Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Mro to Poindexter Fortran on Wed Aug 01 2012 18:35:50

i didnt like the bbs doc. i dont know if everyone he interviewed was THAT boring, because he would take these long trips out there and then only
show 1-2 mins of the interview on the bbs doc.

Perhaps it was because he interviewed many people, and he had to make a decision about what to include and figured it would be fair to include as many people as possible. I enjoyed the documentary - It definitely took me back to the BBS days, and it's what inspired me to start running a BBS again.

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Poindexter Fortran to ROB MCCART on Wed Aug 01 2012 11:19:19

Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamented
the fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themselves
a sysop without knowing assembler. :)

Do you agree or disagree with them, or were you just pointing it out? :)

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: BBS Doc
By: Nightfox to Mro on Wed Aug 01 2012 07:18 pm

Perhaps it was because he interviewed many people, and he had to make a decision about what to include and figured it would be fair to include as ma people as possible. I enjoyed the documentary - It definitely took me back the BBS days, and it's what inspired me to start running a BBS again.

People can say what they want about the BBS documentary, but it documented a period in time for many of us, and he got it out there. I've had callers cite it as a reason for calling. And, good or bad, he got out there and did it.

I liked it, personally. I think he captured a period of time but could have ended with a chapter on the current scene and had it be a bit less memoir-ish.

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

Re: BBS Doc
By: Nightfox to Poindexter Fortran on Wed Aug 01 2012 07:19 pm

Do you agree or disagree with them, or were you just pointing it out? :)

Yes.

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

--- NIGHTFOX wrote --
Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000
By: Poindexter Fortran to ROB MCCART

Have you watched the BBS documentary? Some of the older sysops lamente
the fact that someone could just install a BBS package and call themsel
a sysop without knowing assembler. :

Do you agree or disagree with them, or were you just pointing it out? :

I kind of agree with them. I think that to use a computer on the Internet you should need a license, like Amateur Radio.

You should have to do something like log into a UNIX shell account and modify your .profile or something...


---
þ TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKseven þ telnet/http bbs.cortex-media.info

Do you agree or disagree with them, or were you just pointing it out? :

I kind of agree with them. I think that to use a computer on the Internet you should need a license, like Amateur Radio.

You should have to do something like log into a UNIX shell account and modify your .profile or something...

I can understand your thinking there, but at the same time, I think that in
the same way people don't need a license to use a telephone, they shouldn't need a license to use the Internet, as it's a fairly public-domain system. I don't think requiring a license to use the Internet would do much to prevent abuse, either.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

People can say what they want about the BBS documentary, but it documented
a period in time for many of us, and he got it out there. I've had callers cite it as a reason for calling. And, good or bad, he got out there and did it.

That's true. It's pretty cool that the BBS documentary has gotten users to call BBSs these days.

I liked it, personally. I think he captured a period of time but could have ended with a chapter on the current scene and had it be a bit less memoir-ish.

I agree. Perhaps he didn't know much about the current BBS scene though, but he could have done some due diligence with some research. I do remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: BBS Doc
By: Nightfox to Mro on Wed Aug 01 2012 07:18 pm

Perhaps it was because he interviewed many people, and he had to make a decision about what to include and figured it would be fair to include as many people as possible. I enjoyed the documentary - It definitely took me

i could understand that, but seems like people that were his friends had a lot of face time. maybe he lost footage and had to use this as filler.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: BBS Doc
By: the doctor to NIGHTFOX on Thu Aug 02 2012 12:14 pm

I kind of agree with them. I think that to use a computer on the Internet you should need a license, like Amateur Radio.

You should have to do something like log into a UNIX shell account and modify your .profile or something...

okay but those things arent that difficult either.

and i'd rather the internet not be just a group of boring neckbeards talking about ham radio.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: BBS Doc
By: Nightfox to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Aug 02 2012 01:24 pm

but he could have done some due diligence with some research. I do
remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.

he said nothing about telnet bbses.

That's true. It's pretty cool that the BBS documentary has gotten users to call BBSs these days.

i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know about it.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: BBS Doc
By: the doctor to NIGHTFOX on Thu Aug 02 2012 12:14 pm

You should have to do something like log into a UNIX shell account and modif your .profile or something...

This was in my .plan for years...



There it is again. Some clueless FOOL talking about the "Information Superhighway." The don't know JACK about the Net. It's NOTHING like a Superhighway. That's a BAD metaphor.

Yeah, but suppose the metaphor ran the OTHER direction. Suppose the HIGHWAYS were like the NET.

All right!

A highway HUNDREDS of lanes wide. most with potholes. Privately operated bridges and overpasses. No highway patrol. A couple of rent-a-cops on bicycles with broken whisltes. 500 member VIGILANTE POSSES with nuclear weapons. 237 ON RAMPS at every intersection. NO SIGNS. Wanna get to Ensenada? Holler out the window at a passing truck to ask directions. AD HOC traffic laws. Some lanes would VOTE to make use by a single-occupant vehicle a CAPITAL OFFENSE on Monday through Friday between 7:00 and 9:00. Other lanes would just SHOOT you without a trial for talking on your car phone.

AOL would be a giant diesel-smoking BUS with hundreds of EBOLA victims and a TOILET spewing out on the road behind it. Throwing DEAD WOMBATS and rotten cabbage at the other cars, most of which have been ASSEMBLED AT HOME from kits. Some are 2.5 horsepower LAWNMOWER ENGINES with a top speed of nine miles an hour. Others burn NITROGLYCERIN and IDLE at 120.

No license tags. World War II BOMBER NOSE ART instead. Terrifying paintings of huge teeth or VAMPIRE EAGLES. Bumper-mounted MACHINE GUNS. Flip somebody the finger on this highway and get a WHITE PHOSPHORUS GRENADE up your tailpipe. AFlatbed trucks with ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILE BATTERIES to shoot down the Traffic Watch helicopter. A little kid on a tricycle with a squirtgun filled with HYDROCHLORIC ACID.

Now THAT'S the way to run an Interstate Highway system.

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

Re: BBS Doc
By: Mro to Nightfox on Thu Aug 02 2012 17:53:35

remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.

he said nothing about telnet bbses.

I guess I'll have to watch it again.. I thought I remembered a little blurb (as text on the screen), on one of the last episodes, about how there are still some BBSs running on the internet as telnet BBSs. I guess I could be remembering it wrong though.

That's true. It's pretty cool that the BBS documentary has gotten users to call BBSs these days.

i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know about it.

That could be true. I wonder how many former BBS users (non-sysops) have seen it though. But people who never did use BBSs probably aren't searching for BBS information these days..

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: BBS Doc
By: Mro to Nightfox on Thu Aug 02 2012 05:53 pm

i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know abou it.

I'm basing my comments on new user emails. Some of them are new to it - maybe retro tech is becoming cool?

I may need to point tin to my BBS and read echomail that way for a while. :)

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

--- NIGHTFOX wrote --

I can understand your thinking there, but at the same time, I think that i the same way people don't need a license to use a telephone, they shouldn' need a license to use the Internet, as it's a fairly public-domain system. don't think requiring a license to use the Internet would do much to preve abuse, either

Yeah. It's a totally impractical idea anyway. (;


---
þ TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKseven þ telnet/http bbs.cortex-media.info

Re: BBS Doc
By: Nightfox to Mro on Thu Aug 02 2012 19:26:32

That could be true. I wonder how many former BBS users (non-sysops) have se it though. But people who never did use BBSs probably aren't searching for information these days..

I've had several people call my system, never having called a BBS before, who cite that documentary (or perhaps some articles they've read) as the reason for their call. Typically these are younger people with some interest in computer history, who ran into some reference to BBSs while reading stuff online and then followed up on it.

So of course you're not going to go searching for "BBS" if you don't even know what that is or that it ever existed, but the information is out there. People with an interest will bump into it eventually as they explore.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: BBS Doc
By: echicken to Nightfox on Sun Aug 05 2012 10:53:20

I've had several people call my system, never having called a BBS before, who cite that documentary (or perhaps some articles they've read) as the reason for their call. Typically these are younger people with some interest in computer history, who ran into some reference to BBSs while reading stuff online and then followed up on it.

That's cool. There have been some younger people on my BBS too, who I imagine are too young to have gotten into BBSs before. Interesting that they are interested in computer history and checking them out..

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00

A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.
Have you heard of that one?

I have always been interested in the inner workings of programs so I
tried out C-- to see if it would help me learn C. It didn't.

I haven't heard of C--. But from the name, it doesn't sound like it would be a good learning tool.. But I'm probably wrong. :)

I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see
what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>

It is difficult to get the idea of a program from reading assembly code. In most cases, looking at the disassembly is not something that should be required, as higher-level languages are designed to express a program in more understandable terms. It's especially true these days, since compilers have become smarter and often implement optimizations, such that the disassembly might not represent everything written in the higher-level language, even though it will accomplish the goal.

I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.

:) I haven't used a form of Basic in a long time either.. Many progrmaming tasks are probably a little too complicated for Basic.

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: John Guillory to Ed Vance on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:37:14

if your going to learn C, then .... "Learn C", rather than playing around with a C derrivitive. In this age when you can obtain free C compilers
and C++ compilers, there is no reason not to learn C or C++. Now I know

I'm somewhat of the mind that it's better to start out learning C++ rather than C. Object-oriented programming has become pretty much the standard paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation is desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..

I do think it's useful to learn the C standard library functions, since it contains many useful functions, but I think the object-oriented learning style gained from learning C++ is perhaps more important.

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to Ed Vance on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:19 pm

Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00

A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.
Have you heard of that one?

I have always been interested in the inner workings of programs so I tried out C-- to see if it would help me learn C. It didn't.

I haven't heard of C--. But from the name, it doesn't sound like it would b good learning tool.. But I'm probably wrong. :)

I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see
what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>

It is difficult to get the idea of a program from reading assembly code. In most cases, looking at the disassembly is not something that should be required, as higher-level languages are designed to express a program in mor understandable terms. It's especially true these days, since compilers have become smarter and often implement optimizations, such that the disassembly might not represent everything written in the higher-level language, even though it will accomplish the goal.

I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.

:) I haven't used a form of Basic in a long time either.. Many progrmaming tasks are probably a little too complicated for Basic.

Nightfox

you have to learn a nd b before you get to c.

"Practise safe Lunch, Use a Condiment"


---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to John Guillory on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:23 pm

paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation is desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..

These are not good C programming practices either. Those are signs of a bad programmer, not signs of a procedural style (functional style is something different again).

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to John Guillory on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:23 pm

Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: John Guillory to Ed Vance on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:37:14

if your going to learn C, then .... "Learn C", rather than playing
around with a C derrivitive. In this age when you can obtain free C compilers and C++ compilers, there is no reason not to learn C or C++. Now I know

I'm somewhat of the mind that it's better to start out learning C++ rather than C. Object-oriented programming has become pretty much the standard paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation is desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..

I do think it's useful to learn the C standard library functions, since it contains many useful functions, but I think the object-oriented learning style gained from learning C++ is perhaps more important.

It really depends on what type of programming one is interested in. As a foundation, I think learning procedural (rather than object oriented) programming first is preferrable. In systems and embedded programming, object oriented methodologies are often (dare I say, usually?) not preferred to procedural (e.g. plain ole C). The vast majority of the programming projects I've been involved with professionally over the past 20 years have been primarily C (with a sprinkling of C++ or assembler). Most of the object-oriented (e.g. C++) projects I have been involved with were GUI applications programming (e.g. MFC and VCL). I'm not saying one is better than the other in a general sense, but for systems programming (e.g kernel and driver development), C is usually preferred over C++.

digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #1:
Synchronet version 2 for DOS and OS/2 was released to the public domain in 1997.
Norco, CA WX: 75.7øF, 53.0% humidity, 0 mph WNW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to John Guillory on Wed Aug 08 2012 19:23:34

I'm somewhat of the mind that it's better to start out learning C++ rather than C. Object-oriented programming has become pretty much the standard

This state of mind is typical of a lot of people who never learned to
program in non object oriented programming. Most people with this mind
set can not program in a non-object oriented language. Object Oriented
languages tend to be bloated with a lot of overhead that is not necessary
for the actual program because of the objects. Not every situation lends
its self to Object Oriented Programming, and not every situation is
recommended to be programmed in Object Oriented Programming. I've yet to
see a microprocessor with 8k or so of RAM and 8k of EEPROM actually use
object oriented programming to develop programs for the processor. If
someone wants to program in C, and you try to force them to use C++ because
you prefer object oriented programming, that's not much different than
Michelle Obama forcing restauraunts to not sell french frys to children
because she'd rather eat fruit. Same basic principal. Typically I find
folks who are hell-bent on C++ and object oriented programming typically
have less logic skills and aren't used to designing and laying out the
flow of their program before they start actually coding this. Considered
sloppy, especially for business type applications. The code as you think
about it approach leads to ineffecient and the line of thinking that
"Who cares, we have a massive hard drive and RAM, with a powerfull CPU,
why not waste it, eh I mean use it..." line of thinking. There is a few
things that some of the C-- and B+, etc languages are good for. Eg. if
you are writing a program for a device that will have no output to the
screen, but all i/o will be to custom device for which no display drivers
exist, and a screen won't even be attached to the particular computer, then
a fancy GUI and console screen library are actually useless anyway. If
you have to re-design the entire output libraries from scratch, the stdio
libraries won't be too helpful anyway. You'd be best off finding a
compiler with complete source code to all functions, re-write the basic
putc instruction if outputing to a LCD screen, if using LED lights or
something, write your own set of libraries.....

---
þ Synchronet þ Roach Guts -- kingcoder.net

Re: Programming
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Thu Aug 09 2012 12:20 am

It really depends on what type of programming one is interested in. As a foundation, I think learning procedural (rather than object oriented) programming first is preferrable. In systems and embedded programming, objec

Just to chime in here -- I am a recovering programmer; studied CS in school, mostly Pascal and ANSI C, and coded in a variety of interpreted languages for a living 20 years ago.

One suggestion I would have for anyone wanting to learn C is to get a copy of MINIX. It's an OS used in OS classes that comes with full C source. it's small enough to really get your head around, and it's full of real-world examples of code talking to hardware. I found walking the source code to be very interesting.

I ran an intranet web site on MINIX way back when -- on a 286!

poindexter FORTRAN | poindexter at realitycheckbbs dot org
realitycheckBBS | http://realitycheckbbs.org

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

you have to learn a nd b before you get to c.

And then there's D:
http://dlang.org/

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation is desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..

These are not good C programming practices either. Those are signs of a
bad programmer, not signs of a procedural style (functional style is something different again).

True. However, I tend to see those things more often in C code examples than in examples of object-oriented code.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

It really depends on what type of programming one is interested in. As a foundation, I think learning procedural (rather than object oriented) programming first is preferrable. In systems and embedded programming, object oriented methodologies are often (dare I say, usually?) not
preferred to procedural (e.g. plain ole C). The vast majority of the programming projects I've been involved with professionally over the past
20 years have been primarily C (with a sprinkling of C++ or assembler).
Most of the object-oriented (e.g. C++) projects I have been involved with were GUI applications programming (e.g. MFC and VCL). I'm not saying one is better than the other in a general sense, but for systems programming (e.g kernel and driver development), C is usually preferred over C++.

That's true, you have a point. It seems to me that lower-level programming
has become the exception rather than the norm these days. Just looking at the job market, as I have done for the past few years, it seems that there many more higher-level programming jobs than there are lower-level programming
jobs. Occasionally I do see job postings for kernel development and other low-level development though.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

I'm somewhat of the mind that it's better to start out learning C++ rather than C. Object-oriented programming has become pretty much the standard

This state of mind is typical of a lot of people who never learned to
program in non object oriented programming. Most people with this mind
set can not program in a non-object oriented language.

I can do non-object-oriented programming well enough. Part of my point was that if you try go join a project where most of the developers are using object-oriented code and you try programming in a non-object-oriented style, your code additions likely won't fit in as easily as the others, and the other developers will probably be very annoyed at you. :)

Object Oriented
languages tend to be bloated with a lot of overhead that is not
necessary
for the actual program because of the objects. Not every situation
lends
its self to Object Oriented Programming, and not every situation is
recommended to be programmed in Object Oriented Programming. I've yet
to
see a microprocessor with 8k or so of RAM and 8k of EEPROM actually use
object oriented programming to develop programs for the processor. If
someone wants to program in C, and you try to force them to use C++ because
you prefer object oriented programming, that's not much different than
Michelle Obama forcing restauraunts to not sell french frys to children
because she'd rather eat fruit.

I'd rather not bring politics into this discussion.. And I never did say that object-oriented is always superior in all cases, I only said it seems to be
the norm with many projects these days. It's true that low-level and embedded systems programming are cases where functional programming is more desirable due to less overhead.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to Deuce on Thu Aug 09 2012 12:33 pm

paradigm used in software development these days, and the functional style of C (and in many examples of C code) seems to teach bad habits when moving to an object-oriented codebase or when object-orientation desired on a project. Signs of this include many global variables, functions with many parameters, many structs that don't contain functions, variables scattered all over the place, etc..

These are not good C programming practices either. Those are signs of a bad programmer, not signs of a procedural style (functional style is something different again).

True. However, I tend to see those things more often in C code examples tha in examples of object-oriented code.

Nightfox

Jose! can you C?

"Practise safe Lunch, Use a Condiment"


---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to John Guillory on Thu Aug 09 2012 12:55 pm

if you try go join a project where most of the developers are using object-oriented code and you try programming in a non-object-oriented
style, your code additions likely won't fit in as easily as the others, and the other developers will probably be very annoyed at you. :)

Of course the opposite is true too.

I can't imagine someone *only* understanding or mastering object-oriented methodologies being very successful in any programming project/team. But that's
just my experienced opinion.

digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #6:
The name "Synchronet" was suggested by Steve Deppe (Ille Homine Albe) in 1991. Norco, CA WX: 94.8øF, 26.0% humidity, 13 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: Programming
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Thu Aug 09 2012 17:55:52

object-oriented code and you try programming in a non-object-oriented style, your code additions likely won't fit in as easily as the others, and the other developers will probably be very annoyed at you. :)

Of course the opposite is true too.

I can't imagine someone *only* understanding or mastering object-oriented methodologies being very successful in any programming project/team. But that's just my experienced opinion.

That's true. :)

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Programming
By: Corey to Nightfox on Thu Aug 09 2012 13:52:35

Jose! can you C?

Not if you throw bleach in his eyes!

---
þ Synchronet þ Roach Guts -- kingcoder.net

Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00

A Progidy CD that I have has a Windows 3.x program called C-- on it.
Have you heard of that one?

I have always been interested in the inner workings of programs so I tried out C-- to see if it would help me learn C. It didn't.

I haven't heard of C--. But from the name, it doesn't sound like it would be
good learning tool.. But I'm probably wrong. :)

Nightfox,

As I said to John G. I was just pulling your leg about a 1995 program.

It is called CMM and came in a program called CEnvi.

I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see
what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>

It is difficult to get the idea of a program from reading assembly code. In NI>most cases, looking at the disassembly is not something that should be NI>required, as higher-level languages are designed to express a program in more
understandable terms. It's especially true these days, since compilers have NI>become smarter and often implement optimizations, such that the disassembly NI>might not represent everything written in the higher-level language, even NI>though it will accomplish the goal.

Yes, I know about the difficulties.

I got dizzy looking through all the Loop a de loops in most of the Disassemblies I printed out.

I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.

:) I haven't used a form of Basic in a long time either.. Many progrmaming NI>tasks are probably a little too complicated for Basic.

Yes, I'm sure that is true.

I couldn't code anything very complicated in QBASIC either.

But I was proud of myself one time when a QBASIC program I wrote for my
Church to print out data to Form Feed Label paper, required a
modification when the Dot Matrix printer was replaced with a Canon Ink
Jet.

My mod was a Array that could take five lines of data from three
records and print R1L1 R2L1 R3L1
.. .. ..
R1L5 R2L5 R3L5
on Avery paper that had 3 Labels across the 8.5x11 paper.

It took me some time to figure out the code, but I was proud it worked.


* SLMR 2.1a #T348 * Budget: A method for going broke in an organized way

---
þ Synchronet þ Capitol City Online - telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - 502-875-8938

Re: Programming
By: Nightfox to Ed Vance on Wed Aug 08 2012 07:19 pm

Re: Anyone With A Tandy 1000h
By: Ed Vance to NIGHTFOX on Mon Aug 06 2012 08:19:00

I tried looking at a Disassembly of several C=64 games to try to see what made them work but got in over my head. <GRIN>

It is difficult to get the idea of a program from reading assembly code. most cases, looking at the disassembly is not something that should be required, as higher-level languages are designed to express a program in m
understandable terms. It's especially true these days, since compilers ha
become smarter and often implement optimizations, such that the disassembl
might not represent everything written in the higher-level language, even though it will accomplish the goal.

I haven't written a Q-Basic program in a long time.
I just lurk in here to learn what the folks who know this stuff KNOW.

:) I haven't used a form of Basic in a long time either.. Many progrmami
tasks are probably a little too complicated for Basic.

Nightfox

you have to learn a nd b before you get to c.

Corey,

Around 1961 when I was a US Navy Radioman, I was off duty Practicing
typing on a Teletype Machine (Really I was just Playing with it) and I
got tired of typing now is the time...., the quick brown fox.... and
retyping old messages.

So I decided to type the Alphabet out, and after I finished that line, I
looked at the right end of the line and pressed the Z key, then the Y
key etc.

After I typed out the Alphabet Backwards, I could look at the second
line I typed and type it over...and over...and over.

After a while of doing that My fingers developed a pattern and I can
still do that to this day.

ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Later I got to where I could say the Alphabet backwards, but I would
move my fingers as I said it.

I can still say it in 3.5 seconds and I don't twitch anymore. <GRIN>

I challenge kids all the time to see if they can say it backwards faster
than I can.

To date 3 kids have beat me doing it.

So to rephrase your sentence -

"you have to learn z and y before you get to x".

Enuf said.


* SLMR 2.1a #T348 * An Amiga is an EtchaSketch you don't hafta shake.

---
þ Synchronet þ Capitol City Online - telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - 502-875-8938

you have to learn a nd b before you get to c.

And then there's D:
http://dlang.org/

Nightfox,

Oh!, that would be W: to me, wouldn't it? ;-)


* SLMR 2.1a #T348 * What do you mean, QWK? It took me over an hour to read!

---
þ Synchronet þ Capitol City Online - telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - 502-875-8938

Nightfox wrote to Mro <=-

Re: BBS Doc
By: Mro to Nightfox on Thu Aug 02 2012 17:53:35

remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.

he said nothing about telnet bbses.

I guess I'll have to watch it again.. I thought I remembered a little blurb (as text on the screen), on one of the last episodes, about how there are still some BBSs running on the internet as telnet BBSs. I
guess I could be remembering it wrong though.

He's got a section in the "No Carrier" episode about BBSes on the
Internet. His interviews include the Citadel guys, the telnet-able
Commodore 64 BBS, and reference to a couple hundred active systems.
He also mentions the boom in the Russian Fidonet, but that might be in
the "Fidonet" episode.

i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know about it.

That could be true. I wonder how many former BBS users (non-sysops)
have seen it though. But people who never did use BBSs probably aren't searching for BBS information these days..

I was never a sysop, just a user circa 1992-1996. The documentary was
pretty inspiring for me to keep chugging away on qodem. The years
from 2004-2007 I got a lot more into BBSes, particularly while playing
a few rounds of TradeWars. After 2008 I've been very much off-and-on
due to my job eating so much of my available time.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ DX Station - xblade.mooo.com

Re: Re: BBS Doc
By: Kevinl to Nightfox on Sat Aug 18 2012 09:15 pm

Nightfox wrote to Mro <=-

Re: BBS Doc
By: Mro to Nightfox on Thu Aug 02 2012 17:53:35

remember the documentary saying something about telnet BBSs though.

he said nothing about telnet bbses.

I guess I'll have to watch it again.. I thought I remembered a little blurb (as text on the screen), on one of the last episodes, about how there are still some BBSs running on the internet as telnet BBSs. I guess I could be remembering it wrong though.

He's got a section in the "No Carrier" episode about BBSes on the
Internet. His interviews include the Citadel guys, the telnet-able Commodore 64 BBS, and reference to a couple hundred active systems.
He also mentions the boom in the Russian Fidonet, but that might be in
the "Fidonet" episode.

i think it's got old sysops to call bbses. i dont think users even know about it.

That could be true. I wonder how many former BBS users (non-sysops) have seen it though. But people who never did use BBSs probably aren't searching for BBS information these days..

I was never a sysop, just a user circa 1992-1996. The documentary was pretty inspiring for me to keep chugging away on qodem. The years
from 2004-2007 I got a lot more into BBSes, particularly while playing
a few rounds of TradeWars. After 2008 I've been very much off-and-on
due to my job eating so much of my available time.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

Well I am a former Sysop from 1989-? and still operate in the confines of a private system for personal reasons unknown at the moment. I'm hoping that
one day i will go piblic full time again. :-)


$ The Millionaire $
Park Avenue Place
Surrey, B.C., Canada Û  Û
the.millionaire@parkave.synchro.net



---
þ Synchronet þ Park Avenue Place - parkave.synchro.net

Re: Re: BBS Doc
By: Kevinl to Nightfox on Sat Aug 18 2012 09:15 pm

He's got a section in the "No Carrier" episode about BBSes on the
Internet. His interviews include the Citadel guys, the telnet-able Commodore 64 BBS, and reference to a couple hundred active systems.

i dont recall any of this. was it for about 5 seconds?

He also mentions the boom in the Russian Fidonet, but that might be in
the "Fidonet" episode.

i remember the group of guys in the fidonet ep saying one sentence about how it was popular in russia.

remember, jason scott didnt really mention anything. his bbs doc is a collection of interviews. and like i said before not many people got much face time. there was a lot of jumping around.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::