4 ms·

There is a scan of the program here [0], which is 1,746 pages. That seems much less than the number of pages in the photo (by maybe a factor of 10 or so?). If

There is a scan of the program here [0], which is 1,746 pages. That seems much less than the number of pages in the photo (by maybe a factor of 10 or so?). If I had to guess, maybe they printed out each revision of the program? Apparently there were seven different versions [1], so if the stack contains all of them, that would account for the difference pretty well. [0] http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/apollo/public/archive/1701.pdf http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/a... [1] http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/links.html#Software_manuals_and_listings http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/links.html#Software_manuals_an...

robotresearcher 11y ago
Ok I'll buy that. The claim is "listings of the code" so several iterations of the code is consistent with that, if superficially misleading.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  As will I. Over 1,000+ pages of source is believable and still one hell of an accomplishment at the quality level. I still consider the possibility that the stack included specs of successful or error states given the importance of those for a working program. I know she liked including tons of error handling in everything. Most might have done that with tests but she did it in primary stuff. So, there's room for stuff in there that's not pure source as modern developers would consider.