|
Sorry, I meant to say "the web". 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
That's still always been there from my point of view. If Wikipedia is accurate[^], the first web page ever created was created the same day I was born (November 13th, to save you some time searching the page).
modified 20-May-13 13:45pm.
|
|
|
|
|
 Really? Only 1990? I'm pretty sure I have some tee-shirts older than that. 
ps your link is bad.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: <layer><layer>Really? Only 1990? I'm pretty sure I have some tee-shirts older than that.
That's why I come here, I get to feel young. 
mark merrens wrote: ps your link is bad.
Weird, apparently it didn't like me not having http on it...maybe that's why it refused to auto-format it for me too. Should be fixed now.
|
|
|
|
|
You're off by a decade.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
By that you mean from your video? But that's my point - in my lifetime, there has never been a time without the internet or even the web. (Arguably, there was a gap between the proof-of-concept and it's wider scale implementation, but that was still before I started forming long-term memories.)
|
|
|
|
|
This script enables you to control your computer via text message. Think of it almost as a version of SSH over text message. It is designed to intelligently and quickly check unread Google voice messages. If certain parameters are passed, it runs the command you send and returns the result. Where autocorrect follies meet sysadmin nightmares.
|
|
|
|
|
Usborne's 1983 classic Introduction to Machine Code for Beginners is an astounding book, written, designed and illustrated by Naomi Reed, Graham Round and Lynne Norman. It uses beautiful infographics and clear writing to provide an introduction to 6502 and Z80 assembler, and it's no wonder that used copies go for as much as $600. How did you learn machine code?
|
|
|
|
|
I had almost forgotten that book but not quite. One of the few useful computing books I ever got out of a public library, a true classic.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: How did you learn machine code?
[ranty...]
I remember my math teacher in 10th grade programming hex codes into a 4K machine. I actually learned BASIC first on a PDP/11, and HP calculators were a bit like machine code, by the time I finished high school I was writing assembly language in 6502 with opcodes, not machine codes, though I could tell you what most opcodes were in hex. Wrote a bunch of image processing algorithms in 8086 and 80286, but then finally compilers got good enough that I could write performance code in C and coerce the compiler to produce what I wanted with various "hints." Lots of fun - I must say, nowadays I'm actually feeling rather dulled to the whole programming environment, OOP has lost its allure, functional programming is cute but ultimately a niche and can be done well enough in OO languages, and things like Ruby and Ruby on Rails feel like klunky hacks - when it works it's cool, when it doesn't it's hours googling for someone on stackoverflow that spent even more time figuring out the solution and was kind enough to post it. Not to mention how klunky the supporting technologies like javascript, jQuery, css, html feel. It's rather depressing how pathetic the web development environment and technology stack kludge actually is, and more depressing is that we all seem to just accept it. How did we get into this situation? Machine code was elegant, capable, and processors and hardware was well spec'd. Nowadays I read about how pathetic or non-existent the documentation for technology "X" is (like ajax support in Rails) but nobody seems to give a damn. We've come a long way, but have we really?
And don't forget - all those fancy layers of DI, IoC, OOP, reflection, dynamic, LINQ, etc.......it all compiles down to machine code. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
People are always looking for the easy way to to hard things. Some tools do make the job easier others just make it easier to do badly or easier to do only if you're doing it exactly as the tool designer envisaged which you almost never are if you're doing something new.
Z80 machine code I could handle, it was human scale and the addressing modes were simple. Intel's mess on the other hand I'm still struggling with. Overall I always found really low level programming too slow, like a really stiff typewriter it could never keep up with my thought processes or I couldn't slow them down that much and remain creative. I too started with BASIC and that was cool until you ran out of RAM or you ran out of variable names you could remember to keep unique.
I moved directly to C++ without going via C really in order to get scoped variables. OO was just introduced another kind of scope which was great and namespaces gave me yet another scope dimension. I never really needed or wanted anything more than that.
I remain determined that the next time I return to Web development on my own account there will be C++ and the Web Server de jour and nothing else on the server side. Pure HTML from templates on the client side and anything and everything else will be autogenerated. I'm stubborn like that
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Pure HTML from templates on the client side and anything and everything else will be autogenerated.
Hmmm...you've just given me an idea for how to crawl out of the primordial ooze of web development.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: <layer>I'm stubborn like that
Me too!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Not to mention how klunky the supporting technologies like javascript, jQuery, css, html feel. It's rather depressing how pathetic the web development environment and technology stack kludge actually is, and more depressing is that we all seem to just accept it.
I feel that way about all this CRAP!!! we're expected to accept as 'standards' (HTML/DOM). 
Committees for standards make unbearably slow progress. 
This is equally disadvantageous because of a larger user base which just grows from their ponderous time scales to appease interested parties (usually corporate bodies). This just adds more resistance to change and feeds back into the process.
|
|
|
|
|
dusty_dex wrote: we're expected to accept as 'standards' (HTML/DOM).
What's particularly annoying is that the so-called standards are only implemented partially, or with deviation. I just today did an "inspect source" on a web page and grimaced in disgust as I saw 3 if-else blocks to handle differences in IE 7, 7, and 8, and this occurred in numerous places throughout the HTML.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
6502 opcodes which had to be converted into string format so that it could be called from ATARI BASIC.
A nightmare. BBC Basic had a built-in assembler which was far more friendly. I can be thankful for not having to enter code via hex keypad (KIM-1) or horror of horrors; toggle switches of the MITS Altair. 
|
|
|
|
|
dusty_dex wrote: or horror of horrors; toggle switches of the MITS Altair.
That stuff was cool! I remember in 8th grade being taught by the chemistry teacher how to enter the bootstrap code into the PDP/11 with toggle switches. Unfortunately, he didn't teach me what exactly I was doing and why. It was only later that I realized I was entering opcodes and toggling the "increment memory" for each binary code.
But yeah, I'm glad we don't have to do that anymore.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I remember in 8th grade being taught by the chemistry teacher how to enter the bootstrap code into the PDP/11 with toggle switches.
Did he deliberately not have a serial line to a terminal?
What a bastard. 
|
|
|
|
|
dusty_dex wrote: Did he deliberately not have a serial line to a terminal?
The machine was hooked up to a teletype with a good old punch tape for saving programs. Which wouldn't work until you booted the computer. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: How did you learn machine code?
"Z80 machine code (or assembly language) for the absolute beginner" and Devpac[^] for ZX Sinclair Spectrum
|
|
|
|
|
|
City & Guilds Assembler - a training language implemented via an interpreter on a Mainframe at Manchester University. It was only for learning the concepts and not used for "real" programming. We had to write the code out on coding sheets and then transcribe it onto a paper tape punch (using "run-out", and post processing using a hand punch, scissors and sticky tape for error correction) then connect the Teletype via an acoustic coupler (after school at 6 PM when the telephone rates were cheaper) and send the code through. The teacher did all the logging on and setting up for our code, we then each got to run our little length of tape through, one at a time - and got the results back within seconds (occasionally minutes) - amazing!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
C++11 feels like a new language. I write code differently now than I did in C++98. The C++11 code is shorter, simpler, and usually more efficient than what I used to write. This poses challenges: How do you present C++? What techniques do you recommend? What language features and libraries do you emphasize? Presenting C++11 as a layer on top of C++98 would be as bad as representing C++98 as a layer on top of C. C++ must be presented as a whole, as the powerful tool for design and implementation that it is, rather than a set of independent features. The Fourth Edition of The C++ Programming Language attempts that and should become available in a few months. Bjarne Stroustrup's personal tour of C++11 and a preview of his book's 4th edition.
|
|
|
|
|
Most people understand that Windows is used by a variety of people who have a variety of needs, ranging from corporate server to workstation to POS terminals to home PC and beyond. Most people accept that whenever Microsoft updates Windows, it has to balance the competing requirements to find some kind of workable compromise. There is however another set of competing requirements that many do not really register, even those that call themselves power users or are IT admins. It is a conflict between developers/programmers and Microsoft itself. Developers are ultimately the ones who write applications used by users whereas Microsoft develops the OS these applications run on. A common shared goal between the two is the desire that applications previously written continue to work. Is Modern API the clean break Microsoft needed from Win32 (and Silverlight and WPF and...)?
|
|
|
|
|
The "modern" API doesn't seem to be a "clean break" since it doesn't replace anything -- it provides no solution for desktop applications. Its something new which is currently limited to only windows store apps. Am I missing something here? Maybe I just don't understand the "modern" API well enough?
|
|
|
|
|
As many programmers gain experience, they start to learn more and more about what happens behind the facade, about Garbage Collecting and overall memory management. Sadly, I see many programmers filled with half right knowledge and wrong conclusions especially in the field of Garbage Collection and Performance. I saw attempts to "optimize" C# code, which did, if anything, slow down the program. So let us take a closer look at the modern Garbage Collectors, how they work and what problems they want to solve. I am going to explain the specific Java implementation, but don't worry, most of them work fairly similar. If GC really worked, it would throw out most of my code.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
