4 ms·

I don't think they mean "old" programmers exactly... more like "programmers back in the day". We just didn't have the quality of tools back then. Also, our ma

I don't think they mean "old" programmers exactly... more like "programmers back in the day". We just didn't have the quality of tools back then. Also, our machines were orders of magnitude less powerful, which meant we generally had to work with a lot less in the way of things like library support, frameworks, etc. I used to have an OS/2 box as my build machine. I think that box had 32k of RAM, and 4.7Mhz processor.

matt_the_bass 8y ago
Yes, not nearly the quality of tools. When I was programming back then I programmed much closer to the cpu (less abstraction through libraries and less automated tools). This made me look much closer at the issues listed above. I also ready full books on the programming language and command sets. Unlike now, if I use a new library/language, I just scan the online docs to get the gist of what I need to do. So I guess I had the opposite experience.
- fcbrooklyn 8y ago
  Yeah, I did all those things as well. They were essential. And yet I would say that at least 50% of the bugs we ran into were either buffer overflows, stack overflows, using freed pointers, not freeing pointers, or incorrect pointer indirection. At least we didn't have to worry about race conditions.
danmg 8y ago
Your boss must have really hated you to have you run OS/2 on 32k of RAM at 4.7MHz. I didn't even know that was possible.
- fcbrooklyn 8y ago
  Oops! 32 Meg, not K. 4.7 is correct I think though. That machine was probably worth about 3-4 grand at the time (1992)
  - icedchai 8y ago
    4.7 mhz is probably not correct. That was the speed of the original 8088/8086 machines (IBM PC 5150 class, etc.) You would need at least a 386 to support 32 megs of RAM. Those were at least 16 mhz.
    - danmg 8y ago
      Could have been under-clocked by (div 4) just to torture people into writing efficient code.
    - fcbrooklyn 8y ago
      Heh... see, it was the distant past, fading from my memory. You're absolutely right. The machine in question was an early pentium box as I recall, and the fastest machine I'd ever used at the time.
lallysingh 8y ago
Yes, precisely. I count myself as one of them. SO and other things online provide a minimum quality level for many solutions, and we didn't have that a few years ago. So you did what you could with the meager time and resources available.

matt_the_bass 8y ago

Yes, not nearly the quality of tools. When I was programming back then I programmed much closer to the cpu (less abstraction through libraries and less automated tools). This made me look much closer at the issues listed above. I also ready full books on the programming language and command sets. Unlike now, if I use a new library/language, I just scan the online docs to get the gist of what I need to do. So I guess I had the opposite experience.

fcbrooklyn 8y ago
Yeah, I did all those things as well. They were essential. And yet I would say that at least 50% of the bugs we ran into were either buffer overflows, stack overflows, using freed pointers, not freeing pointers, or incorrect pointer indirection. At least we didn't have to worry about race conditions.

danmg 8y ago

Your boss must have really hated you to have you run OS/2 on 32k of RAM at 4.7MHz. I didn't even know that was possible.

fcbrooklyn 8y ago
Oops! 32 Meg, not K. 4.7 is correct I think though. That machine was probably worth about 3-4 grand at the time (1992)
- icedchai 8y ago
  4.7 mhz is probably not correct. That was the speed of the original 8088/8086 machines (IBM PC 5150 class, etc.) You would need at least a 386 to support 32 megs of RAM. Those were at least 16 mhz.
  - danmg 8y ago
    Could have been under-clocked by (div 4) just to torture people into writing efficient code.
  - fcbrooklyn 8y ago
    Heh... see, it was the distant past, fading from my memory. You're absolutely right. The machine in question was an early pentium box as I recall, and the fastest machine I'd ever used at the time.

lallysingh 8y ago

Yes, precisely. I count myself as one of them. SO and other things online provide a minimum quality level for many solutions, and we didn't have that a few years ago. So you did what you could with the meager time and resources available.