5 ms·

As a kid, I actually had an Olivetti 8088 before I got my C64, and when I got that.. Well, it blew my mind on many levels, not only were there great games, but

by dusted 4y ago

As a kid, I actually had an Olivetti 8088 before I got my C64, and when I got that.. Well, it blew my mind on many levels, not only were there great games, but the computer booted right into a programming language! It cemented in my mind, the concept that computers were first and foremost meant to be programmed by their users. Knowing this helped me immensly as I moved back to the PC, DOS and Windows didn't expose this so clearly to my 10 year old brain, but the C64 had shown me that it must be possible, that there must be something "behind" the GUI, and it kept my interest in finding out what it was,and how to do it.

mdp2021 4y ago
And what about when you could read the content of that memory filled by some "masterpiece", and visualize the structure of memory areas and realize those thorny-branch shaped (addr, op, op'd) flows of code called each other as interconnected chunks, drawing an ideal engine aesthetically built like a form of art hidden behind the apparent one...
rob74 4y ago
Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. Under DOS, there was GW-BASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC), the Amiga had AmigaBASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaBASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaBASIC - which however did not support the full range of multimedia features, and was only available until AmigaOS 1.3), but Windows 3.1 didn't include a programming language anymore. Arguably smartphones and tablets have increased this barrier of entry even further, because you need a separate PC/Mac to develop software for them.
- eadmund 4y ago
  > Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. It was earlier than that: it was in 1984 that the Macintosh shipped without any built-in programming capability. Indeed, if I remember correctly for a time there weren't any programming tools available for it at first; one had to develop on a Lisa instead. At the time, I was so enthralled by how easy the Mac was to use that it never occurred to me that it was painful to extend. Oddly enough, that same characteristic is just as true today, perhaps moreso.
  - twmiller 4y ago
    I don’t think the modern mac is any more (or less) difficult to extend than windows or linux…
    - eru 4y ago
      Well, since the operating system itself is not quite as open, it's harder to extent than Linux. But perhaps comparable to Windows. Ie these days writing programs is on all three platforms, but on Linux you are on the same level of access as any other kernel developer.
- eru 4y ago
  Later MS-DOS (and even Windows 95?) had QBasic, one of my first forays into programming. If I remember right, Microsoft had even translated the built-in manual into my native language.
  - dusted 4y ago
    I can't recall qb being in the win95 distribution, but I remember pulling it over from dos floppies and spent a lot of time with it. However, it was "hidden away" you needed to first get this idea into your head that there was even a possibility to program the computer, and then you had to find out how to get a program that allowed you to do so. What was so powerful about that c64 boot screen was that you couldn't miss that fact, it was not something "extra" that had to be done, from bootup, programming WAS the computing experience, even if the only program you ever wrote was a one-line program with the LOAD statement :)
    - eru 4y ago
      Yes, definitely. Though CMD.COM and .bat files in DOS and Windows could theoretically also be used to program. But that was less obvious than on the C=64, and not even as obvious as Linux bash scripting being a possibility when you first login.
      - dusted 4y ago
        Absolutely, I remember trying to make a text adventure game in .bat files (I didn't get far though). I am fond of bash, even if it's universially loathed as a programming language, it can get a reasonable amount of work done, and it's right there, in your terminal :)
        eru 4y ago
        Bash ain't great, but it's heaven compared to eg GNU Make.

by dusted 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago

And what about when you could read the content of that memory filled by some "masterpiece", and visualize the structure of memory areas and realize those thorny-branch shaped (addr, op, op'd) flows of code called each other as interconnected chunks, drawing an ideal engine aesthetically built like a form of art hidden behind the apparent one...

rob74 4y ago

Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. Under DOS, there was GW-BASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC), the Amiga had AmigaBASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaBASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaBASIC - which however did not support the full range of multimedia features, and was only available until AmigaOS 1.3), but Windows 3.1 didn't include a programming language anymore. Arguably smartphones and tablets have increased this barrier of entry even further, because you need a separate PC/Mac to develop software for them.

eadmund 4y ago
> Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. It was earlier than that: it was in 1984 that the Macintosh shipped without any built-in programming capability. Indeed, if I remember correctly for a time there weren't any programming tools available for it at first; one had to develop on a Lisa instead. At the time, I was so enthralled by how easy the Mac was to use that it never occurred to me that it was painful to extend. Oddly enough, that same characteristic is just as true today, perhaps moreso.
- twmiller 4y ago
  I don’t think the modern mac is any more (or less) difficult to extend than windows or linux…
  - eru 4y ago
    Well, since the operating system itself is not quite as open, it's harder to extent than Linux. But perhaps comparable to Windows. Ie these days writing programs is on all three platforms, but on Linux you are on the same level of access as any other kernel developer.
eru 4y ago
Later MS-DOS (and even Windows 95?) had QBasic, one of my first forays into programming. If I remember right, Microsoft had even translated the built-in manual into my native language.
- dusted 4y ago
  I can't recall qb being in the win95 distribution, but I remember pulling it over from dos floppies and spent a lot of time with it. However, it was "hidden away" you needed to first get this idea into your head that there was even a possibility to program the computer, and then you had to find out how to get a program that allowed you to do so. What was so powerful about that c64 boot screen was that you couldn't miss that fact, it was not something "extra" that had to be done, from bootup, programming WAS the computing experience, even if the only program you ever wrote was a one-line program with the LOAD statement :)
  - eru 4y ago
    Yes, definitely. Though CMD.COM and .bat files in DOS and Windows could theoretically also be used to program. But that was less obvious than on the C=64, and not even as obvious as Linux bash scripting being a possibility when you first login.
    - dusted 4y ago
      Absolutely, I remember trying to make a text adventure game in .bat files (I didn't get far though). I am fond of bash, even if it's universially loathed as a programming language, it can get a reasonable amount of work done, and it's right there, in your terminal :)
      - eru 4y ago
        Bash ain't great, but it's heaven compared to eg GNU Make.