HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:18:55 GMT
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <jimf.715446707@centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>
>Sure, but he can have a Mac II binary in a few minutes.

On some Macs I've seen, it takes a few minutes just to *load* in the program
after it's created each and every time :-).

cjl
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Itty Bitty Machines (was: Better dead than IBM)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:10:18 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

In article <1992Aug28.131215.6689@sei.cmu.edu>
ae@sei.cmu.edu (Arthur Evans) writes:
>
>    Itsy Bitsy Machine

The first personal computer store in Evanston was the Itty Bitty Machine
Company, named, clearly, after that other, somewhat larger company with
the same initials.  Does anyone know what became of it?  It got into
business in the very early years of the S-100 era, if I remember
correctly.
				Doug Jones
				jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From: person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person )
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: CyC project
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:46:55 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <BERRY.92Aug25155608@athos.pei.com> berry@pei.com writes:

>This of course, leads to the question:  "If CyC is intelligent, is
>turning it off murder?" (much beloved of SF writers...)
>
>Is it still murder if you turn it back on?  If you restore from a
>backup?  Does it have rights?  Can it make contracts?  Own property?
>Vote?

Can it join Star Fleet, and fly about the galaxy? Sorry... wrong newsgroup. 
Wrong reality, even.  
Csn someone point me to an article about CyC?  This is the first I've
heard of it.  I'm oretty sceptical, I've been hearring big promisesd
of thinking machines for 15 years, and haven't seen one come close
yet.
  

 


-- 
Brett Person
Guest Account	
North Dakota State University
person@plains.nodak.edu || person@plains.bitnet
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:48:51 GMT

In article <samw.714850987@bucket> samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) writes:
}lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
}>In article <samw.714592304@bucket> samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) writes:
}>>A chainsaw is the only tool anyone will ever need.
}>>No! A scalpel is the only tool anyone will ever need!
}[ ... ]
}>I have my own opinion, but what's your opinion about which is which?
}
}... 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.  ...

I think a fairer metaphor might be scalpel to hunting knife.  The
potential uses overlap considerably. (You could remove an appendix with a
hunting knife or skin a bear with a scalpel, though neither is ideal for
the respective purposes).

The nearest thing to a chain saw I can think of is the proprietary 4gl I'm
currently required to use. (Crude, clumsy, sloppy, no finesse at all, but
it gets it's intended job done -- barely). )-:

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13069 alt.folklore.urban:22061
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: flash pictures of the sunset
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:10:48 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

>users have no choice whether the flash goes off or not.  If you're going to
>sneer at someone for his/her stupidity, sneer at people who work at removing
>choice from other people's lives.

Hmm.  Funny though it is to see all the flashes going off in hopeless
situations like a sort of peculiar technological applause, you have to
remember that a lot of people would be unable to take a picture without
such a highly automated camera.  It's hard for us technophiles on the
net to remember this, but a lot of people are hopeless with machinery.

If you had to go to the full-service pump to have your oil checked,
ask the neighbor's sneering 12-year-old to reset the clock on your VCR,
and so forth, you would probably be thankful, not contemptuous, when
given a camera that flashed automatically when the light was inadequate.

I purposely bought an SLR with automatic nothing as my first camera in
order to force myself to learn what I was doing, and it seems to have 
paid off.  But a lot of people don't know and don't WANT to know about
f-stops and PL filters.  They just want to take a snapshot, preferably
with a camera that sucks in its own film, figures out what kind it is,
and sets everything automatically.  To each their own.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Flash pix (was: Deutsches Museum (was: Zuse Computers))
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:59:06 GMT
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division

In article <1992Aug25.141057.6411@mdd.comm.mot.com>, mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) writes:
> in alt.folklore.computers, berry@pei.com said:
> 
> 
> I know nothing about these cameras, however I do recall from a past interest
> in photography that a flashbulb or flashcube burns for approx 1/30 of a
> second, and an electronic flash typically lasts under 1/100 of a second.
> So, if the normal shutter speed was something like 1/100 of a second
> without flash it would make sense to slow it down for a flash cube but
> not for an electronic flash.
> 

(We're getting off the topics for this newsgroup, but what the hey. :-)

For *real* cameras, a flash/strobe is sync'd by the camera and is
typically 1/60 or 1/125.  Note that this is independent of the flash.
In other words, my flash which is sync'd by my camera at 1/60 will
also work in another camera which sync's at 1/125.

I don't know much about *cheap* cameras, but I doubt that you could
*push* it enough to account for more than one f-stop or so.  That
won't help much with a sunset picture.

 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *  Sure to get `Flamed' if I didn't cross all my i's and dot all my t's ;-)
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Indentation
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:18:05 GMT
	<BEVAN.92Aug31092333@tiger.cs.man.ac.uk>
	<1992Sep1.150841.29555@dscomsf.desy.de>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: hallam@zeus02.desy.de's message of 1 Sep 92 15:08:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.150841.29555@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
   Parsability using an LR(1) parser is not a precondition for being
   able to define the semantics of a programming language nor for
   validating a compiler. 

Yet again agreed, but DWW mentioned DFSA for lexing not LR(1) for parsing.
Why the fixation with LR(1)?

bevan
From: weberwu@inf.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Indentation
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:36:59 GMT
Reply-To: dww@inf.fu-berlin.de
Organization: Free University of Berlin

sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:

> CODE SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO BE MAINTAINED!

Amen, Brother!

In response to the folks that offered the hacks for the lexer:
sure, it's no problem to write a hack, but what if you want to
prove your program correct (Arrrrrgh! She used that *word*)? 
Lexers should be deterministic, finite state automata. DFSA can't
count, neither can push-down automata. So adding your little hack just
blows apart all the mathematics you might be able to use in the
proof of correctness. And then there's all the little wierd
cases that pop up like empty lines and strange ways of doing continuations
(occam again, to continue a string you do "This is a lovely string, don't*
* you think?") and just all the pesky stuff that makes life hard for
you.

No folks, elegance is not the only criterion for programming. I'm all
on the side of maintainence. 

As another argument for proper block markers, it's so comforting to
use emacs to edit LISP or C or such which jumps back with the
cursor to the block begin when you type the block end. That not only
trains the eye, but helps avoid lots of block problems.

-- 
Debora Weber-Wulff                       dww@inf.fu-berlin.de
ZI Fachdidaktiken, Did. der Informatik   +49 30 838 6334
Habelschwerdter Allee 45                 (INCLUDE "standard.disclaimer")
D-W-1000 Berlin 33                       (PRINTN (WITTY-MESSAGE TODAY))
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 14:32:37 GMT

lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>In article <jimf.714924310@centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>>BTW, if HLL theory is that it abstracts what computers actually do,
>>>then why the deficiency in so many languages regarding goto?  Do people
>>>believe that computers lack program control branch instructions?
>>
>>Nope, but using abstracted branches (if/else, for, while, repeat, etc)
>>leads to much easier-to-follow code.  Easier-to-follow code is the
>>goal in a large project, since the code has to be developed and
>>maintained by many people.

>The first sentence is an opinion.

Yes, but it's an opinion derived from experience -- both mine and
others'.

The reason why is simple: using the abstracted flow-control constructs
leads naturally to self-contained code units, which are easier to
understand simply because they are relatively small.  This isn't such
a big deal during initial implementation, but after several people
have hacked on a program written with goto's you tend to get spaghetti
-- while abstracted flow control code tends to stay organized as small
units.  This is also an opinion, but again it's an opinion spoken with
the voice of experience.

I take it you seldom (if ever) have to deal with code that's needed
extensive modification by several people over many years.  It didn't
take a lot of that for me to realize that organization is *everything*
in a large program if it's to live a long time.  Everything else is
secondary (including performance for all but a tiny fraction of code).
Anything that helps naturally organize code is a bonus IMHO.

>Using GOTO may be light
>years more easy to follow or be clearer about what's going on.

True, particularly in bailout situations.  For most processing,
though, it's not clearer -- and with age and maintenance its clarity
degrades even more.

Happy hacking,

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13281 comp.unix.misc:3415
From: lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 11:25:01 EDT
Organization: LORC Enterprises

tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
> From the keyboard of lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen):
> :To put it bluntly, very few langauges handle strings as elegantly as BASIC
> :does. (Snobol, in particular, handles them better, but I don't have a Snobol
> :system).  Handling strings in Z80 asm is not too bad, thanks to the designer
> :giving it a wonderful block move/compare instruction group, but it still is
> :not the best for simple string ops (such as insertions, deletions, general
> :string extraction, et al.).  Note that I am excluding awk and perl from this
> :up to now, even though they are excellent text processing languages.  
> 
> I've always found perl to be a BASIC for UNIX.  What more elegant BASIC
> string-handling functionality might you like to see?  

Ah, but I specifically excluded perl from my statements.  Why?  Because I have
not yet learned perl. (I know, lame reason, but I have always tried to not talk
about that which I know little or nothing.)  However, based upon your 
recommendation, I will probably be downloading perl...

> --tom

--

Lamar Owen, Systems Consultant, GE Lighting Systems, Hendersonville, NC
***********************************************************************
 Opinions expressed herein are the author's and do not reflect policy
   or opinions of the General Electric Company or its subsidiaries.
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Ellyn Sandor)
Subject: Re: Renumbering BASIC programs (was Re: Branching in HLL vs. Assembler)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:56:28 GMT



	RENUM of basic programs:

	The first BASIC I used had a interesting way to do a CASE statement.
Not a good way, but a way.  Let's say A is an integer from 1 and 6,
and we want to do a SWITCH() from A.
	...
	1000 N=1000+A*1000
	1010 GOTO N
	2000 REM Case 1
	2005 GOTO 8000
	3000 REM Case 2
	etc...
	Just try RENUMing that one!

	OK, bad example.  The second BASIC I used did not store the program in
ASCII, but rather in an undocumented tokenized form.  I think they provided
a RENUM command (but I don't remember).

	Bonus:  guess the BASIC's.

			sbm
-- 
--
Stephan Meyers | artn@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu
(Art)^n Laboratories, inventors of the Stealth Negative PHSCologram
(312) 567-3762
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Flash illiteracy
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:42:12 GMT

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>I have been asked whether one needs flash to photograph a solar eclipse.

Well, it's _dark_ isn't it?

Joe Average knows that when it's dark, you have to use a flash.  Either his
camera enforces it, or suggests it via warning lights, or he's been told
that.  Not thinking about it any further than that gives him decent pictures
80% of the time, so why sweat it thinking about the rest of the time.

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it is forever"
    --  Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.religion.computers
From: duening@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Lars Duening)
Subject: Re: Good source code to read?
Reply-To: duening@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Lars Duening)
Organization: TU Braunschweig, Informatik (Bueltenweg), Germany
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:23:03 GMT

fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) write:
> lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen) writes:
> 
>> I'm not a Computer Science student; I'm an engineer who happens to hack a 
>> little (I used to do lots of hacks, but I no longer can take the time...).
>> So, although I've been following this thread, I want to know two things: 
>>
>>1.) What, exactly, IS a Turing Machine (Note that I have an idea what one is,
>>    I just don't know the *rigoroous* CS definition)?
> 
> Basically, a Turing machine is a machine with an infinite length tape,
> a tape read/write head, and a finite number of states.
> Each execution consists of reading the tape symbol under the read/write head,
> and then determining on the basis of that symbol and the current state 
> whether to halt, and if not, which symbol to write and which direction (left
> or right) to move the tape read/write head in.
> 
> [more formal definition deleted]
> 
> There are also a lot of variants, eg. two-way tape, n-track machine, n-tape
> machine, nondeterministic.

I'd like to add that the importance of turing machines come from two facts:
first it's possible to build Universal Turing Machines which are capable
to emulate every other Turing Machine (even themselves), and second, up to
today nobody found proof that modern computers aren't just sophisticated
turing machines.

And that's why the Halting Problem has such an importance.

Just my DM 0.01 of knowledge...
--
Lars Duening; Am Wendenwehr 25  |  EMail: duening@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
D-W3300 Braunschweig; Germany   |  Voice: +49-351-345693
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Apple /// (and MANY o
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

KM> .        So, are there any others out there? What do you have/would like
  > .to have? I hope to find an Apple I, and I'd like to add a NeXT to my
  > .collection some day.  Well???

Yes, there are other sick people out there like you.  Me, for one.  I
don't collect 'em though, I just don't get rid of them when they're
obsolete.  I've got something using just about every chip made.  PDP-8S.
PT Sol based S-100 system.  A couple of PETs and CBMs.  Apple-II, II+.
Imp. Ohio Scientific 500-based system.  Vic-20.  Intel 4004/4005 based
system. Convergent IWS, AWS.  And more...  And then there are
the Mod 33ASRs, Diablo 630, and I think I've still got a Flexowriter
buried in a corner.

And then there's the analog computer.  X-Y plotter.

As I said, sick...  <~>

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Real Pilots enjoy NDB approaches to minimums!  Inverted!!
                                           
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: landauer@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Your tax dollars at work ...
Date: 28 Aug 1992 00:54:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: morocco

> ... DOD specified the code was to be written in FORTRAN or assembler.  The
> contractor wanted to do it in Pascal.  Resolution:  The program was written
> in Pascal.  [...] they turned on the assembly code printout switch on the
> compiler and told the DOD the resulting output was the source.

I recall being personally involved in a very similar project, around
1976 -- the (military) contract said it had to be written in FORTRAN
and had to run on the RSX-11 operating system.  So I wrote it in C, on
Unix (which wasn't very common at that time).  After it was debugged,
it was pretty simple to translate it into Raftor, and move the
resulting FORTRAN to the RSX.   In that case, I think it actually
did work out to be faster to do it that way ... and certainly more fun!
-- 
Doug Landauer -- landauer@eng.sun.com
SMI[STE]->SunPro::Languages.PE(C++);
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: Is there a PDP-11 (or 8, or...) Emulator?
Summary: Me too
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:29:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.043415.12160@ultb.isc.rit.edu> bmb1021@ultb.isc.rit.edu (B.M. Buck ) writes:
>Is there a PDP-11 (or PDP-8, 10, 1, 6, etc) emulator available
>(perferrably for MS-DOS or similar varients)?  While recently reading a
>book on PDP-11 Assembly language, I wondered if it would be possible to
>try writing some code for the beasties.  Not having a PDP-11, or even
>knowing where to get one, I thought of emulation...

	I'm also interested in a PDP-11 emulator; I'd be fascinated by one
which could run RT-11 programs.

	I'd prefer one for which I could obtain source, which I could
compile for Unix.  Running MS-DOS is about as inconvenient for me as
running a real PDP-11...
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
From: 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: what is halt_and_catch_fire?
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:50:03 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University

In article <1992Aug28.175412.10738@cco.caltech.edu> ansok@cco.caltech.edu (Gary Ansok) writes:
>Two that I have wanted on occasion in the past:
>
>    XOI   eXecute Operator Immediately
>    XOS   eXecute Operator Slowly      (and painfully... :-)

I always wanted:

     ISE   I Saw Elvis

Mitch.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Better dead than IBM
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:33:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.072749.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zcookbruc@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:

[Several good examples deleted]

Any IBM employee will tell you it stands for:  "I've Been Moved".
(IBMers get transferred a lot.)
-- 
                
Rich Greenberg - N6LRT - 310-649-0238 - richg@hatch.socal.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:11:47 GMT

lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>>>I write for the 8086/8088 model as do most people.
>>>It runs on 8088, 8086, 80186, 80188, 80286, 80386SX, 80386DX, 80486SX,
>>>80486DX, 80486DX2, and about 20 non-Intel clones from AMD, NEC, ULSI, TI,
>>>and a few other cpu clone maker's cpu's.
>>
>>Yes, but your code will be sub-optimal for all but the 8086/8088.
>>And as Lezz Giles pointed out, you can forget about the 68030.
>>(and of course, your code won't work for a Z/80 ;-)

>Gee whiz, mea culpa! my 80x86 code can't run on z 68030 or Z-80.  Well, your
>C-generated MAC II binary won't run on my '486 :-).

Sure, but he can have a Mac II binary in a few minutes.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
From: deand@bcarh823.BNR.CA (Dean Dillabough)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Apple /// (and MANY other computers)
Keywords: antique
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:59:53 GMT
Reply-To: deand@bcarh823.BNR.CA (Dean Dillabough)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Sep1.032428.2247@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>,
9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug28.174810.16511@bert.eecs.uic.edu>
artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Ellyn Sandor) writes:
|>>
|>>	Intel 4/40, circa 1975, serial number 001
|>>
|>>	With manuals, a blank board, papertape software (no way to load
|>>it without an ASR-33 teleltype), built in EPROM burner, key switch. 4 bit
|>>processor (either a 4004 or a 4040, I am not clear which), led's, rocker
|>
|>You must be really desperate to consider selling it.
|>
|>It would have either a 4004 or an 8008, since the order went
|>
|>4004-->8008-->8080 etc.
|>
|>Mitch.
|>
|>..but then again, I could be wrong.
 What about the 4040 ? 4004 -> 4040 -> 8008 -> 8080
             (time line, not necessarily evolution)


         Dean Dillabough (No shirt, no shoes, no sig)
                
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers