Jim Bailey
InterNet: j...@tiac.net
NewtMail: jdb (j...@eworld.com)
Paul R. Potts
> : I'm sure interpeted languages ( esp. that cannot call machine code subroutines)
This is, of course, baloney. Much of the code that NewtonScript calls
is "native" (not interpreted NewtonScript). Whether it was compiled from
C++ or built in ARM 610 assembly language is immaterial. At the development
conference we were shown a demo of interpreted NewtonScript calling
compiled
NewtonScript routines.
Theoretically at least, NewtonScript should be able to call code written
in any language, as long as there is a mechanism to make these routines
visible, and appropriate methods for passing parameters and receiving
return results in a form that NewtonScript can understand.
--
The opinions masquerading as facts in the above message are my own and
don't necessarily represent those of my employer, Pharos Technologies
Paul R. Potts
> I don't complain about Visual Basic because I've never written
> an application using this environment.
I have, so...
AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Ahem.
-Paul-
Don Schneider
Milton, you're being a little rabid, aren't you? You seem to have decided
that a handheld device going for $600 is complete garbage because it
doesn't allow assembly programming. Fine; leave us alone.
I don't agree with you.
Calling the Messagepad "The Newton" is a misnomer. "The Newton" is an
operating system. Apple chose to emphasize hardware compatibility over raw
processing power. This does not mean that the Newton Operating System is
being ported onto the PowerPC -- though I suppose it could be (or possibly
is being). What it does mean is that it can be ported to new hardware...
and then my applications, without a byte changed, will run on that hardware
too. I think that's a good thing.
There are problem domains for which the NewtonOS would be a poor choice.
For example, a power spectrum analyser would not run very quickly in any
interpreted language. Probably not real time. Guess what? That wasn't
one of the problems Apple had in mind for the device.
That said, I must mention that I agree with many of the issues you've
raised. It would be wonderful to be able to call code, even assembler
code, which was written outside of the NTK environment. However, I would
have to recognize that in doing so I would be sacrificing the portability
which may turn out to be one of the biggest strengths of the OS. Apple
wants to discourage this initially, and are doing so by making it
impossible. Still, I can think of applications for which it would be nice
-- if, for example, I wanted a pen-based interface to a power spectrum
analyzer. Or to have a chess opponent on my MessagePad. If the Newton
catches fire, I would be surprised if this sort of feature were NOT
available one day.
Interestingly, Apple is actively working to extend their language support
such that specific parts of a NewtonScript application could be compiled
into the native assembler on the machine on which the application is run.
So, if I choose to compile a time critical piece of my application, I will
one day be able to. Both the native assembler version (possibly many
native assembler versions, one for each supported CPU), and the
interpretable byte-code version of any such routine will be available.
This preserves the portability of the application, but of course may
sacrifice its utility on a new platform, and may grossly pad the size of
the application. (It seems that Apple cherishes portability over the
ability to write a spectrum analyzer, alas.)
Ideologically speaking, there will always be a tension between portability
and raw processing power. As I see it, the overall trend in the field has
been towards portability. There are very few important (and I apologize
ahead of time if that pisses anyone off; I mean specifically important to
the consumer market) applications written in assembler -- I know of only
one, and they are in beeeg trouble as the hardware platforms for which it
was written are becoming obsolete. Indeed, the recent surge towards object
oriented design is also a sacrifice of power for (putatively) faster
implementation (or more maintainability or whatever). Point being that
compatibility and time to market are more important to the industry than
they used to be; and frequently processing power is sacrificed at the altar
of these new forces. Ideally, there would be a way to choose your god;
unfortunately, the NewtonOS does not yet allow you to do this. But it is a
young operating system, and already Apple is extending its pantheon.
I would be a little reluctant to condemn it, half a year into its
existence, because it can't play chess against me.
Don Schneider
> Surely a C compiler for the ARM chip can be found, and GNU chess easily
> ported as a result? Does everything have to be written in Newtonscript?
> --
Newton except in Newtonscript.
Note that this thread has branched into a "Re: computer science ideology;
was chess" thread instead. We should probably continue this discussion
there (I spewed a far-too-long diatribe there already).
On a brighter topic, there will be a chess game available for the Newton
probably within a month. It is written in Newtonscript, which we have
established is an interpreted language, and therefore can be quite pokey.
The game will not provide a computer opponent.
It supports en passant, pawn promotion, and castling. It has a built in
chess clock.
It does not verify the legality of moves, which is a Feature because it
allows you to quickly set up board problems if you wish.
In addition to providing a portable chess set, it allows the installation
of famous chess games and a large number of predefined chess problems, with
accompanying commentary and solutions.
For more information, you can contact:
David Lane
Clear Lake Research
2476 Bolsover, Suite 343
Houston, TX 77005
713/242-3494
Davi...@AOL.COM
I hope this blatant advertisement doesn't irritate anyone; I hesitated to
post it, but people were starting to e-mail me for the info. Just for the
record, I have no personal stake in the product.
-des
______________________________________________________________________________
| [X] Standard "I'm often wrong, I speak for no one else, and I can't spel"
| disclaimer applies. [Oh no! I'm speaking for David Lane RIGHT NOW!]
Kent Borg
>that a handheld device going for $600 is complete garbage because it
Reality check time--this is not a criticism on the arguments in
progress, just something for us to remember in general as we try to
understand the Newton and the world.
Recently I have, for some reason, had a rash of people asking me about
my Newton. They all thought it was pretty cool, even the ones who
gave the "I'm not very good with computers"-disclaimer. They each
also asked how much it cost. Each time I lied, gave the new reduced
price and left out the cost of flash card, Connection Kit, etc.--
generally acting like a salescritter doing everything I could to make
it sound good.
Each time I got a dropped jaw. They were amazed. They were not
nerds, they were not amazed at how cheap, they we stunned at how
expensive.
We now return to the regularly scheduled interpreted/compiled wars...
-kb, the occasionally real Kent
--
Kent Borg H: +1 (617) 776-6899
kent...@world.std.com W: +1 (508) 250-5407
kent...@aol.com Fax: +1 (508) 250-5400
Proud to claim 22:45 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!
William Kearney
: In article <dondo-120...@schneider-don.apple.com> do...@holonet.net (Don Schneider) writes:
: >that a handheld device going for $600 is complete garbage because it
: Each time I got a dropped jaw. They were amazed. They were not
: nerds, they were not amazed at how cheap, they we stunned at how
: expensive.
You know, this is amazing. I mean, who'd want to pay $600 for a 20mHz,
RISC, pen-based, object OS, serial port, card slot, IR and built-in
network software driven computer.
Sheez, this thing is CHEAP! Compared to what you'd have to add to ANY
kind of desktop machine to get all this, it's REALLY inexpensive.
Ah well, non-believers be damned. I like it, I make money with it and I
dont care if it doesn't work for others.
Bill
--
| Bill Kearney | wkea...@access.digex.net |
| Baltimore, MD USA | 410-235-4574 |
This random quote brought to you by fortune:
The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey.
-- Andy Warhol
John G. Scudder
William Kearney <wkea...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
[...]
>You know, this is amazing. I mean, who'd want to pay $600 for a 20mHz,
>RISC, pen-based, object OS, serial port, card slot, IR and built-in
>network software driven computer.
Not me, that's for sure. I'd pay $600 for some of the things I might
be able to DO with it, but I won't pay a dime merely for the list you
have above. Neither will most smart consumers, because they want to
buy a FUNCTION, not a list of way cool pieces-parts. Everything you
listed _enables_ cool applications. You didn't list one single cool
application, though.
>Sheez, this thing is CHEAP! Compared to what you'd have to add to ANY
>kind of desktop machine to get all this, it's REALLY inexpensive.
[...]
The comparison to a desktop machine is invalid. For example, I can't
use my Messagepad as a word processor, because it lacks a big screen
and keyboard. This doesn't make the MP worse than my desktop box, just
different. You have to find the object (or objects) which the MP is
expected to replace if you want to make a comparison. The object most
often pointed to by most folks is a paper datebook. By that metric,
the MP is jolly well NOT cheap.
The MP is judged, by most people, on its cost vs. (perceived)
function. Not on gosh-wow techno-stuff. When it's compared to a pad
of paper, the MP is pretty expensive. Sure, it does more, but Newtons
sell (or not) to most folks based on their functionality, not on
laundry lists of nuts, bolts and user-invisible OS features like the
one above.
Disclaimer: Hey, _I_ bought one.
Followups to comp.sys.newton.misc.
--John Scudder
Dan Hildebrand
Kent Sandvik <san...@newton.apple.com> wrote:
>In article <2o8d84$k...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton
>Lachman) wrote:
>
>> There are already interpreted languages for the ARM that run from a command
>> line interface and allow you to call machine code subroutines, or even entire
>> programs masquerading as subroutines. One is BASIC which has a built-in
>> assembler, another is an object-oriented LISP. Newton Script sounds pathetic
>> in comparison. Although it's probably adequate as a user programming language,
>> I wouldn't want to develop serious applications with it.
>
>I would suggest to try to write a serious application before uttering
>statements. It' really pretty lame to complain unless you have a serious
>point. I don't complain about Visual Basic because I've never written
>an application using this environment.
What development tools should I use to port the TCP/IP protocol suite to the
Newton? :-)
Kent Sandvik
Lachman) wrote:
>
> You lost a sale of a Newton by not providing a user programming
> environment as standard. I'm now glad I did not buy one when Newtons
> 1st came out. It now seems that you do not even provide your developers
> with decent tools to work with. There are 2 things I'd like to see on a
> Newton: a good chess program and intelligent software for music scoring.
> If they are forced to run in an interpreted language, I doubt if they'll ever
> happen.
There is at least one of them on the market. Personally I think it's
better for third parties to provide all kinds of end user programming
interfaces, than we mess with that.
I'm not sure about us messing with developer tools, you know I sit
at the end of the spider web as a tech lead for dev. support, and we
do have all kinds of tool problems, that's sure. But I have not seen
a huge wave of angry emails complaining about tools so far.
I would like to know more facts about your claim that the Newton
tools suck. Could you specify the technical details why they are
bad, we want such feedback so we could improve the tools, thx?
Kevin Fox
> In article <sandvik-10...@17.205.4.47>,
> Kent Sandvik <san...@newton.apple.com> wrote:
> >In article <2o8d84$k...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, lac...@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton
> >Lachman) wrote:
> >
> >> There are already interpreted languages for the ARM that run from a command
> >> line interface and allow you to call machine code subroutines, or even entire
> >> programs masquerading as subroutines. One is BASIC which has a built-in
> >> assembler, another is an object-oriented LISP. Newton Script sounds pathetic
> >> in comparison. Although it's probably adequate as a user programming language,
> >> I wouldn't want to develop serious applications with it.
> >
> >I would suggest to try to write a serious application before uttering
> >statements. It' really pretty lame to complain unless you have a serious
> >point. I don't complain about Visual Basic because I've never written
> >an application using this environment.
>
> What development tools should I use to port the TCP/IP protocol suite to the
> Newton? :-)
As I understand it, Wayfarer Communications is already doing much of the
work of porting TCP/IP to the newton. You may want to get them to send you
their literature. They're located in Mountain View, CA, and can be reached
at 415 903-1720. They also have a 'link account at WAYFARER.
I've seen some tools they're working on, and while they require a server
running on a Windows NT, they still look impressive, incorporating internet
access, full eMail integration, and SQL database access, for example.