3 ms·
> Are you thinking of a specific concrete 16-bit architecture where it's easy to access data objects larger than 64K? Your question implies that you want one p
by wolfgke 10y ago
> Are you thinking of a specific concrete 16-bit architecture where it's easy to access data objects larger than 64K?
Your question implies that you want one piece > 64 KiB of flat memory. With this you already stated a very strong implicit assumption about the data layout and the kind of algorithm that you want to use. My point rather is: Consider the capabilities that the 16b machine has and try to fit the data representation and algorithms that you use around it instead of wining about lack of machine capabilities. One will often find a solution using clever tricks that one would not have considered otherwise, which will often turn out to be surprisingly elegant and much better than the "naive" solution.
This way to program is of course nothing for the kind of programmer that want to write an unelegant and just working program in a short amount of time, I know. :-)
- mschaef 10y ago> Consider the capabilities that the 16b machine ...instead of wining about lack of machine capabilities. ...the kind of programmer that want to write an unelegant and just working program in a short amount of time, I do hear you, but one of the things I love about virtually all modern hardware is just how much capability it puts within the reach of totally naive and quick development strategies. If I can inelegantly solve two or three problems in the same time I can elegantly solve one, then that strikes me as a net win (at least for the people that need problems solved more than code written.) I don't mind pushing the hardware and searching for elegance, but I'd rather be forced into it by the necessities of the problem I'm trying to solve.