Re: Shell Scripting is as lame as VB.
From: Peter H.M. Brooks (peter_at_fustbariclation.e3.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:16:03 +1200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <email@example.com> wrote in
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Closest I personally got was an HP 2114B or HP 2116.
> Nice computer if one likes slow 16-bit word rackmounts,
> but it did have switches; the 2114B had some nice ones
> that I have no idea precisely how they worked although
> it probably was a variant of capacitative detection: just
> touch one and it flips (the switch had a built-in lamp).
> One of the more amusing hacks was to read the switches
> (they got shoved into a memory location; I forget where
> now), shift them, and write it back.
It was a nice box, with real core memory. We had a bouncing ball routine
that ran on the lights on the front panel - you could press two and the
'ball' would bounce between them, release one and it would wrap around and
bounce back from the other.
It was a bit of a pain to program in BASIC (for obvious reasons!) and in
assembler as you needed two paper tapes. The FORTRAN compiler needed three
paper tapes so it was easy to get mixed up with all the mess on the floor
(never try to tidy the paper tape heap). The best compiler was Algol, which
ran in 8k in a single pass, so you only needed your code tape and the
compiler tape and it was straight to the relocatable - after which you just
needed to go through the linker and there you were, a working program!
There was also a D to A converter - I connected it to a speaker to do some
experiments on generating fractal sounds, it was a far cry from mp3 but it
seemed pretty exciting at the time!