Re: Shell Scripting is as lame as VB.

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 04/13/04


Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:01:34 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter H.M. Brooks
<peter@fustbariclation.e3.net>
 wrote
on Sat, 10 Apr 2004 12:16:03 +1200
<40773cb1@news.iconz.co.nz>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:o6gjk1-89h.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mathew@spamtrap-spiesareus.yi.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.

Oops, forgot that aspect. Yeah, real ferrule core -- which
basically meant that we only had to occasionally load the
machine from the BASIC interpreter, coiled up in its
paper tape. (I forget whether the machine was powered
down nightly or not; it probably was.)

> 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.

Neat switches, those. :-)

>
> It was a bit of a pain to program in BASIC (for obvious reasons!) and in
> assembler as you needed two paper tapes.

Dunno if anyone else ever used our copy of the assembler. I might
have dabbled with it but don't remember doing anything horribly
substantive. (I did learn the machine language, after a fashion.)

> 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!

Hmm...Algol would have been nice. Of course we probably got a deal
on those mark-sense BASIC cards.

>
> 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!
>
>

Heh...yeah, I don't think our teacher would have sanctioned that hack.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.