6 ms·

Holy smokes... blown away. 1K RAM? less then most email's we write... Now'a days rockstars and Ninja's are the glorified ruby guys who "seemingly" do Ruby/djang

by 3327 12y ago

Holy smokes... blown away. 1K RAM? less then most email's we write... Now'a days rockstars and Ninja's are the glorified ruby guys who "seemingly" do Ruby/django magic... This is what counts...This is the real deal...

pfortuny 12y ago
Now you only have less than 800 bytes left. And counting.
stpe 12y ago
On this topic, check what was done (and still is, to some extent on the homebrew scene) on the Atari 2600 with 128 bytes of RAM and no framebuffer.
- JonathonW 12y ago
  Of course, the Atari (unlike the Sinclair in the OP) executed code directly from the cartridge-- you didn't have to fit your whole program into that 128 bytes of RAM. Atari cartridges could be up to 4kB, or 32kB with bank switching, which is downright roomy for the era.
moron4hire 12y ago
Weeeell... The entire point of computers is to be able to do work that would be too tedious for humans. Computers exist so people can be lazy. Making better programming languages so programmers can be lazy is kind of the whole point of the job.
- blowski 12y ago
  Exactly. For many, many projects nowadays, the project does not require a 1024 executable because RAM is cheap. Making code that's really easy to work with is just as impressive as this.
- sago 12y ago
  The entire point of computers is to be able to do work that would be too tedious for humans. Really? News to me. Like the entire point of cars is to take you on journeys that would be too tedious to walk?
  - david-given 12y ago
    No, that's absolutely true. The first computers were for calculating logarithm tables, which were incredibly tedious, slow and error prone for humans to do. If you're ever in Bletchley Park in the United Kingdom, go visit the National Museum of Computing. They'll show you (and you'll get to play with) the Harwell Witch, a decimal computer designed to compete with humans who are using mechanical hand-cranked calculators: http://www.tnmoc.org/special-projects/harwell-dekatron-witch http://www.tnmoc.org/special-projects/harwell-dekatron-witch A well-trained human can actually outperform the Witch; for twenty minutes. (They tried it.) But the Witch doesn't make mistakes and it doesn't get tired. It was only much later that they realised that computers could do things which humans weren't _able_ to do.
    - sago 12y ago
      Not seeing where you're arguing that the entire-point of computers is to do tedious calculations. That the first computers were used that way, I don't doubt. But not the same thing, I'd say. The first cars were horseless carriages.
      - moron4hire 12y ago
        don't be pedantic
        sago 12y ago
        I wasn't trying to be. I wasn't saying "yeah, but 'entire point' strictly means... fnar fnar". I was responding to a point above that seemed to imply that code like this can't be considered great (or at least, no greater than a Rails website), because its not what computers are for. They are for calculating things humans can't. I disagree with that. And not on a pedantic, language level. It is a genuine confusion, i think, between why something was made and what it can do. Though on re-reading, I may have misinterpreted the OP.
metaphorm 12y ago
this is an interesting historical artifact demonstrating the skill of one individual. its not "what counts", it was a low importance side project in its time, and is interesting today only as a piece of history, not for any lasting technology impact it had. why you're using this as an excuse to take cheap shots at web developers is beyond me.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  Not true. A lot of people were so amazed by the potential of ZX81 game programming they became programmers themselves - sometimes games programmers, but just as often general developers. If the ZX81 hadn't done anything of interest it wouldn't have persuaded those people that awesome programming was possible. Dismissing this kind of coding as a side show is arrogant and ill-informed. The ZX81 itself was a similar project that squeezed maximum usefulness and affordability out of very limited resources. IMO this illustrates the difference between engineers and hacks. Hacks are pleased when code sort-of works. Engineers are only satisfied with designs that are minimal, elegant, and use resources as efficiently as possible. This actually matters. Efficient coding influences everything from battery life to mobile data costs to cloud fees to data centre profitability. Sure, it's easy to ignore. It's just not very professional.
  - metaphorm 12y ago
    please don't put words into my mouth or deliberately misinterpret me for your own purposes. this kind of rhetorical dishonesty really reflects badly on you. I didn't dismiss it as a sideshow. My exact words were "low importance side project". It was a side project, as in, not the code he was working on full time for his business. It was low importance, because it was just a chess game, not a piece of system software or a business application or anything else that mattered materially. Its possible to admire the skill and craft of a low importance side project and its author, and to be inspired by that skill and craft, and yet still acknowledge that it was a low importance side project. When you slander me by accusing me of being arrogant and ill-informed you reveal your true character. You don't know me at all. You're eager to falsely attribute beliefs to me that I don't have and you're eager to criticize me for things I have not even said. You should probably take some time to consider why you feel the need to do this. Its pretty obscene.

by 3327 12y ago

pfortuny 12y ago

Now you only have less than 800 bytes left. And counting.

stpe 12y ago

On this topic, check what was done (and still is, to some extent on the homebrew scene) on the Atari 2600 with 128 bytes of RAM and no framebuffer.

JonathonW 12y ago
Of course, the Atari (unlike the Sinclair in the OP) executed code directly from the cartridge-- you didn't have to fit your whole program into that 128 bytes of RAM. Atari cartridges could be up to 4kB, or 32kB with bank switching, which is downright roomy for the era.

moron4hire 12y ago

Weeeell... The entire point of computers is to be able to do work that would be too tedious for humans. Computers exist so people can be lazy. Making better programming languages so programmers can be lazy is kind of the whole point of the job.

blowski 12y ago
Exactly. For many, many projects nowadays, the project does not require a 1024 executable because RAM is cheap. Making code that's really easy to work with is just as impressive as this.
sago 12y ago
The entire point of computers is to be able to do work that would be too tedious for humans. Really? News to me. Like the entire point of cars is to take you on journeys that would be too tedious to walk?
- david-given 12y ago
  No, that's absolutely true. The first computers were for calculating logarithm tables, which were incredibly tedious, slow and error prone for humans to do. If you're ever in Bletchley Park in the United Kingdom, go visit the National Museum of Computing. They'll show you (and you'll get to play with) the Harwell Witch, a decimal computer designed to compete with humans who are using mechanical hand-cranked calculators: http://www.tnmoc.org/special-projects/harwell-dekatron-witch http://www.tnmoc.org/special-projects/harwell-dekatron-witch A well-trained human can actually outperform the Witch; for twenty minutes. (They tried it.) But the Witch doesn't make mistakes and it doesn't get tired. It was only much later that they realised that computers could do things which humans weren't _able_ to do.
  - sago 12y ago
    Not seeing where you're arguing that the entire-point of computers is to do tedious calculations. That the first computers were used that way, I don't doubt. But not the same thing, I'd say. The first cars were horseless carriages.
    - moron4hire 12y ago
      don't be pedantic
      - sago 12y ago
        I wasn't trying to be. I wasn't saying "yeah, but 'entire point' strictly means... fnar fnar". I was responding to a point above that seemed to imply that code like this can't be considered great (or at least, no greater than a Rails website), because its not what computers are for. They are for calculating things humans can't. I disagree with that. And not on a pedantic, language level. It is a genuine confusion, i think, between why something was made and what it can do. Though on re-reading, I may have misinterpreted the OP.

metaphorm 12y ago

this is an interesting historical artifact demonstrating the skill of one individual. its not "what counts", it was a low importance side project in its time, and is interesting today only as a piece of history, not for any lasting technology impact it had. why you're using this as an excuse to take cheap shots at web developers is beyond me.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
Not true. A lot of people were so amazed by the potential of ZX81 game programming they became programmers themselves - sometimes games programmers, but just as often general developers. If the ZX81 hadn't done anything of interest it wouldn't have persuaded those people that awesome programming was possible. Dismissing this kind of coding as a side show is arrogant and ill-informed. The ZX81 itself was a similar project that squeezed maximum usefulness and affordability out of very limited resources. IMO this illustrates the difference between engineers and hacks. Hacks are pleased when code sort-of works. Engineers are only satisfied with designs that are minimal, elegant, and use resources as efficiently as possible. This actually matters. Efficient coding influences everything from battery life to mobile data costs to cloud fees to data centre profitability. Sure, it's easy to ignore. It's just not very professional.
- metaphorm 12y ago
  please don't put words into my mouth or deliberately misinterpret me for your own purposes. this kind of rhetorical dishonesty really reflects badly on you. I didn't dismiss it as a sideshow. My exact words were "low importance side project". It was a side project, as in, not the code he was working on full time for his business. It was low importance, because it was just a chess game, not a piece of system software or a business application or anything else that mattered materially. Its possible to admire the skill and craft of a low importance side project and its author, and to be inspired by that skill and craft, and yet still acknowledge that it was a low importance side project. When you slander me by accusing me of being arrogant and ill-informed you reveal your true character. You don't know me at all. You're eager to falsely attribute beliefs to me that I don't have and you're eager to criticize me for things I have not even said. You should probably take some time to consider why you feel the need to do this. Its pretty obscene.