🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ggk.658820424@tirith.UUCP> ggk@tirith.UUCP (Gregory Kritsch) writes:
>cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>>In article <ggk.658699652@tirith.UUCP> ggk@tirith.UUCP (Gregory Kritsch) writes:
>>   cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>>   >In article <90318.162021DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>   So, whats your point?  It probably took 2 minutes to do the cr-lf
>>   program, and 5 for the clock.  And if they don't work, it'll take
>>   another 2 minutes to find out why not.

A simple trade-off.  Is taking 2 minutes to do a cr/lf program with an
object size of 500,000 bytes better than taking 1/2 hour with a size of
a 5,000 bytes?

>>What I am complaining about ?
>>[raving-prophet-of-the-doom-of-computerdom-and-the-decadence-of-
>> -the-young-programmers-mode on ]
>Nice attitude.  Unfortunately, I'm 18 years old, and just got a little
>offended...  I hate being stereotyped.

I'm only 21, and I'm not offended.  I think he was referring more to
people that learned to program recently on larger systems that allow
their projects to expand to fill (or excede) all available space.

>>graphics or composed sounds. No, digitized sounds and graphics. Maybe
>>with a few hours of programming you could write a program which
>>generates the same sounds in a few kBytes. But , who cares ? Put it in
>>the digitizer and generate a Mbyte sample, it is so much easier.
>
>I dunno, I always imagined that theres a neato half way point.  Ie to do
>sound, you digitize instruments and then have code to vary the volume,
[...]

But digitizing in any form takes up gobs of memory.  That was the
point.  People use digitized sounds as a norm instead of trying to
create a comparable sound pattern that takes up a lot less memory.

>>[...]But I learned
>>to program on a computer with 1 kByte of memory and if you used more
>>than half of it, the screen was turned of as the screen memory was used
>>for the program. Maybe that shows. I hope it does.
>I learned on a machine with 16 kb, which was later upgraded to 32 kb.  I
>couldn't believe all the neat things I could do with 32 kb.  Now, I have
>512 kb, and I'm looking to upgrade because I don't have enough memory?

I learned on a 3.5K machine in about 1982.  Later I had a 64K machine.
(You can probably guess which ones.)  There were many programs that
were much faster and just as complex as those available on the Amiga,
but the equivalent Amiga ones are often a factor of 10 (or more)
larger.

>Programs have become larger.  Fundamental reason #1: the machine op code
>doubled in size a few years ago (from 8 bits to 16).  Reason #2: The
>user has given up on cryptic commands.  Reason #3: The programmer
>started to realize there was an actual user, not just the program.

And, the one that I and I believe Carl Edman object to, #4:  People
have more space, and feel freer to waste it.

>I hope this isn't too philosophical for this newsgroup...

No complaints by me.

>  Gregory Kritsch                          | University of Waterloo
--
Chris Dailey   dailey@(frith.egr|cpsin.cps).msu.edu
BRD += DDR;
DDR = NULL;
num_countries --;