Re: Python Worst Practices

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path	<python@mrabarnett.plus.com>
X-Original-To	python-list@python.org
Delivered-To	python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status	OK 0.000
X-Spam-Evidence	'H': 1.00; 'S': 0.00; 'mrab': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'permitted': 0.07; 'referring': 0.07; 'bytes,': 0.09; 'bytes.': 0.09; 'interpreted': 0.09; 'lines.': 0.09; 'wrote': 0.14; '16-bit': 0.16; '8-bit': 0.16; '8088': 0.16; 'bits.': 0.16; 'bus.': 0.16; 'from:addr:mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'from:addr:python': 0.16; 'from:name:mrab': 0.16; 'interpreter,': 0.16; 'itself,': 0.16; 'language)': 0.16; 'likewise': 0.16; 'message-id:@mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; "pc's": 0.16; 'processor,': 0.16; 'processors': 0.16; 'received:192.168.1.4': 0.16; 'received:84.93': 0.16; 'received:84.93.230': 0.16; 'space).': 0.16; 'time).': 0.16; 'words.': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'bit': 0.19; '>>>': 0.22; 'memory': 0.22; '(in': 0.22; 'manual': 0.22; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'byte': 0.24; 'bytes': 0.24; 'processor': 0.24; '(or': 0.24; 'equivalent': 0.26; 'switch': 0.26; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'generally': 0.29; 'dec': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'compatible': 0.32; 'run': 0.32; 'says': 0.33; 'addresses': 0.33; 'bus': 0.33; 'could': 0.34; 'basic': 0.35; 'received:84': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'really': 0.36; 'ibm': 0.36; 'half': 0.37; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'ability': 0.39; 'sure': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'called': 0.40; 'dave': 0.60; 'most': 0.60; 'first': 0.61; 'address': 0.63; 'term': 0.63; 'more': 0.64; 'taking': 0.65; 'believe': 0.68; 'home': 0.69; 'fact,': 0.69; 'therefore': 0.72; 'distinguish': 0.84; 'subject:Practices': 0.84; '8bit': 0.91; 'angel': 0.91
X-CM-Score	0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis	v=2.1 cv=ZuBjKrLG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:117 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=mlFM_a_ONtUA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=EBOSESyhAAAA:8 a=jRng_6IObAYfklKpnMwA:9 a=Wylh7P-Tp8LChl8F:21 a=3abI3vN66-ZsF5WM:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
X-AUTH	mrabarnett@:2500
Date	Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:38:54 +0000
From	MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com>
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version	1.0
To	python-list@python.org
Subject	Re: Python Worst Practices
References	<mclca6$iie$1@ger.gmane.org> <7053A277-9687-49B0-9FDB-CB4DB3E76DEC@gmail.com> <54F0E38D.40006@davea.name> <CAPTjJmqTsB-of0JdJKW4BNW23DEpZ17353fHa9iBHfV8-3uANw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.19334.1425137628.18130.python-list@python.org> <NinIw.894937$551.656196@fx43.am4> <54f274bb$0$13011$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CAPTjJmoRiTb+gL8BVKHLzGCfPkjXjX1_jU_Osu2FYkUxjC0Aqg@mail.gmail.com> <mif7fadg0g1b276shsagrg2urvonfbbnd8@4ax.com> <54F3C3FF.3040608@mrabarnett.plus.com> <54F3EBF5.3030701@davea.name>
In-Reply-To	<54F3EBF5.3030701@davea.name>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-BeenThere	python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.19
Precedence	list
List-Id	General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post	<mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help	<mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.35.1425299940.13471.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines	40
NNTP-Posting-Host	2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace	1425299940 news.xs4all.nl 2969 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:58464
X-Complaints-To	abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:86730

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2015-03-02 04:49, Dave Angel wrote:
> On 03/01/2015 08:59 PM, MRAB wrote:
>> On 2015-03-02 01:37, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote
>>>
>>>     You'd be able to run it on a TI99/4 (in which the BASIC interpreter,
>>> itself, was run on an interpreter... nothing like taking the first
>>> "16-bit"
>>> home computer and shackling it with an interpreted language that was
>>> run on
>>> an interpreted language)
>>>
>> The "16-bit" CPU had a 16-bit address bus (64K address space). If you
>> were going to switch from an 8-bit processor to a 16-bit processor, one
>> of the pluses you'd be looking for would the ability to directly
>> address more than 64K.
>>
>
> The 16 bit address bus permitted addressing of 64k words.  On most
> processors, that was 64k bytes, though I know one Harris had no bytes,
> but every memory access was 16 bits.  It therefore had the equivalent of
> 128k bytes.  Likewise I believe some of the DEC and DG minis had 128k
> bytes of addressability.
>
I have (or had, not sure where it is!) a manual of the TMS9900
processor, and I'm sure it addresses 64k _bytes_.

Wikipedia says "65,536 bytes or 32,768 words".

> Usually, the term 8bit processor was referring to the size of the
> register(s), not the address bus.  All the 8 bit micro-processors had 16
> bit address buses.  In fact, 4 bit processors generally had 12 to 16 bit
> address buses as well.  So a 4 bit processor with a 16 bit address bus
> could address 32k bytes, a half byte (a nybble) at a time).
>
> The IBM PC's 8088 had an 8 bit data-bus and 20 address lines.  But they
> called it a 16bit processor, to try to distinguish it from 8 bit
> processors like the 8080.  Anyway, it was code compatible with the 8086,
> which really did have a 16bit data bus and 20 bit address bus.
>

Thread

Re: Python Worst Practices Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-28 15:33 +0000
  Re: Python Worst Practices BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-28 17:55 +0000
    Re: Python Worst Practices Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-28 18:38 +0000
    Re: Python Worst Practices Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-01 13:08 +1100
      Re: Python Worst Practices Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-01 13:43 +1100
      Re: Python Worst Practices BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-01 12:47 +0000
      Re: Python Worst Practices Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-01 20:37 -0500
      Re: Python Worst Practices MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-03-02 01:59 +0000
      Re: Python Worst Practices Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-03-01 23:49 -0500
      Re: Python Worst Practices MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-03-02 12:38 +0000
      Re: Python Worst Practices Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-03-02 08:12 -0500
      Re: Python Worst Practices Jonas Wielicki <jonas@wielicki.name> - 2015-03-06 07:58 +0100
      Re: Python Worst Practices Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-06 21:09 +1100
        Re: Python Worst Practices Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 16:11 +0100

csiph-web