3 ms·

Wow, thank you for that quote. That boggles my mind. Not one bug? I've seen impressive programmers in my life but never like this.

by Kenji 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Look at Wirth's and Gutknecht's Lilith project. After seeing Xerox's PC's, they independently from Apple invented a PC and GUI line involving: a custom computer; a CPU from bit-slice chip; an ideal assembler (M-code); a high-level, safer language (Modula-2) built for it; compiler; primitive OS; basic tools. This work and much of its methodology later became the Oberon language and system, also a 2 person job. They also implemented custom HDL's and hardware for it later on. I believe one person, esp of Wirth's or Gutknecht's capacity, could've built all this albeit with a lot more time required. The key was simplicity, layers, understanding each module, and incrementally building them. Lilith System http://www.cfbsoftware.com/modula2/Lilith.pdf http://www.cfbsoftware.com/modula2/Lilith.pdf Oberon System http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:3180/eth-3180-01.pdf http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:3180/eth-3180-... Synthesis of Hardware Circuits from Sequential Programs http://inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Oberon/286.pdf http://inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Oberon/286.pdf The processors http://oberoncore.ru/_media/library/computersystemdesign.pdf http://oberoncore.ru/_media/library/computersystemdesign.pdf People like them are the true "full-stack" developers. Apps, OS, circuits... coded it all and integrated it cleanly usually in 2 year periods.
- lobster_johnson 11y ago
  One interesting aspect of Wirth's work, which is illustrated by Oberon, is that he always iterated — from Pascal (itself heavily influenced by ALGOL) to Modula, to Modula-2, to Oberon, then finally Oberon 02. Apple's ObjectPascal is in there somewhere. For example, as I understand it, Oberon was basically bootstrapped with Modula-2. They're all Pascal-like, and therefore ALGOL-like, sharing a lot of similarities; not just syntax, but also concepts such as ranged types, range-bound arrays, enums, record syntax, etc. You can know Pascal and be able to pick up Modula or Oberon very quickly, since so many keywords and concepts are identical. At the same time, each iteration tried to simplify the language (the BNF for Oberon has only 33 grammar rules).
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    That's a good point. A strength of his improvements in terms of learning curve and re-using prior work. He was always good at that part. However, I like best how he designed the assembly languages (P-code, M-code) and high-level languages (Pascal, Modula-2) to be consistent with one another. Some called it a hack but I think it's brilliant. Imagine how easy it would be to learn inline assembler if its workings matched the language behavior already described to you. It's like explaining stacks, frames, goto and math in C was about all it took to know x86 programming. It would make both ends more effective. He did it for ease of implementation and compilation. Still need that for formal verification of whole systems, securing whole systems, people that like to experiment with them, and so on. So, his principle stands the test of time.

Wow, thank you for that quote. That boggles my mind. Not one bug? I've seen impressive programmers in my life but never like this.

by Kenji 11y ago

Wow, thank you for that quote. That boggles my mind. Not one bug? I've seen impressive programmers in my life but never like this.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Look at Wirth's and Gutknecht's Lilith project. After seeing Xerox's PC's, they independently from Apple invented a PC and GUI line involving: a custom computer; a CPU from bit-slice chip; an ideal assembler (M-code); a high-level, safer language (Modula-2) built for it; compiler; primitive OS; basic tools. This work and much of its methodology later became the Oberon language and system, also a 2 person job. They also implemented custom HDL's and hardware for it later on. I believe one person, esp of Wirth's or Gutknecht's capacity, could've built all this albeit with a lot more time required. The key was simplicity, layers, understanding each module, and incrementally building them. Lilith System http://www.cfbsoftware.com/modula2/Lilith.pdf http://www.cfbsoftware.com/modula2/Lilith.pdf Oberon System http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:3180/eth-3180-01.pdf http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:3180/eth-3180-... Synthesis of Hardware Circuits from Sequential Programs http://inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Oberon/286.pdf http://inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Oberon/286.pdf The processors http://oberoncore.ru/_media/library/computersystemdesign.pdf http://oberoncore.ru/_media/library/computersystemdesign.pdf People like them are the true "full-stack" developers. Apps, OS, circuits... coded it all and integrated it cleanly usually in 2 year periods.

lobster_johnson 11y ago
One interesting aspect of Wirth's work, which is illustrated by Oberon, is that he always iterated — from Pascal (itself heavily influenced by ALGOL) to Modula, to Modula-2, to Oberon, then finally Oberon 02. Apple's ObjectPascal is in there somewhere. For example, as I understand it, Oberon was basically bootstrapped with Modula-2. They're all Pascal-like, and therefore ALGOL-like, sharing a lot of similarities; not just syntax, but also concepts such as ranged types, range-bound arrays, enums, record syntax, etc. You can know Pascal and be able to pick up Modula or Oberon very quickly, since so many keywords and concepts are identical. At the same time, each iteration tried to simplify the language (the BNF for Oberon has only 33 grammar rules).
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  That's a good point. A strength of his improvements in terms of learning curve and re-using prior work. He was always good at that part. However, I like best how he designed the assembly languages (P-code, M-code) and high-level languages (Pascal, Modula-2) to be consistent with one another. Some called it a hack but I think it's brilliant. Imagine how easy it would be to learn inline assembler if its workings matched the language behavior already described to you. It's like explaining stacks, frames, goto and math in C was about all it took to know x86 programming. It would make both ends more effective. He did it for ease of implementation and compilation. Still need that for formal verification of whole systems, securing whole systems, people that like to experiment with them, and so on. So, his principle stands the test of time.