HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:17:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <jimf.714924310@centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com
(Jim Frost) writes:

>lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>
>>A silly remark that doesn't answer the question.  This is a major ugly
>>feature of the language: all internal procedures have to come first, and
>>when they reference each other, a kludge is needed to pull it off.
>
>That's what happens when you have type-safe languages.  You'll find
>that predeclaration is also necessary in most other type-safe
>languages.  It's true, it's to help out the compiler.  So what?

     This is part of the HLL zealots' argument that I've always had
trouble with.  Supposedly the purpose of a high-level language is
to allow you to write your code in a straightforward way that
readily illustrates the structure of your application.  If we're
supposed to be free from picky internal details, why then do we
have to write things in an unnatural order just to satisfy the
compiler?  Even most assemblers don't require you to perform such
mental gymnastics.  If top-down organization is as good as people
say it is, why do we have to write our programs bottom-up?  (You
can always tell C code that was written by a Pascalite or Moduloid -
it's upside-down.)  If these compilers are so damn smart, they
should be able to figure it out for themselves.

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
"I'm cursed with hair from HELL!"  -- Night Court
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: dafuller@sequent.com (David Fuller)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 05:17:40 GMT

>
>      switch (x) {
>      case 1:
>         if (x<y) {
>            z;
>         case 2:
>            u;
>         }
>      }
>
>

Well, this thread certainly suffers from wretched excess in the face
of no real problem statement.

Some observations:

1) While there are limits to genius, there is no limit to stupidity. (?)
   (There is no underestimating the ingenuity of the stupid.)

2) Make things simple.  But no simpler (Einstein).

   - If 3 lines of assembler will cut the problem in half, DO IT and
     DOCUMENT IT.  If it ties you to an architecture then you deserve
     to be pilloried.

   - I just got done documenting a case where a prospective customer
     did a most elegant job of turning another vendor's UNIX systems
     into a proprietary environment.  And not one single line of 
     assembler.  All C++.  But just as wedged as you'd be porting an
     Atari 800 video game to an IBM 3270-based MVS environment.  (What 
     do you MEAN the 3270 can't deal with sprites?)

3) Handing a C compiler to an unprepared programmer is closely akin 
   to handing a running buzzsaw to a 3 year old.  Ugly.  Messy.  Probably
   tragic.

4) Programmers don't create structures for themselves; they do it for
   others.  After 6 months, you might as well become someone else when
   you're debugging your own bad code.

Suggest that those with a proclivity to being pendantic chill out and
read something refreshing, like "Are Your Lights On?" by Gause and
Weinberg.  I mean really.  Get a grip, folks.  Master as many tools as
you need and use them wisely.  
-- 
Dave Fuller		 	All opinions expressed are my own and not
Sequent Computer Systems	those of Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
dafuller@sequent.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Subject: Re: You know when you're hacking too long
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 06:04:00 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand

parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry) writes:

> Jeremy Lawrence (jeremy@snrc.uow.edu.au) wrote:
> 
> > New Zealand MacDs have a vegetarian burger on the menu. Why anyone
> > interested in healty food would eat at MacDs is beyond me, though.
> 
> Many people eat vegetarian for moral reasons, not health.

Okay. Why anyone interested in morally-correct food would eat at MacDs is
beyond me.

						- k
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 63 3551342
"Jub'f Xvob?"
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: James Peters <peters@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Need To Get In Touch With These People
Originator: peters@mikey.convex.com
Reply-To: peters@convex.COM (James Peters)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 17:56:28 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Sep1.152241.23066@lth.se> d89cb@efd.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) writes:
>Hi!
>
>I am in dire need to get in touch with a few Celebrities from the
>history of computers. If anyone knows how to get in touch with either
>of these people, be it email, snailmail, phone, fax or basically any
>form of communication, please send me email (or just reply to this
>posting).
>
>The reason I need to get in touch with these people is the following:
>10 years ago, in 1982, Lund Institute of Technology had its first
>batch of Computer Science/Computer Engineering students -- and the
>D section (_D_atateknik == CS/CE) was born.
>This year, to celebrate this marvelous event, the D section is going
>to have a number of events, among which are a computer games
>exhibition, a vendor fair, and -- hopefully -- a series of seminars
>held by people who have had significant influence on the development
>of computers. We came up with the following names, and now need to get
>in touch with them. (If you have any further suggestions, feel free to
>suggest :)
>
>Here's the list:
>
>Name					Reason
>=================================	======================================
>Brian Kernighan				C, unix
>Dennis M Ritchie			C, unix
>Ken Thompson				C, unix
>Bjarne Stroustrup			C++

from finger foo@research.att.com:
"If you want to send mail to someone at AT&T,
address your mail using the following format:
firstname.lastname@att.com"

>Seymour Cray				Cray (leather sofa)

email is probably of the form s?c@craycos.com where ? is seymour's middle
initial. address is cray computer corp, colorado springs, co 80935.

>Richard M Stallman			Emacs, FSF, GNU

name: Stallman,  Richard M
email: RMS@AI.MIT.EDU                                           
phone: (617) 253-8830
address: NE43-430
department: A I Lab
title: Research Affiliate
alias: R-stallman

regards,
james, peters@convex.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:17:59 GMT

lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>The assembler solution is
>to admit to a restriction, and depend on programmer competence to avoid the
>mathematical pitfalls of the limitation should it apply, or to provide
>safeguards such as safety conditionals around the code to force errors should
>the code be unworkable.

This is precisely why assembler is not a good choice for large
programming projects.

Not all programmers are always competant, and you don't always have
the time to safeguard against stupidity or ignorance.  Even the
simplest error checking provided by compilers tends to eliminate many
forms of programmer incompetance.  This is one of the primary reasons
why Brooks of _Mythical Man Month_ fame feels that HLL's are the way
to go most of the time.

Happy hacking,

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:18:54 GMT

In article <14644@mindlink.bc.ca> Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs) writes:

>>languages.  It's true, it's to help out the compiler.  So what?
>
>     This is part of the HLL zealots' argument that I've always had
>trouble with.  Supposedly the purpose of a high-level language is
>to allow you to write your code in a straightforward way that
>readily illustrates the structure of your application.  If we're
>supposed to be free from picky internal details, why then do we
>have to write things in an unnatural order just to satisfy the
>compiler?  Even most assemblers don't require you to perform such
>mental gymnastics.  If top-down organization is as good as people
>say it is, why do we have to write our programs bottom-up?  (You
>can always tell C code that was written by a Pascalite or Moduloid -
>it's upside-down.)  If these compilers are so damn smart, they
>should be able to figure it out for themselves.

*ALL* compilers used to be smart, but the tendency today is to write "cheap"
compilers.  IF you can bend the spec of the language so the compiler can do
it in one pass (or less passes) you make the programmer work harder.  This
is the current philosophy, used to be quite different :-(.

BTW, in MS-DOS, some people use MASM.  To help make the code shorter, people
have to start their code with an unconditional branch to the "real" start
address of the program, because the data follows said instruction.

The reason for this is that that jmp instruction winds up being a wasteful
long form jump because it is a forward reference, a concept meaningful
only in inadequate pass languages.  Since it doesn't know whether it needs
an extra byte or not, it includes one :-(.

Then, the bulk of the data follows, so that references to it will get the
benefit of short address calculations and thus less bytes and faster code
to access them.  If the programmer were allowed to order the program as
would make any functional sense out of it, all of the code gets longer and
slower, not just that unavoidable first jmp with either a longform or wasteful
NOP in it :-(.

So, even though this is assembler, it has the problem of shaping the program
to the constraints of a poorly written language, not the application 
requirements or programmer's preference, etc.  BTW, MASM is written in C.

cjl (MS-DOS development without the benefit of Microsoft: DR-DOS and Borland
languages)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Better dead than IBM?
From: pgut1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:07:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland

Imagine Deep Thought from HHGTG saying this -

"The Incorruptible Brotherhood of Machines".
--
      pgut1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz || peterg@kcbbs.gen.nz || peter@nacjack.gen.nz
	    or sling a bottle in the ocean - it'd be about as reliable
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:18:17 GMT
 om> <5242@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU><jimf.714688451@centerline.com><ALANB.92Au
 g26114710@tornado.sdl.mdcbbs.com><jimf.714839084@centerline.com>
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: jimf@centerline.com's message of Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:24:44 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:24:44 GMT, jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) said:

> alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) writes:
>>However, a human can also not save a register which _is_ used if he knows
>>the function being called won't touch it. Whether this is worth the
>>maintenance problems caused is another question...

> Oh, you're thinking of caller-saved calling conventions.  Most new
> compilers (read: RISC compilers) have the callee save the registers
> since the callee knows whether or not it's going to use them.  This is
> much more efficient (as you might imagine).

> I haven't used a compiler that had caller-saved calling conventions in
> several years; I'd forgotten that most CISC compilers did it that way.

Good point - I'd forgotten that because I let the compiler worry about
which way round this works (and last worried on an old machine).
Make that "The human can not save a register which is used if he knows the
limited set of functions which call this one weren't using it before".
Even less benefit, and even more maintenance hassle.
--
Alan Braggins, Shape Data (A Division of EDS Ltd), Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
 "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: Flash illiteracy; was: Re: Deutsches Museum (was: Zuse Computers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.033942.2502@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>, 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes...
>In article <1856@adagio.UUCP> grog@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.040325.14733@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>>I have been asked whether one needs flash to photograph a solar eclipse.
>>
>>Of course. You need to fill in the details in the shadow. Of course,
>>you also need to consider a couple of technical problems:
>>
>>1. You will need a very bright flash
>>2. Flash should be set to fire 2.5 seconds before shutter opens.
> 
>Oh?  I've got very good results with a flash which fires 16 minutes
>before the shutter opens....  Light is not instantaneous you know..

	Even more difficult. If you want to get the stars in the picture,
	you must also fire up your flash from 8 years to ??? years before
	for each star you wish to include.

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   
    2929 South Ellis Avenue        | \|_)  Psychiatry is the care of the id by
    Chicago, Illinois 60616           |_)  the odd. - Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (Paul Hutmacher)
Subject: Re: Coke machine at CMU
Organization: Greater Montrose UFO Appreciation Society & Data Haven
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:36:44 GMT

In article <87501@netnews.upenn.edu> jarnot@kin.lap.upenn.edu (Kevin J. Jarnot) writes:
>I have recently heard of a Coke machine at CMU that is connected to the 
>Internet.  Anyone have the whole story???

I'd like the ip address so I could ftp a Coke or something.


-- 
"There is nothing to history.  No progress,          | Paul Hutmacher 
 no justice. There is nothing but random horror."    | Houston, Texas
"Jupiter" in _The Difference Engine_ Gibson/Sterling | paul@xcluud.sccsi.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:53:07 GMT

In article <1hWg3m#4Vl3RN4DjxvS3d3FGK4Nt5RG=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>In <1992Aug21.005159.23792@news.eng.convex.com> Tom Christiansen wrote:
>> What ridiculous, self-serving, patently false elitism!  There are
>> innumerable programmers who write only in HLLs, get their jobs done, and
>> go home.  If we were all forced to use assembler, much less programming
>> would get done.  That's what compilers are for.
>
>Well said, Tom.
>
>For the record, here's at least one programmer fluent in several assemblers
>who agrees with you.  I think there's some truth to Mr. Lasner's claim that
>learning assembler *improves* one's HLL, but characterizing anyone who
>doesn't know assembler at all as incompetent is absurd.
>-- 
>					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>

OK, we all know that there is a segment of our industry cranking out poor
HLL code, and there is another segment doing a better job.  Anyone want to
counter the statement that *most* of those in the first segment are also
somehow good assembly programmers?  Let me be the first :-).

If my remark is so self-serving, then let me see either of you defend how
ignorance of assembler helps your hll skills.

cjl


Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:38:15 GMT

samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) writes:

>air, but since everyone is asking: the original (late-night) thought
>was that the hll was the chainsaw (less effort for the result but  
>a less precise result) and vice versa.  Others may differ.  8-)

Of course - a chainsaw will cut down a mighty oak a lot faster than a
scalpel, just as you can code a gigantic project such as a GIS (wonder
why I choose that as an example?) that has to run on every platform
around a lot faster in an hll than in assembler.  A scalpel is better
for surgery than a chainsaw (usually), assembler is better for bit
twiddling and non-portable applications that need to be fast/small.

The code I write has to work on 5 or 6 Unix platforms, plus VMS (and
eventually? OS/2?, Windows? Pink?).  The thought of having to do that in
assembler gives me the heebee-jeebees.

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
Zen T-Shirt: Enlightenment Available - Enquire Within
 -- Paul Gillingwater (Paul.Gillingwater@actrix.gen.nz) on rec.humor.funny
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13067 alt.religion.computers:551
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Good source code to read?
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:20:19 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <17ds12INNf9c@rodan.UU.NET> avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov) writes:
> I don't agree because there are simple examples of practically
> insolvable problems (like factoring of large prime numbers).

So what did you want, Vadim? Are you saying that something isn't a
halting-decision routine unless it magically speeds up difficult
computations? It's patently obvious that such routines don't exist: a
halt-decision program will take *at least* as much time on the average
as the programs you give it as input.

The interesting practical question is whether you can, with your
compiler's help, detect loops in real programs without wasting too much
*extra* time. The answer is yes.

---Dan
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Computer games as marketing gag
From: ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:00:11 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

I just found a nice marketing gag in a heat exchanger design program
package sold by Alfa- Laval, a manufacturer of plate and spiral heat
exchangers:

A version of Pakman in which you turn shell and tube heat exchangers (an
older type not sold by A-L) into plate or spiral heat exchangers.

Is that a first, or has somebody come up with that kind of idea before?
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz, ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Indentation
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:25:45 GMT

In article <BEVAN.92Aug29165714@tiger.cs.man.ac.uk>, bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen
J Bevan) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug28.211538.841@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill
|>Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>   In article <BEVAN.92Aug27194834@tiger.cs.man.ac.uk>, I write :
|>   J Bevan) writes:
|>   |>In article <Q8E6H9J@math.fu-berlin.de> weberwu@inf.fu-berlin.de (Debora
|>   |>Weber-Wulff) writes:
|>   |>   So adding your little hack just
|>   |>   blows apart all the mathematics you might be able to use in the
|>   |>   proof of correctness.
|>   |>
|>   |>Maybe so, but if you're not going to allow the lexer to count, then
|>   |>you won't be able to track the line/column and give any reasonable
|>   |>error message.
|>
|>   Maybe so?... Absolutely not!
|>
|>   If you are going to prove a compiler correct there are much more
|>   serious problems than minor  twiddling to the lexical analyser.
|>
|>Agreed.  Given that DWW is no fool, I assumed that what was meant was
|>that _some particular mathematical technique_ that fell apart, not
|>proofs in general.  Maybe I assumed too much and DWW was wrong; only
|>DWW knows ...

Actualy *every* language that requires variables to be declared before use is
context sensitive and cannot be parsed using an LR(1) parser. There are
(obvious) standard hacks for this though.



--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: steffen@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Apple /// (and MANY other computers)
Keywords: antique
Date: 28 Aug 1992 14:48:52 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx

In article <kenm.8@compctr.ccs.csus.edu> kenm@compctr.ccs.csus.edu (Ken Montgomery) writes:
>
>	The Apple /// post really just prompted me ask if there are any
>other (crazy) persons such as myself who collect 'antique' microcomputers.

As I posted last time this topic came up, I have a relatively modest
collection of "antique" micros, and the collection of the same is of
great interest to me.  I wonder if there is some way to set up some
kind of archive/newsgroup/mailing-list/club of antique computer
collectors?




-- 
David Steffen
Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX 77030
Telephone = (713) 798-6655, FAX = (713) 790-0545
Internet = steffen@bcm.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Indentation
From: don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes)
Date: 3 Sep 92 09:26:11 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Wolery

phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips) writes:
> However, where a clean functional split can be made, it is better to
> have two neighbouring procedures than one monolithic.  Recent case in
> point:  

Yup.  Sounds like we're on about the same wavelength.

I find that the split should depend a lot on how much state you have to 
carry around in common variables.  If your procedures are referring to 
all data in commons, then you probably should be combining them into a
monolithic lump.  

Your typical commercial program (eg invoice printers, other boring stuff)
should generally be a monolithic lump too, since it basically consists of
one loop, with separate procedures only created where code would otherwise
be repeated.  

> >Actually, I often find an assembly dump of a misbehaving program useful
> >(assuming I know the assembly language of the machine I'm debugging on); it
> >can reveal errors in assumptions about things that have been hidden by all
> >the unnecessary abstraction in modern languages.... 
> 
> I do more than half my coding in 6502 assembly language.  Reason is speed:

There was a time when I could read 6502 hex dumps, and found typing the
code in hex faster than coding in assembly (and BASIC buzzing on the 
keyboard buffer and flashing the cursor was Too Slow).  But nobody's paying
me to write 6502 any more, and I haven't written any serious 6502 for six
years.  I still write quite a bit of VAX MACRO (and to quite good effect).

--
Don Stokes, ZL2TNM (DS555)                        don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (home)
Network Manager, Computing Services Centre            don@vuw.ac.nz (work)
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand              +64-4-495-5052
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13522 comp.unix.misc:3479