Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #16033 > unrolled thread

Re: And this is what is called a SPANK

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: And this is what is called a SPANK "CastAlone " <ca@ca.org.example> - 2012-07-15 21:53 -0400
    Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-16 03:04 +0000
    Re: And this is what is called a SPANK ent0loma <ent.0_l0m-4@gmail.com> - 2012-07-16 02:08 -0400
      Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-16 07:27 +0000
        Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-16 13:07 -0400
          Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-16 22:06 +0000
            Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-17 15:57 -0400
              Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-17 21:40 +0000
                Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-18 16:44 -0400
                  Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-19 01:11 +0000
                    Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-19 03:18 +0000
                    Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-19 16:06 -0400
                      Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-19 23:55 +0000
                        Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-19 20:36 -0400
                          Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-20 01:26 +0000
                            Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-19 23:59 -0400
                              Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-20 04:44 +0000
                                Re: And this is what is called a SPANK "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2012-07-19 21:55 -0700
                                Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-20 03:09 -0400
                        Re: And this is what is called a SPANK [Tor] Phoenix <tahosa@usa.TAKETHISOUT.net> - 2012-07-20 04:30 +0000
                          Re: And this is what is called a SPANK kensi <kensi_kensington@zoonoses.de> - 2012-07-20 00:38 -0400
                        Re: And this is what is called a SPANK glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-07-20 04:58 +0000
                          Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Checkmate <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> - 2012-07-19 22:50 -0700
                          Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-20 05:55 +0000
                          Re: And this is what is called a SPANK mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2012-07-20 08:17 -0400
                            Re: And this is what is called a SPANK Checkmate <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> - 2012-07-20 10:00 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#16131

On 20/07/2012 12:30 AM, [Tor] Phoenix wrote:
> Nadegda, in <news:jua6pr$bop$1@dont-email.me> did thusly write:
>
>> Uh-oh, I think I just did it again. Argh ...
>>
>>                          WARNING: HIGHLY ADDICTIVE
>> /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\
>> /!\ --> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator <-- /!\
>> /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\ /!\
>>                              USE AT OWN RISK
>
> Damn you! Between your tropes and kensi's explanations of the cosmos,
> I'll never get to sleep! My brain is full... my brain is full!!!

Oh, no, the friendly fire casualty we *weren't* expecting.

I think now we've found the source of his "cold virus"...

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16134

In comp.lang.java.programmer Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
(snip, someone wrote)
>> Wow, even the name is pointlessly abbreviated to be missing one vowel. 
>> Does it date back to when machines had a few KB of core and even one 
>> byte of extra computer code could be a storage problem?

> Of course not. Not that that would have been an excuse even so. The old 
> Commodore VIC-20 had a BASIC interpreter and that language had full, 
> readable keywords like PRINT rather than abbreviated garbage like, say, 
> PRN. Commodore employed a clever trick: BASIC programs were stored (on 
> disk and in memory) *compressed*, with all of the common keywords 
> replaced with graphics characters with the high bit set. 

The HP TSB2000 (Time Shared BASIC) systems did that, too.

Not only that, it would refuse to allow you to enter a statement
that didn't pass some syntax checks. 

Many of the microcomputer BASIC interpreters were based on 
the ones from Microsoft, but even if not, the tokenizing compression
was well known by then. 

Not only does it save memory, but the interpreter runs a lot faster!
The tokenizing is done only once, not each time the statement
is executed.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16135

Warning!  Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate! 

First, check out what glen herrmannsfeldt said:


> 
> In comp.lang.java.programmer Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> (snip, someone wrote)
> >> Wow, even the name is pointlessly abbreviated to be missing one vowel. 
> >> Does it date back to when machines had a few KB of core and even one 
> >> byte of extra computer code could be a storage problem?
> 
> > Of course not. Not that that would have been an excuse even so. The old 
> > Commodore VIC-20 had a BASIC interpreter and that language had full, 
> > readable keywords like PRINT rather than abbreviated garbage like, say, 
> > PRN. Commodore employed a clever trick: BASIC programs were stored (on 
> > disk and in memory) *compressed*, with all of the common keywords 
> > replaced with graphics characters with the high bit set. 
> 
> The HP TSB2000 (Time Shared BASIC) systems did that, too.
> 
> Not only that, it would refuse to allow you to enter a statement
> that didn't pass some syntax checks. 
> 
> Many of the microcomputer BASIC interpreters were based on 
> the ones from Microsoft, but even if not, the tokenizing compression
> was well known by then. 
> 
> Not only does it save memory, but the interpreter runs a lot faster!
> The tokenizing is done only once, not each time the statement
> is executed.
> 
> -- glen

Cool.

-- 
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, 
Line & Sinker award, May 2001            
Copyright © 2012 
all rights reserved

"There are many here among us...
who feel that life is but a joke."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16136

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:58:00 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> In comp.lang.java.programmer Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> (snip, someone wrote)
>>> Wow, even the name is pointlessly abbreviated to be missing one vowel.
>>> Does it date back to when machines had a few KB of core and even one
>>> byte of extra computer code could be a storage problem?
> 
>> Of course not. Not that that would have been an excuse even so. The old
>> Commodore VIC-20 had a BASIC interpreter and that language had full,
>> readable keywords like PRINT rather than abbreviated garbage like, say,
>> PRN. Commodore employed a clever trick: BASIC programs were stored (on
>> disk and in memory) *compressed*, with all of the common keywords
>> replaced with graphics characters with the high bit set.
> 
> The HP TSB2000 (Time Shared BASIC) systems did that, too.
> 
> Not only that, it would refuse to allow you to enter a statement that
> didn't pass some syntax checks.

That's not uncommon in the better-designed systems (i.e., not C family 
languages). The Emacs paredit mode for working with Lisps is probably the 
example most likely to be familiar to someone who wasn't around for the 
micro era. It won't let you enter syntactically broken Lisp, though it 
can be semantically as bogus as you please (and verifying with certainty 
that it wouldn't be would be equivalent to the halting problem anyway). 
Of course, with Lisp that basically boils down to just "it won't let you 
have unbalanced parentheses". ;)

> Many of the microcomputer BASIC interpreters were based on the ones from
> Microsoft, but even if not, the tokenizing compression was well known by
> then.
> 
> Not only does it save memory, but the interpreter runs a lot faster! The
> tokenizing is done only once, not each time the statement is executed.

Those microcomputers needed every erg of speed they could get, too. A 
VIC-20 ran at what, one measly *mega*hertz? The box I'm using to post 
news with is somewhere around five *thousand* times that speed, in raw 
cycle throughput, and can probably do a lot more with each cycle to boot. 
It could emulate a large network of hundreds of VIC-20s in real time if 
it wanted to. And there are other boxes nearby that make *it* look like a 
joke.

And even then, the interpreted languages of now tend to both compile to 
bytecode (either manually, or when first run) and then to be potentially 
JITted to architecture-native code by the VM. Bytecode is a step further 
than the BASIC compression tricks discussed, and JITting is a giant 
*leap* further still.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16144

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.lang.java.programmer Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> (snip, someone wrote)
> 
>>>Wow, even the name is pointlessly abbreviated to be missing one vowel. 
>>>Does it date back to when machines had a few KB of core and even one 
>>>byte of extra computer code could be a storage problem?
> 
>>Of course not. Not that that would have been an excuse even so. The old 
>>Commodore VIC-20 had a BASIC interpreter and that language had full, 
>>readable keywords like PRINT rather than abbreviated garbage like, say, 
>>PRN. Commodore employed a clever trick: BASIC programs were stored (on 
>>disk and in memory) *compressed*, with all of the common keywords 
>>replaced with graphics characters with the high bit set. 
> 
> The HP TSB2000 (Time Shared BASIC) systems did that, too.
> 
> Not only that, it would refuse to allow you to enter a statement
> that didn't pass some syntax checks. 
> 
> Many of the microcomputer BASIC interpreters were based on 
> the ones from Microsoft, but even if not, the tokenizing compression
> was well known by then. 
> 
> Not only does it save memory, but the interpreter runs a lot faster!
> The tokenizing is done only once, not each time the statement
> is executed.
> 

You can make BASIC programs run lots faster if you delete comments and 
replace the GOSUBes with GOTOes

-- 
Grizzly H.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16157

Warning!  Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate! 

First, check out what mixed nuts said:


> 
> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> > In comp.lang.java.programmer Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> > (snip, someone wrote)
> > 
> >>>Wow, even the name is pointlessly abbreviated to be missing one vowel. 
> >>>Does it date back to when machines had a few KB of core and even one 
> >>>byte of extra computer code could be a storage problem?
> > 
> >>Of course not. Not that that would have been an excuse even so. The old 
> >>Commodore VIC-20 had a BASIC interpreter and that language had full, 
> >>readable keywords like PRINT rather than abbreviated garbage like, say, 
> >>PRN. Commodore employed a clever trick: BASIC programs were stored (on 
> >>disk and in memory) *compressed*, with all of the common keywords 
> >>replaced with graphics characters with the high bit set. 
> > 
> > The HP TSB2000 (Time Shared BASIC) systems did that, too.
> > 
> > Not only that, it would refuse to allow you to enter a statement
> > that didn't pass some syntax checks. 
> > 
> > Many of the microcomputer BASIC interpreters were based on 
> > the ones from Microsoft, but even if not, the tokenizing compression
> > was well known by then. 
> > 
> > Not only does it save memory, but the interpreter runs a lot faster!
> > The tokenizing is done only once, not each time the statement
> > is executed.
> > 
> 
> You can make BASIC programs run lots faster if you delete comments and 
> replace the GOSUBes with GOTOes

You think that's fast, try replacing the BOBOS with GAZONGAS.  That's not 
even in the manual!

-- 
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, 
Line & Sinker award, May 2001            
Copyright © 2012 
all rights reserved

"There are many here among us...
who feel that life is but a joke."

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web