Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.apple2.programmer > #2305
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.apple2.programmer |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: printf for 65c02 |
| From | Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> |
| References | (4 earlier) <516443d6-2b52-40ab-9b51-370b7167c025@googlegroups.com> <a0383c9f-78a6-4755-b8bd-8fa1a1b23e6f@googlegroups.com> <b56a3f9a-d08b-43e2-b543-816572c69a85@googlegroups.com> <ac829b2c-6460-4ddb-b09d-c610774130b3@googlegroups.com> <d221c69a-fb99-4ac8-9946-e308758269ed@googlegroups.com> |
| Message-ID | <JYCdnRZWUq36mlXLnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2016-02-20 00:27 -0600 |
<wssimms@gmail.com> wrote: > Am Samstag, 20. Februar 2016 10:52:06 UTC+9 schrieb Michael Barry: >> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:58:02 PM UTC-8, wss...@gmail.com wrote: >>> ... >>> Also I agree with you on the octal. It's mystifying to me how those >>> guys (like Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, etc.) put up with using octal >>> for everything on a 16-bit computer in the 60s and 70s. Of course I >>> can always justify it by telling myself that they are/were way smarter >>> than I am. >> >> Octal was a natural fit for all of the 12-bit and 18-bit word machines >> DEC cranked out in the 60s, but it takes an examination of the pdp-11 >> instruction field format to understand why octal was also "natural" for >> that 16-bit word machine. >> >> Mike B. > > Granted, it was marginally useful for dealing with three bit fields in > the instruction word. But in practice that was done approximately > never. The assembler took care of that nonsense. > > Really, it was mainly familiarity. Once you're comfortable with octal, > there's no problem, and no obvious need to use anything else. > Exactly. The pre-360 IBM binary machines had 36-bit words and two 3-bit instruction fields, and octal seemed natural for those machines. Also, there was no standard for hex digits greater than 9 at first, and non-numeric digits seemed strange--until they became commonplace. In the US, that happened with the 32-bit 360 series. After you've become familiar with hex, it seems quite natural--just like your favorite text editor. ;-) -- -michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://michaeljmahon.com
Back to comp.sys.apple2.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 20:29 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 20:31 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 20:36 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2016-02-13 23:22 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-15 22:57 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 01:54 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 21:11 -0500
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:03 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-18 18:07 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 03:01 -0600
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 08:04 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 qkumba <peter.ferrie@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:05 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 00:37 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 qkumba <peter.ferrie@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:46 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:35 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 04:40 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 08:14 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-02-22 14:13 -0600
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:52 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 00:53 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 09:26 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:36 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:38 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:27 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 18:48 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 19:13 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-17 07:49 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-17 07:55 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 18:55 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 18:58 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 13:14 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 13:27 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:09 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 17:52 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 wssimms@gmail.com - 2016-02-19 18:09 -0800
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 00:27 -0600
Re: printf for 65c02 Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 13:37 -0800
csiph-web