Another nasty holiday season on RBT

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 2:18:28 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:23:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:43:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:

This is several pictures of the 1200 and 1600. All of the robotics,
electronics and programming was done by me. They changed the case
and shape several times later. So what? What does this tell you?


then the following questions shouldn't be too hard:

what was the programming language?

What compiler did you use?

Was it run from resident or removable media?

If resident, how was the file loaded into the resident device?

Was the program a state machine, or some aspect of real-time processing?

Then this should be easy to identify you. It was programmed in
assembly language because C compilers were horribly inefficient in
those days.

Then you would know it wasn't the compilers that were inefficient, they were limited by the language itself. It was that machine language was way faster (and still is depending on the application).

Tell me where you got the idea that there was "removeable media" in
those days.

Ever seen one of these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk

They were invented in the 60's. in the 80's desk-top computers from Commodore, IBM, and compaq all used 5 1/4 inch drives to store the entire operating system until IBM invented BIOS. If you have some notion that removable media didn't exist, it only goes to show your entire life is one big lie.

Do you envision a removable hard drive which would cost more than the
entire electronics of that instrument then? Or maybe you think that
they had thumb drives as you just discovered?

In your mind a "state machine" cannot be real time?

No, and if you had any clue about software architecture you'd know what I meant by state machine versus real-time processing.

Tell us all - when you have 5 axis of motion how do you propose running
them without a real time kernel? By moving one axis at a time?

IT depends on the application, but I can tell you would not be able to handle 5 simultaneous motor control tasks with one processor back then. Why don't you tell us how you handled simultaneous tasks with a processor that can only execute one line of code at a time? Newer processors can do it, but not back then.

You have just identified yourself as a second rate student. Go back to
class and try to learn something instead of making really stupid
statements here.

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming removable media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

"Limited by the language itself"??? Now say that again three times fast and ask yourself why C and its extension C++ are the largest languages used and have been a STANDARD since they were invented in 1978 by Kernihan and Richie.

I have to say that the things you post are so moronic that they verge on the level of very low IQ stupidity.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 2:47:56 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:31:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:00:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2019 7:43 AM, news18 wrote:

As usual, Tommie suddenly gets all shy with real details of why a "chip"
could replace a task requiring a "supercomputer".


But he showed us a photograph and used the word "Peltier." Why, oh why,
aren't we suitably impressed? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

I don't expect you to be impressed. I was never attempting to impress you. But you aren't bright enough to know that. Do you suppose I was trying to impress you when I related the story of the dolphins dancing on the bow waves of that racing yacht on the race down to Catalina? You are getting dementia and perhaps you should have that looked into.


"I was never attempting to impress you"?

Surely you lie. After all your post was a blatant attempt to convince
the reader that you really are Tommy the Tiger, a great man who did
many grand and wondrous things.

(It is called "over compensation" and is a common trait of those who
lack self-esteem)

You must have a very fragile ego if you thought I was trying to impress you or anyone. For all I know Frank worked for the CIA and can't even talk about it. Why would he be impressed about anything?

On the other hand I haven't seen you commenting on you being a Crew Chief on a B50. I know for certain that those were total failures and as bombers were gone from the Air Force inventory from 1955. Their positions were assumed by the B47. Since at the VERY LEAST you had to be an E5 to be a crew chief that would mean you had to be 30 or so in 1955.

Your comments about "selected to fly" are also extremely weird and demonstrate a total lack of knowledge of SAC.

You think I'm trying to impress you when everything you've written has been so childishly stupid and meant to impress everyone here I have to wonder what is going on in your head. Even if you are just in your 60's and not your 90's as your comments would indicate, this is a pretty clear sign of dementia.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 4:51:31 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:08:15 -0800, Zen Cycle wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 11:23:30 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 3:43:58 PM UTC-5,
wrote:

This is several pictures of the 1200 and 1600. All of the robotics,
electronics and programming was done by me. They changed the case
and shape several times later. So what? What does this tell you?


then the following questions shouldn't be too hard:

what was the programming language?

What compiler did you use?

Was it run from resident or removable media?

If resident, how was the file loaded into the resident device?

Was the program a state machine, or some aspect of real-time
processing?

Then this should be easy to identify you. It was programmed in assembly
language because C compilers were horribly inefficient in those days.

Then you would know it wasn't the compilers that were inefficient, it
was that machine language is way faster (and still is).

Tell me where you got the idea that there was "removeable media" in
those days.

Ever seen one of these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk

Lol, I've got an 8" floppy.
Actually a whole box of them.

They were invented in the 60's. in the 80's desk-top computers from
Commodore, IBM, and compaq all used 5 1/4 inch drives to store the
entire operating system until IBM invented BIOS. If you have some notion
that removovable media didn't exist, it only goes to show your entire
life is one big lie.

Before that there were 8" drives used in CP/M computers, which was my
third computer, a real fork liftable job.

Also about Tommies time there were some heavy hard drives (10Mb?) able to
be added to IBM PCs, and I guess other PCs as they were a third party
device.

Do you envision a removable hard drive which would cost more than the
entire electronics of that instrument then? Or maybe you think that
they had thumb drives as you just discovered?

In your mind a "state machine" cannot be real time?

No, and if you had any clue about software architecture you'd know what
I meant by state machine versus real-time processing.

Tell us all - when you have 5 axis of motion how do you propose running
them without a real time kernel? By moving one axis at a time?

IT depends on the application, but I can tell you you would be able to
handle 5 simultaneous motor control tasks with one processor back then.
Why don't you tell us how you handled simultaneous tasks with a
processor that can only execute one line of code at a time? Newer
processors can do it, but not back then.

You have just identified yourself as a second rate student. Go back to
class and try to learn something instead of making really stupid
statements here.

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming removable
media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

Actually I think his "real time" label needs massive support, but then
I'm biased by one of my lecturers who parphrased "plenty of people claim
their progrsm is real time but in my opinion, the only real time
programming was data logging a nuclear explosion. the rest are just
proceedural problems".

Now that you mention it I do remember CP/M and 8" floppies. Gary Kildall, I believe, wrote it for the first IBM PC.

I was always state-of-the-art though so that old junk disappeared as soon as something better cam out. You sat in your office and designed with paper and pencil and wrote your code with the latest PC's.

I worked for Singer Business Machines for a couple of years. They were pretty good in the medium sized business setting but they had a lousy sales staff. Now that building is a medical facility that takes X-rays etc. Laying on the X-ray machine I am directly on the spot where my cubicle was.

I'm not surprised that you don't understand what a real-time operating system is or a real-time kernel is which is more common in embedded systems. Most people don't know what they do or why.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 6:02:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:18:45 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/21/2019 4:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:51:02 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 , news18 wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:38:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2019 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2019 10:23 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 1:51:09 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/19/2019 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 , wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 , John B.Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 , wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 , John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 , Ralph Barone wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2019, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , Ralph Barone wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019, Andre Jute wrote:

-snip just oodles of text-

-more snip-

When the company I worked for in Indonesia started using computers we
used Apple II's with the Z80 card in order to use WordStar.


[sigh] I miss WordStar

I believe that you can still get a copy, somewhere. Or maybe it only
runs on Linux now, I don't remember. But I did, sometime in the past
few years have a copy running here. My memory was that it was a great
program but compared with the modern WP apps it was rather mundane.

p.s. I just did a quick search and found
https://www.wordstar.org/


I moved to PageMaker then Word 97.

But at the time WordStar's simple easily-learned command set
with such low system overhead (program & text file on a
5-1/4 disk) was the moment when I packed up my SCM
typewriter off to storage (where it sits today).

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I have Microsoft Office now and it is a royal pain in the ass. Even doing things like saving a document makes you fool around looking for the proper command. I have a copy of Office 97 if you have a system that can run it. Windows 8? If you want it I can send it to you.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 12:17:24 AM UTC-8, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 21.01.2019 um 23:08 schrieb Zen Cycle:
Then this should be easy to identify you. It was programmed in assembly
language because C compilers were horribly inefficient in those days.

Then you would know it wasn't the compilers that were inefficient, it was that machine language is way faster (and still is).

Hand-crafted Machine language is usually faster than C Compilers because
most C-Compilers produce inefficient Machine Language.

Any Machine code (hand-crafted or compiled) is usually faster than
UCSD-Pacsal or Java because UCSD-Pascal and Java compilers produce
machine independent pseudo-code which is in turn executed by an interpreter.

I wrote several systems for a company in England in 2014 and the original code was written in assembly language. The manner in which programmers now write in assembly language is that they write their own libraries of subroutines and then they can rapidly write a program by stringing these subroutines together.

This turns out to be more inefficient than writing the program in C++. I got this program from a programmer that had contracted cancer. The whole damn thing was crazy and wouldn't have worked anyway. I compiled it and then quickly rewrote the short program in C++ for Microchip using their compiler and the code from the C++ compiler both worked and took up only 3/4ths the space.

That project was all screwed up since the original hardware design contained about 5 interrupts and they weren't all wired into the interrupts of the processor. When I told the English company that I had to re-design the board to get it to work in real time they balked and canceled the project. That was fine since I had been telling them from the start that the system they had already was more than sensitive enough and the one they wanted was 1,000 times more sensitive.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 10:29:39 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 2:18:28 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming removable media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

"Limited by the language itself"???

Yes, in the early days of C programming, its functionality was limited because the instructions had to compiled, and the libraries didn't exist to compile them.

Now say that again three times fast and ask yourself why C and its
extension C++ are the largest languages used and have been a STANDARD
since they were invented in 1978 by Kernihan and Richie.

If you had a clue, you wouldn't be asking that question - but I'll help you out.

1) Size matters. A compiled C file takes up less space than assembly code performing identical functions.

You said it yourself downthread: "I compiled it and then quickly rewrote the short program in C++ for Microchip using their compiler and the code from the C++ compiler both worked and took up only 3/4ths the space."

2) Coding in a C variant is faster that writing equivalent functions in assembly.

3) Because of the compiler improvements, C is easier to maintain, more modular, and easier to transfer when the target changes.


I have to say that the things you post are so moronic that they verge
on the level of very low IQ stupidity.

Yeah, says the guy who thinks removable media didn't exist until the invention of the thumb drive. Talk about ****ing clueless.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:20:26 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/22/2019 9:55 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 6:02:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2019 5:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:18:45 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/21/2019 4:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:51:02 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 , news18 wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:38:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2019 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 20, 2019, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2019 10:23 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 1:51:09 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/19/2019 1:59 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 , wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 , John B.Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 , wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 , John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 , Ralph Barone wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 17, 2019, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , Ralph Barone wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 , Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019, Andre Jute wrote:

-snip just oodles of text-

-more snip-

When the company I worked for in Indonesia started using computers we
used Apple II's with the Z80 card in order to use WordStar.


[sigh] I miss WordStar

I believe that you can still get a copy, somewhere. Or maybe it only
runs on Linux now, I don't remember. But I did, sometime in the past
few years have a copy running here. My memory was that it was a great
program but compared with the modern WP apps it was rather mundane.

p.s. I just did a quick search and found
https://www.wordstar.org/


I moved to PageMaker then Word 97.

But at the time WordStar's simple easily-learned command set
with such low system overhead (program & text file on a
5-1/4 disk) was the moment when I packed up my SCM
typewriter off to storage (where it sits today).



I have Microsoft Office now and it is a royal pain in the ass. Even doing things like saving a document makes you fool around looking for the proper command. I have a copy of Office 97 if you have a system that can run it. Windows 8? If you want it I can send it to you.


Word 97 runs OK in a WIN XP environment.
I tried the 'improved' versions of both and gave up.

(I also have a lot of software on this machine which cannot
run in newer environments)

I, long ago, switched first to Unix and then to Linux and now use
Linux Mint which is a derivative of Debian, and now use LibreOffice
rather then Windows Applications. (to save a document just use Ctrl-s)

(I'm not suggesting Linux is the answer for all problems but it works
for me :-)


Cheers,
John B.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 07:29:37 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 2:18:28 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming removable
media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

And now we get another Tommie sideshuffle.

"Limited by the language itself"??? Now say that again three times fast
and ask yourself why C and its extension C++ are the largest languages
used
They are not.

and have been a STANDARD since they were invented in 1978 by
Kernihan and Richie.

They were not and there were other more significant languages. In any
case, has C surplanted COBOL yet.

I have to say that the things you post are so moronic that they verge on
the level of very low IQ stupidity.
Which you wish you had.

BTW, you've got your date wrong as amongst my collection is a C
programming printout from earlier than that and is is the second edition.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 07:29:37 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 2:18:28 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming removable
media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

And now we get another Tommie sideshuffle.

"Limited by the language itself"??? Now say that again three times fast
and ask yourself why C and its extension C++ are the largest languages
used
They are not.

and have been a STANDARD since they were invented in 1978 by
Kernihan and Richie.

They were not and there were other more significant languages. In any
case, has C surplanted COBOL yet.

I have to say that the things you post are so moronic that they verge on
the level of very low IQ stupidity.
Which you wish you had.

BTW, you've got your date wrong as amongst my collection is a C
programming printout from earlier than that and is is the second edition.

Ahh, so you're a Cobol programmer. I should have known. That is NOT a programming language for embedded systems and that is why you haven't one single clue about C, C++ and Assembly language.

C was released with it's necessary routine library. C is ALWAYS slower than a properly done assembly language program. In most embedded programs you call a routine perhaps ONCE in the entire program. Every time you call a subroutine you have to save all the registers, make the call, return, deal with the variable and retrieve all of the registers again. None of this is necessary with an assembly language program in which you only have to save the registers you happen to need for the subroutine. And the assembly language program is in-line so you aren't making any calls.

NONE of this is a secret to an actual EE. So like all of the weird bull **** from Slocumb you're doing the same. What are you - a "computer science" major who used to make changes to the Cobol programs written by someone else to accommodate hardware changes made by a real engineer? Or perhaps you're a phone service guy who always dreamed of writing code.

Cobol is barely used anymore. It was used on IBM mainframes and was for BUSINESS applications.

What in the hell is it with you guys?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:17:04 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 07:29:37 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 2:18:28 PM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:

Right, by claiming an 8080 could multi-task? Or by claiming
removable media didn't exist? Those weren't _my_ stupid statements.

And now we get another Tommie sideshuffle.

"Limited by the language itself"??? Now say that again three times
fast and ask yourself why C and its extension C++ are the largest
languages used
They are not.

and have been a STANDARD since they were invented in 1978 by
Kernihan and Richie.

They were not and there were other more significant languages. In any
case, has C surplanted COBOL yet.

I have to say that the things you post are so moronic that they verge
on the level of very low IQ stupidity.
Which you wish you had.

BTW, you've got your date wrong as amongst my collection is a C
programming printout from earlier than that and is is the second
edition.

Ahh, so you're a Cobol programmer. I should have known. That is NOT a
programming language for embedded systems and that is why you haven't
one single clue about C, C++ and Assembly language.

That, two of the above and about six others.


NONE of this is a secret to an actual EE.

Actually, a lot don't have a clue, since it isn't their specialty.

So like all of the weird bull
**** from Slocumb you're doing the same. What are you - a "computer
science" major who used to make changes to the Cobol programs written by
someone else to accommodate hardware changes made by a real engineer?

No and I fixed programming errors from conditions that didn't come to
light often. aka, they weren't proprly tested in the first place. funny
how that happens in a lot of programs over different lanuages.

perhaps you're a phone service guy who always dreamed of writing code.

Cobol is barely used anymore.


Wrong. If I want to wage slave, all I need to do is put Cobol in my
resume and I can choose the project.

It was used on IBM mainframes and was for
BUSINESS applications.

So you think, but those are two reasons why I haven't touched it for
decades.

What in the hell is it with you guys?

Oh, is that where you are. Are you one one of those deals from Nick, that
if you can get someone to take your place, he says you can get out?