smallest wired keyboard?

LOLOLOLLLOLOLOLLLOLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOL

I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high level languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large, portable, maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly too large and complex to be written in assembler and have been for decades.

You understand those iKooks well (Alan Baker, nospam, Jolly Roger, Lewis, et. al), where a noticeably huge _difference_ between these iKooks and the religious zealots is that these iKooks _also_ lack any ability whatsoever to respond to facts in an adult conversation about Apple in an adult manner.

Just watch.

Their brains are that of kindergarten children for some strange reason.

You know that, and I know that, but the iKooks like nospam lack any education to speak of so they're not aware that there isn't anything you can't do in assembly language that can be done in a higher-level language.

For example, for some strange reason, they thing there's "magic" in Apple's Swift when it doesn't do anything that you can't do with assembly languages.

They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.

These low-IQ ill-educated iKooks don't even understand what that means.

Well yes and no. You would be surprised at how many "#ifdef X86" a linux kernel probably has. And how many compiler optimisations may need to be tweaked to port software between different targets.

Not to mention issues with stack depths allowed, or whether a processor even has a stack... Lets say high level languages help in writing portable software.

kotlin, and no.

comments such as that confirms what everyone already knew, that you know absolutely nothing about software development and writing apps, mobile or desktop.

both you and your broken scripts are boring.

one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if there are any changes.

you're not fooling anyone.

Oh there's assembler in kernels it's just writing the whole thing in assembler that has become infeasible - for portability and maintenance reasons. Modern kernel design goes to great lengths to minimise and isolate hardware dependencies.

I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or blowing an eprom.

Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change. It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.

Proms & Eproms are programmed, that is what the 'p' Stands for you do it with an (e)prom programmer. the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used this approach.

it's not 1980 anymore, and he's using the term to mean writing software, not writing to an eprom.

but even if he is using it to mean writing to an eprom, it would be

as did everyone who actually did it, including myself.

changing a couple of bytes is not anywhere close to 'coding in hex'.

exactly the point.

some people did that 40 years ago, including myself.

almost nobody does that now, nor do they program in assembly.

with very rare exception, compilers can do a *much* better job at writing assembly than humans can, particularly with modern processors.

that's true, except that 'arlen' is babbling about programming in assembly versus high level languages, not burning a prom.

they did do that long ago, as did i. certainly not now.

PROM Programmable Read Only Memory "programmed" by writing data to it one memory address at a time, often at a higher voltage than the chip would be "read" at. Could not be erased, so writing was a one-shot deal.

EPROM Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory PROM that could be erased, usually by exposing it to an UV lightsource for an extended period of time. Often had a limited number of erase cycles, but cheaper than PROM.

EEPROM Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory PROM that could be erased by asserting a high voltage to the chip. The advantage over EPROMs was that you could include the erase circuitry into the design of the "read" platform, making it more convenient to reprogram on demand.

My EPROM burner was an S100 card, and I used a separate UV box to erase with. Thankfully, both are long gone, now, replaced by ubiquitous flash memory.

nospam is wrong of course™.

PROM stands for "Programmable Read Only Memory." The whole purpose of a PROM is that it's programmable!

There were PROMs, EPROMs (erasable with UV lights) and EEPROMs, (electrically erasable PROMS). You programmed all of them.

context matters.

arlen was babbling about programming in assembly versus high level languages.

O RLY? Try telling that to Steve Wozniak, who didn't have access to an assembler when he created the Apple I's firmware. He "hand-assembled" the code on paper, and I suspect that all but the smallest part of it would've been punched in as a string of hex codes.

Tell us, what does this bit of code do?

(I'll cop to having used the mini-assembler to create this, but if you change the dashes in the listing above to colons, you could key in this hex dump and run it...on the right hardware. :) )

...and the process by which data is stored in an EPROM is called what? The device that does it is called what?

that was 50 years ago.

nobody does that now. clearer??

context matters.

'arlen' was babbling about writing programs.

Yes. Of course. It's also "readable" and "easier to learn" and a whole bunch of other things which are why very few people code using assembly languages.

However, my point to nospam is still valid that all these languages are designed to do essentially the same things, each using different syntax.

I learned my first computer languages in the sixties, and while the syntax has changed over time, fundamental concepts have not - which was my point.

Which is why learning new syntax bores me. But I'm sure that excites others. And that's OK.

It's nospam, not me, who was disagreeing with those basic principles.

I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU wire-wrapped board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my "parts" bins.

Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses, pots, etc.

To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his experience, if I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from the 80s, I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.

As I recall, I would read the SAMS guides (from Radio Shack?) for the Motorola 68701, which has an onboard EEPROM, and then I'd write the code by hand, generally resorting to hex (as you did) simply because of _how_ it's programmed into the 68701.

I'd pop the 40-pin MPU out of the ZIF socket of the wire-wrapped board and then I'd place it into the EEPROM programmer which would burn it in.

You had to eventually feed it the hex code so you learned that a LDA (load accumulator A) was a certain hex code and _that_ is what you wrote your programs in (since you had to do the translation to hex anyway).

It appears this nospam, who, let's be clear, has a low IQ and no education, doesn't realize that's how it was done with EEPROMS in the olden days.

Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo. BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?