|
Who claims that 32 bit is simple? I know it can be, but when I was teaching elementary computer architecture (as a software man, seeing architecture from a software man to software students) trying to explain the IA-32 mess has kept me forever away from attempting to learn IA-64. I had lost the architecture battle: I was fighting for MC68030 based *nix workstations (so it is long ago!), but the department head overruled the decision preferred by the majority of the teaching and technical staff, demanding that we go for Intel. In my lectures, I did sneak in some examples from non-Intel architectures, but couldn't give the students exercizes on anything but IA-32.
If Intel did a thorough cleanup with IA-64, it might be far easier to understand. I don't know. IA-32 gave me so many frustrations that I never wanted to touch another IA-whatever architecture.
The only thing that is impressive about IA-32 is how they can make that mess spin around as fast as it does. You would think that interpreting hodgepodge of instruction and addressing formats, the MMS and everything, would take so many clock cycles than any other achitecture could easily beat it. The fact that IA-32 essentially knocked down all competiton proves one thing: The hardware implementation guys at Intel must be super clever. I wouldn't say the same about those guys drawing up the x86 architecture. But that was long ago, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
politics man (read economics).
they make everything anew so that common people won't know how things work anymore. it is not allowed for people to know all, how the car, the computer, the internet, the washing machine... works. you have time to learn only one thing in life and for the rest of things you can only be a consumer.
that thing moves the business, by making new things that brake how old things work.
and those new things are going to be explained by a mass of new technical abbreviations and acronyms that have almost exactly the same meaning as the old ones, but these are brand new.
and the hipsters are going to love this and show off.
at the same time science is moving in the opposite direction. scientists are trying to discover the unified natural law that explains everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: the unified natural law that explains everything
Sh*t happens!
There, done.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunno why but something got me thinking about the moonies,
used to be all over the news in the 90's or thereabouts,
these days not a peep.
Did their [superior alien beings] spaceship finally come and pick them up?
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
Nah ... the leader died in 2012, and there was internal fighting about who took over as the son of gawd.
But it was never a "big church" or even a "big cult" even at its height - 30,000 across the US is less than TV evangelists manage after molesting choir boys and pilfering the offerings tray - it was "hyped" by the media is all I suspect.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I think they hyped themselves too, wasn't it them that married 1000 couples in one ceremony - caused a huge shortage in casserole dishes and toasters at the department stores.
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
A cult can only be reported on as being a cult until it's big enough to sue you. After that point, it's a bone fide religion.
The art therefore is to thrive on the adverse publicity while you can still get it in order to get to the point where you can't.
People think that prophets have it easy ... they don't.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
For them, "big enough" is in terms of money, not membership. The number of members is a minor detail as long as the money is there.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
They discovered - using probes of different kinds - that there was no intelligent life to be found here on Earth.
They will probably be back once cats take over as the dominant species... At least this one[^] will...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: They discovered - using probes of different kinds - that there was no intelligent life to be found here on Earth
Ouch! Given where those aliens stuck those probes perhaps they're really not that much smarter.
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I dunno. I know a lot of people who seem tho have their heads up their collective asse(t)s. So it could be that the aliens thought they were looking in the right place... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly, most Earth leaders and managers talk out their asses as well, so ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. I can't Trump that one! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess VB/Basic should have become the popular scripting language & not python, if it was envisioned correctly.
The makers of VB had an average vision. I think, they focused much on the visual part. That's okay.
May be the VB*S* should have branched out and gone out to do a lot more things than sticking just with Office automation stuff.
The makers & supporters of python had better vision, now the snake rules the planet.
May be I'm wrong, python might have had its unique strength, from the very beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
Nand32 wrote: I guess VB/Basic should have become the popular scripting language & not python, if it was envisioned correctly.
Visual Basic existed before the internet became into view, and python only existed on some freak Linux box.
Nand32 wrote: The makers of VB had an average vision. I think, they focused much on the visual part. That's okay.
"Vision" is marketing-bullshit. VB catered to a lots of hobby-devs, and was used to create a LOT of desktop-applications.
Nand32 wrote: May be the VB*S* should have branched out and gone out to do a lot more things than sticking just with Office automation stuff.
It has. .NET connects everything from Office and your Exchange server to your Database and Azure 
Nand32 wrote: The makers & supporters of python had better vision, now the snake rules the planet.
Due to no free version of VB being available and piracy going down. Python was available for free and could be used without having to create a rich GUI. It was not vision, it was luck.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
VB is not a scripting language. VBScript is, and the similarity between the two is approximately the same as comparing Java with JavaScript. 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
modified 26-Feb-19 7:13am.
|
|
|
|
|
VB lived on as VBA which is a scripting language.
|
|
|
|
|
VB and VBA is not the same even though they have common roots.
And VB didn't "live on" as VBA.
VB still exists in more or less the same form as for 20 years ago, whereas VBA is more or less dead.
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
VB still exists but VBA is dead? Are you serious? Nobody uses VB any more but we still use VBA in Office. Yes, even today, right now.
|
|
|
|
|
VB is a the name of a series of products, sharing a common syntax. VB (like in VB4 and 6) does not "live on" as VBA; VBA already existed. There was also eVB, for embedded programming and VBScript for scripting/automation.
All of those are being replaced with a .NET environment.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
VB and VBA pretty much only differ in terms of their host environment and when I said it lives on as VBA I meant that we still use VBA today but we no longer use VB.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: VB and VBA pretty much only differ in terms of their host environment
You mean you find the syntax very similar.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: we still use VBA today but we no longer use VB.
"We" does not include "us" then. First of all you'll only find VBA today in products that are past their support-date. Second, I know a few companies here that still rely on a VB6-compiler.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you're right. Every single copy of Word, Excel, PowerPoint etc in use today still uses VBA, millions of apps, but there are a few companies who still use VB to support legacy apps so me saying we still use VBA but we don't use VB is clearly wrong. The fact that one person in the world still uses one technology means we should never generlise or simplify and never declare that something isn't in use because people aren't intelligent enough to realise it is a generalisation and that you're not actually claiming that no-one in the whole world uses it ever. Some people might think someone who claims that really does understand what is being said but is simply nit-picking in order to create an argument on the internet when no argument actually exists.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
