|
You had an editor? I had these 16 toggle switches, and two buttons - Load and Run. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, that's the one. My predecessor at the lab where I worked built it, nothing worked, so he ripped all the wires out of it, threw away the documentation and quit. I still had the 1975 Popular Electronics article, and from that I was able to figure out where all the wires needed to go. It still didn't work. Then I found and repaired a solder bridge on one of the four 1k RAM cards; all ran perfectly. I got a S-100 breadboard and built an interface circuit to let it talk to a ASR33 Teletype and all was good in the 'hood! Fun times!
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
A much simpler time.
I've been retroing it for a while now, Z80 boards running CPM 2.2. It's been fun but frustrating as hell.
I bought some kit boards on ebay and populated them and they kinda work but having intermittent problems that are driving me up a wall. I know just enough electronics to be dangerous and the firmware I'm using is supposed to be compatible but then again not sure.
I'll keep on truckin' and eventually I'll either solve my problems or throw the damn thing out the window. 
Keep On Truckin' Photograph by Rob Hans - Fine Art America[^]
Definition of a burocrate; Delegate, Take Credit, shift blame.
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.1 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Apple IIe and it had a similar editor that at the time
I used to write C programs in some editor (Apple Writer?)
Then I would run the file through a C program that would convert the output to a form that the C compiler would compile.
I think the problem was it did not like the end of line characters?
The editor was more usable than the only other editor I had. But I did use that second editor to write the program that did the conversion.
|
|
|
|
|
We were running ProDOS on the IIe, it's been 40 yrs ago now but it seems that the editor was a little more user friendly?
Definition of a burocrate; Delegate, Take Credit, shift blame.
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.1 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
That is what most JavaScript haters sound like to me...
As an immature dev, I used to dis on COBOL. I worked with a COBOL developer on a VB app (yeah, go figure) who was left behind the times. He tried to explain "code 88s" (level 88 numbers) to me, and I was like "what the fudge". This dude was left behind and couldn't hang in the more modern world as all he knew was COBOL... this was about 20 years ago. Boy, did I feel superior... here I was all relevant and he's not. Clearly, COBOL must be a steaming pile of poo since it wasn't making sense.
Twenty years later, I did something called growing up -- sorta.** After studying the financial markets for a long time too, I've gained a better appreciation for context and history and where we came from to build up to today. Should devs stay modern? Yes. But, my disdain for COBOL more so stemmed from knowing nothing about it and its history and time and place, etc. and this guy who did nothing but format code all day that someone else wrote. As in, my reasoning was dumb, and a dev who uses COBOL and stopped learning is not the fault of COBOL itself. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, after all.
If people want to know why I'm defensive of JavaScript? It's because 99.99% of the conversations I've had on CP about how JS sucks was by people who know little about it. I don't meet many JS experts here, but I do get the snickers, etc. I used to defend Macs on here twenty some-odd years ago for the same reasons. Despite their flaws like still using cooperative multitasking, just like 16-bit Windows did. But, don't you dare 'dis NTFS, despite the fact it was butchered in its early years... at least it fragmented less. Why, it's a bunch of Windows devs... of course they're gonna hate Macs (I don't love Macs at all now btw)... just because... yay tribalism.
Like when is enough, enough? Will programmers ever grow up? Why do we take 5 seconds to judge something and move on? When .NET first came out, I refused to use it because I wasn't going to use something that used an intermediate language (yes I know it compiles)... yet I do most of my work in JavaScript these days. Talk about irony. And yes, there objectionably better technologies than others (sometimes crap does suck), but the rationale I usually see for deeming good or bad is tenuous at best (I'm being nice here).
I could give more instances, Vulkan/WebGPU vs OpenGL/WebGL, etc. but y'all get the idea. Why can't we not have an opinion on something we know little about?
** @Marc-Clifton might disagree. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Why can't we not have an opinion on something we know little about?
Because we all like to think we do know something about it. And if we don't like someone's opinion it does not automatically mean that ours is better. I had a fairly long spat with someone a couple of years ago about the UK's decision to leave the EU. He believed one thing and I believed the opposite. In the end he got rather up tight about it and I haven't heard from him since. But I still respect his right to that belief.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Because we all like to think we do know something about it. And if we don't like someone's opinion it does not automatically mean that ours is better.
Agreed, but I wish more people didn't think their opinion was better. It's been my experience they do.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: But I still respect his right to that belief.
You're a better man than I am then.  These days I've kinda lost patience, when it comes certain things.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Ask my wife about my levels of patience. 
|
|
|
|
|
I had lots of those arguments/conversations/rows about leaving the EU still have an occasional one just to keep my hand in 
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Why can't we not have an opinion on something we know little about?
Am reminded of an incident a few decades back, in India, with a renowned Physics professor, and a traditionalist (read ancient Indian tradition).
The Physics Professor was giving a public lecture, and routinely mentioned that tradition is all incorrect. In the audience was this long practitioner of tradition, and he got up and said openly that "Your physics is incorrect". The Physics Prof got angry, and here is the conversation that ensued in that lecture hall.
Physics Prof: Do you know the history of physics, where so many great physicists have discovered facts. How can you say that Physics is incorrect. You are unscientific. You don't have a scientific bent of mind. You don't understand Physics. You have not studied Physics, and have no right to comment on Physics.
Traditionalist: You say that you are a scientist. From what I know, Science has these steps - Theory, Experiment, Observation and Inference. Yes, I agree that Physicists have propounded theories about Mechanics, Heat, Acoustics, Optics, Electricity, etc. and have done experiments, made observations and only then have they made inferences about the theory propounded. And you have studied all of this, and done experiments, made observations, over several years/decades.
Traditionalist (continuing): Now, coming to my tradition, what theories have you studied? What experiments have you done, and what are your observations? Without doing any study, experiment or observation, how could you jump to the Inference stage and conclude that "My tradition is incorrect"? You have not studied the scriptures about tradition.
Traditionalist (continuing): Did it not occur to you to apply your own scientific principles in the study of tradition also? Having spent none or very little time in the study of Theory of tradition, having not even attempted any Experiment, without any Observation, how can you adversely comment in a public forum about tradition? Did you give yourself the right to do so? You are not a real scientist. If you are merely expressing your opinion, then it is not science, if it has no backup of theory, experiment, or observation, because it is not based on facts. In fact, it is you, the so-called Physics Professor, who is not having a scientific bent of mind. A real scientist should have an open mind about all fields of enquiry, and should have no prejudices or biases against anything. Yes, I intentionally said that "Your Physics is wrong", but only to show your absence of logic, scientific thought, scientific temper. I have spent years, decades, and have done serious enquiry, questioning about my tradition, consulted several experts, and have done several assessments about it; of which you have not even an idea.
The Physics Professor could not reply.
|
|
|
|
|
The truth usually lies in the balance what has been and what is yet to be. Like, historically we used to bleed people who had a disease. Turns out that's really not a good thing. But, there are things that did work that we lost. For instance, it doesn't take a genius to realize processes foods and profit over substance in our food supply takes its toll. But, that won't stop commercials from advertising filth like it's yummo. It won't stop doctors from rarely considering food intake as part of the diagnosis. Let's just spray some more chemicals with no real studies and insult anyone who disagrees, despite not knowing the difference between a carb and a Cadillac.
So, it's a balance. Sometimes getting rid of the old is good; sometimes it's not.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But, that won't stop commercials from advertising filth like it's yummo.
There's a saying in my house, "They would feed us rat poison if they thought they could get away with it."
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: There's a saying in my house, "They would feed us rat poison if they thought they could get away with it."
Nobody on blood thinners, then?
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you ask? Is rat poison chemically related to blood thinners?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A product called Warfarin - Wikipedia[^] is used for both purposes.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Amen to that.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree with what your saying but had to point out ...
Bloodletting is not totally garbage. My family carries a gene for a deadly disease for which phlebotomy aka bloodletting is the prescribed treatment. (Hemochromatosis: a build up of too much iron in the blood and tissues causing serious major organ damage)
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss.
Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love" by Robert A. Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't know that. Touché 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what the traditionalist was asserting, but it is up to those who make assertions to provide evidence for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever assertions were made by the traditionalist, he was equipped with the theory, experiments (some of these studies and experiments take many years to do, and have strict experimental conditions to be fulfilled) and personal observations, leading to the inferences made. Whereas the physics professor knew no such theory, had done no experiments or made observations about this traditional field, but was just giving his opinion; which did not display a scientific mindset.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know this for a fact, or are you just swallowing what the traditionalist said because he said it?
Just a thought....
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
