Apologies where they are due

On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:48:03 +0000 (UTC)) it happened Martin Gregorie wrote in :
Exactly! That is how I do embeded, 1) I use no simulator 2) I use no ICE All I need is a serial port and a terminal (xterm whatever), and a simple analog scope. Digital scopes lie. It is easy!
Yes, it is not that hard to translate Pascal into C, done it a few times.
Reply to
Jan Panteltje
Loading thread data ...
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:51:43 -0400) it happened Dennis Lee Bieber wrote in :
And there was the Intel 8272 disk controller chip:
formatting link
formatting link
But driven from a Z80... Then it was already 1984 and that controller was also in the IBM PC. Except my PLL was a bit different, ahead of time. 34 years ago, really, time flies!
yes, I wire-wrapped some large projects in the past, 19 inch rack full.
Reply to
Jan Panteltje
Right. so the compiler reasons that if dereferencing the pointer succeeds and doesnt cause a core dump or other extrreme nasty, it can't have been a null pointer?
I have to say however that not only is the second piece of code a very badly written piece of code, but that I am surprised that compilers would allow the second to happen...at least without warning.
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's  
too dark to read. 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
My friend was all in favour of Borland Pascal. He passed a job onto me that 'just has a few bugs' and I ended up totally rewriing it in C, because Pascal proved simply unmanageable when trying to decipher the internal structure of wqhat turned out to be a RAM disk based on DOS style FATS etc.
When a sector could be data, or pointer to another sector, the inability to cast easily between the two and the need to predefine a union of every possible structure than a disk sector might have, proved to take longer than to simply rewrite the while thing in C, which I did in two days in a hotel in central France...
I hated Pascal from that day to this. There are languages written by academics, for elegance, and there are languages written by engineers, to work....
More people talk English than Esperanto, too...
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as  
foolish, and by the rulers as useful. 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
That is fair comment, yes.
--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight  
and understanding". 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Not seen many jobs asking for that skill ;-)
--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is  
true: it is true because it is powerful." 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Essentially yes.
Yes, the code as presented (and in the real example) is buggy. But programmers write bugs all the time...
The original debate in 2009 also included the suggestion of warnings for cases where the compiler exploits this kind of logic. But this optimisation (and its many cousins) are legitimate optimizations, both in the sense that it?s permitted by the spec and that they produce smaller and faster code in the non-buggy cases; in other words there would be many false positives.
Modern languages usually shrink or eliminate the set of undefined behavior compared to C, meaning this issue doesn?t arise; but nobody thinks any of them are ?portable assembler? despite the more comprehensible mapping from source code to semantics l-)
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Reply to
Richard Kettlewell
Quite so - but you won't find purer OO anywhere. Once you've learned it there it's no problem at all to deal with OO in C++, Java, Perl, Python or any other language.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays 
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
It does - not that I'd choose C for big complex programs. These days I use a mix of C, C++ and Python mostly.
I would not suggest Smalltalk for using in anger, but as a way to learn the concepts of OO it can't be beaten. Then you learn a language or six to use for real work.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays 
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Perhaps that is why modern code seems to be so ill designed.
I learned to 'think in assembler', and I still do, and my code is usually tight and low bug content.
When I write C I am thinking in termns of memory locations, pointers and registers, not 'objects'
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that  
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Sometimes it is just a matter of different design criteria, for example these days I generally favour clarity, testability and maintainability over efficiency (I'm becoming quite fond of Python).
Any code I write (apart from little stuff just for me) will have other people messing wit^W^Wmodifying it over the years without me watching so it had better be clear what's going on in there and why, and be accompanied by enough test cases to keep it working properly.
So did I, then I learned to think in Algol, BCPL, C (all very similar really) LISP, Prolog, Smalltalk ... then the horizons started to expand. Prior to OO I tended to think of most software as interfacing between layers - with OO modeling the problem space became another way to look at programming, one well suited to some classes[1] of software.
I tend to think in terms of the abstractions I'm modeling with - I aim to make my code do what it is supposed to as clearly as possible by getting the abstractions right.
[1] OOPS :)
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays 
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
I have, and your intention makes no sense to me regardless of what architecture it's on.
---druck
Reply to
druck
...and Pascal was written by Herr Professor Nicolas Wirth as a teaching language, at least partly because he hated Algol 60. Knowing that makes sense of a lot of its deficiencies. I learnt to read Pascal, never to write it. Instead, I learnt programming with a dialect of Algol 60 which added nonstandard 'read' and 'print' reserved words to handle i/o rather than the more usual procedure library that other dialects used. Algol 60's main deficiency was that the language had no defined way of handling i/o because its main purpose was seen as communicating algorithms between people rather than creating useful programs. After that I learned to program in assembler, COBOL and Algol 68R in that order, followed by a hotchpotch including BASIC, 68xx assembler, Sculptor 4GL, PL/1, TAL, Forth, PL/9, SQL, C, RPG3, Perl, awk, Java.
These days I mainly use Java, C and awk.
--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie
"ListBack", the name I have somewhat too early coined, is intended to solve the worldwide problem of software support long after the sources and design notes have been lost, or to support obsolete equipment containing firmware for which no manufacture support is forthcoming.
Reply to
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Pascal's difficulty lies with the I/O that was extant at the time of its creation, magnetic tape.
Reply to
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
Although for many it may not help with prototype based languages (which also count as pure OOP) but it a different paradigm to class based languages.
--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com 
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Andy Leighton
You don?t need a new programming language for that, you need a way to ensure that source code is conveyed with object code, and several methods already exist. You might want to think about why (between them) they aren?t already universal, despite being easier to adopt than entire new programming language.
If you just want to invent a programming language, that can be a fun exercise, but you might want to pick a better excuse l-)
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Reply to
Richard Kettlewell
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:08:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje declaimed the following:
Mis-counted -- it was 5x, the other two were in a bag (in anti-static foam), as they weren't needed with the 8228 chip.
The kit I mentioned was (without the supplemental chips) from around 1978, cost $20. My digital electronics III class intended to wire-wrap computers from the chip sets (badly under-estimated the design time for a college on a trimester system -- 11 weeks at 2 or 3 sessions a week just didn't do it. I "wrote" a monitor program for use with a 20-key calculator keypad and 2-digit LED display)
--
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN 
	wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
Reply to
Dennis Lee Bieber
Fair point - Self for that I suppose (JavaScript is too many things to too many people to serve as a paradigm example).
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays 
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:52:21 +0000 (UTC)) it happened Martin Gregorie wrote in :
Yea, that is a lot of languages. Did you ever do FPGA coding, Verilog for example? Sort of hardware design, For very high speed like crypto creating specialized hardware is often the better solution. In my bad bad days, that I am no longer allowed to discus here, used to crack codes to get free TV. In fact my whole entry into PIC microprocessors comes from the days those were in smart cards. Of course when some politician here started screaming 'Hackers' and jumped on a chair like that women in that Tom and Jerry cat and mouse cartoon, I decided it would be safer to only be a good guy. But the experience ... well everything has 2 sides. And now it is all actual again with crypto currencies, mining. Been looking at that lately. Not sure what, if anything, to do with it. To move back towards the top[ic] there is also a FPGA board for raspberry
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
I do not have any of these, as I have a big Digilentic board... But for those into creating your own specialized hardware it maybe interesting.
Saves wire-wrapping work too. :-)
Reply to
Jan Panteltje

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.