6 ms·
The case of the missing 4th Commodore BASIC variable (and the 5th byte)
- jandrese 4y agoI find it amazing just how hard Commodore crippled the integer type in their BASIC interpreter. Not only does it take 5(!!) bytes to store a 16 bit value, but it is often slower than the floating point version of common operations.
- masswerk 4y agoThe standard length of 5 bytes has some advantages when it comes to looking up variables. But, I agree, integer is really more like a clamped float in Commodore BASIC. (However, integer array values are stored in just 2 bytes, each, hinting at it's really about traversal time.)
- ajross 4y agoCommodore's software story was indeed a mess, going all the way back to the PET. The BASIC in question was essentially a development snapshot of Microsoft BASIC on the 6502. It's the same code base that would go on to become Applesoft about a year later. But where Apple was able to drag MS along via comparison to the (less featureful but FAR more elegant) Integer BASIC interpreter, Commodore just took what they got and shipped it. Then patched it as needed as they kept shipping new hardware. You'd think this would have hurt them more than it did. But in fact the idea of an "Operating System" had limited real utility in devices this small. There just wasn't enough space to do much useful for the user, and all "real" apps and games ended up rolling their own versions of everything anyway. The C64's primary interface to the software developer was a hardware interface. And as it happened that mostly worked just great (disk I/O excepted, of course).
- coldacid 4y agoI wouldn't really put the blame for this on Commodore. The integer code for BASIC-65 is common across all the platforms that licensed it from Microsoft. You might be interested in checking this out: https://github.com/mist64/msbasic https://github.com/mist64/msbasic
- altairprime 4y agoThis article’s technical content is excellent, but it’s ruined by the creepy analogy between DEFFN’s internals and a woman’s body.
- codetrotter 4y agoChatGPT agrees that some might see it as creepy. I only read a bit of it myself, but I pasted the whole contents of the story to ChatGPT and then I asked simply: > Is the above text creepy? Why or why not? Quoth ChatGPT: > […] The use of gendered language and the description of the "damsel in distress" could be seen as objectifying or stereotypical. However, it's also possible that the author was trying to use a playful or nostalgic tone that is common in tech writing. Ultimately, whether or not the text is creepy is subjective and depends on the individual reader's interpretation and personal values.
- none_to_remain 4y agoPlease don't
- masswerk 4y agoThe entire trope is creepy, the usual portrait of the male private eye detective as is the portrayal of his object, the "damsel in distress". (Mind that the "damsel in distress" is commonly an excess signifier in the setup hinting at something not being as presented, thus initiating the core story.) You can't have one without the other, and still stay true with cultural history of ephemeral narration. This is here further motivated by us encountering a phenomenon of distress in code, namely, in the anatomy (a common term for this) of a unified storage format for variables and an artefact found in this. Moreover, this is really a 1970s story (as is the PET 2001). (I find it rather creepy that the portrayal of the male narrator, who is without empathy but for the curiosity for his object, should be ok and go without any notice. On the other hand, note the absence of any notion of violence, untruthful or untrustworthy behavior, etc, otherwise common to the genre. Which would probably also have passed the filter, which is again creepy in its own right. — In defense of the genre, these are really paper-cut, mechanical figures to enable the progress of the story and not human figures, at all.)
- cultureulterior 4y agoThe style is in the way of the content.
- masswerk 4y agoWhich poses the question, what is the content? Compare the postscript.
- mdekkers 4y ago> So let’s have a closer look at her (blush) anatomy… This is cringe and creepy. Although the subject is interesting, I really couldn’t read past that.
- masswerk 4y agoSorry: a text in its actualization is the product of the cooperation of the reader and the text as written. (This is basic text theory.) So, I guess, in-memory structures are not for you, as this is a/the common term. It's true, the text highlights creepiness, both in a genre and the terminology, but don't shoot the messenger. Why is tech referring to such things as "anatomy" or "build"? (The apparent overlap just highlights an already existing semantic disposition. Also, you should have stopped long before this, when the male narrator was portrayed as without any empathy or interest but cold curiosity.)