Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161395 > unrolled thread

Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

Started by	Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com>
First post	2016-03-23 02:31 -0700
Last post	2016-03-30 14:56 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 401 — 44 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Page 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →

#161849

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-04-02 20:14 -0400
Message-ID	<1499831334.481335021.545079.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161841

J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <edfd2fbe-cf92-495d-be24-eb714aeb5792@googlegroups.com>, 
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says...
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:32:35 PM UTC-4, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> I would challenge anyone to find a good book on BASIC  in the shops nowadays.
>> 
>> BASIC now has various versions--Visual Basic (still in use, AFAIK),
>> and the other BASIC, which in turn had several versions.
>> 
>> I'm not even sure modern computers will even run old BASIC (e.g.
>> QBASIC from DOS 5.0 or GW-BASIC), since the upgrade in bitsize
>> requirements.
> 
> You need to jump through some hoops to make it work and I've never found 
> a completely satisfactory solution--one of these days I'm going to have 
> to see if I can get it to run under BOCHS.
> 

Isn't there a "True BASIC" interpreter around?

-- 
Pete

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

#161890

From	Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
Date	2016-04-03 12:57 -0400
Message-ID	<proto-98FFCB.12572303042016@news.panix.com>
In reply to	#161761

In article <slrnnfr5qt.18t.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com wrote:

> On 2016-03-30, Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> wrote:
> > In article 
> > <950348948.481046768.067116.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org
> > >,
> > Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> >>>> Mike Spencer wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>
> >>I wouldn't recommend x86 for anyone just trying to learn computers at the
> >>machine language level.  I don't know ARM, that might be better, but most
> >>modern architectures are much too complex.  I don't care much for the PDP8,
> >>but the -11 might not be a bad place to start.
> >
> > ARM, unoptimised, is a lot easier to read than x86, almost to the level
> > of the pdp10. The problem comes with the thumb/thumb2 "compressed" 
> > instructions, 
> > which is essential to all modern arm optimisation. 
> >
> >>OTOH, OP said the person wanted to learn programming, so s/he should
> >>probably start with an HLL.  That's one thing to be said for BASIC, the "B"
> >>stands for "beginner's" for a reason.  You can learn most of the basics of
> >>programming without all the complexity.  Interpreters are available for
> >>free for most systems.
> >
> > Dabble around in basic, yes. Or even a *n*x shell. But do go for a heavily
> > structured language too.
> 
> I would challenge anyone to find a good book on BASIC  in the shops nowadays.
> 
> Ruby, in a uncomplex fashion, is fairly easy.
> 
> (Why does every new book on Python have the examples in Ipython?. 
> Surely the best ways to learn is to write a program, find out where
> the faults are, and edit them).
> 
> Best of all is to an hear an un-english-speaker trying to learn it, and
> realizing how complex it is.

 What is Ipython?

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

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

#161889

From	Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
Date	2016-04-03 12:56 -0400
Message-ID	<proto-8C4477.12561503042016@news.panix.com>
In reply to	#161698

In article <8uhtsc-6b1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
 Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> wrote:

> In article 
> <950348948.481046768.067116.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >OTOH, OP said the person wanted to learn programming, so s/he should
> >probably start with an HLL.  That's one thing to be said for BASIC, the "B"
> >stands for "beginner's" for a reason.  You can learn most of the basics of
> >programming without all the complexity.  Interpreters are available for
> >free for most systems.
> 
> Dabble around in basic, yes. Or even a *n*x shell. But do go for a heavily
> structured language too.
> 
> -- mrr

 Some "Basics" are structured. There must be structured Fortrans than 
allow recursion, these days.

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

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

#161900

From	"Thomas Johns" <TJzz@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 03:58 +1000
Message-ID	<dmd3u5F6vjlU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161889


"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message 
news:proto-8C4477.12561503042016@news.panix.com...
> In article <8uhtsc-6b1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
> Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <950348948.481046768.067116.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >OTOH, OP said the person wanted to learn programming, so s/he should
>> >probably start with an HLL.  That's one thing to be said for BASIC, the 
>> >"B"
>> >stands for "beginner's" for a reason.  You can learn most of the basics 
>> >of
>> >programming without all the complexity.  Interpreters are available for
>> >free for most systems.
>>
>> Dabble around in basic, yes. Or even a *n*x shell. But do go for a 
>> heavily
>> structured language too.

> Some "Basics" are structured.

> There must be structured Fortrans than
> allow recursion, these days.

There have been structured Fortrans for 40 years now, most obviously with 
Ratfor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfor

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

#161914

From	Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date	2016-04-03 20:39 +0200
Message-ID	<cj48tc-m65.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to	#161900

In article <dmd3u5F6vjlU1@mid.individual.net>,
Thomas Johns <TJzz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message 
>news:proto-8C4477.12561503042016@news.panix.com...
>> In article <8uhtsc-6b1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
>> Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <950348948.481046768.067116.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >OTOH, OP said the person wanted to learn programming, so s/he should
>>> >probably start with an HLL.  That's one thing to be said for BASIC, the 
>>> >"B"
>>> >stands for "beginner's" for a reason.  You can learn most of the basics 
>>> >of
>>> >programming without all the complexity.  Interpreters are available for
>>> >free for most systems.
>>>
>>> Dabble around in basic, yes. Or even a *n*x shell. But do go for a 
>>> heavily
>>> structured language too.
>
>> Some "Basics" are structured.
>
>> There must be structured Fortrans than
>> allow recursion, these days.
>
>There have been structured Fortrans for 40 years now, most obviously with 
>Ratfor.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfor 

At one point in the journey towards programming you will probably
benefit from a little structured coersion from the language. Pascal
does this well. After writing a few thousand lines of code you will
get the gist of it, of you ever will. So take an excursion into 
this land, reasonably early in your quest.

-- mrr

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

#161925

From	"Thomas Johns" <TJzz@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-04 05:45 +1000
Message-ID	<dmda6kF8jujU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161914


"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:cj48tc-m65.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <dmd3u5F6vjlU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Thomas Johns <TJzz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:proto-8C4477.12561503042016@news.panix.com...
>>> In article <8uhtsc-6b1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
>>> Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <950348948.481046768.067116.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >OTOH, OP said the person wanted to learn programming, so s/he should
>>>> >probably start with an HLL.  That's one thing to be said for BASIC, 
>>>> >the
>>>> >"B"
>>>> >stands for "beginner's" for a reason.  You can learn most of the 
>>>> >basics
>>>> >of
>>>> >programming without all the complexity.  Interpreters are available 
>>>> >for
>>>> >free for most systems.
>>>>
>>>> Dabble around in basic, yes. Or even a *n*x shell. But do go for a
>>>> heavily
>>>> structured language too.
>>
>>> Some "Basics" are structured.
>>
>>> There must be structured Fortrans than
>>> allow recursion, these days.
>>
>>There have been structured Fortrans for 40 years now, most obviously with
>>Ratfor.
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfor
>
> At one point in the journey towards programming you will probably
> benefit from a little structured coersion from the language. Pascal
> does this well. After writing a few thousand lines of code you will
> get the gist of it, of you ever will. So take an excursion into
> this land, reasonably early in your quest.

It's very hard not to now that virtually all the viable languages
are structured to a great or lesser extent, even Basic.

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

#161911

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-03 14:22 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.316b298f6320b7c798a072@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161889

In article <proto-8C4477.12561503042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com 
says...
> 
> In article <8uhtsc-6b1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
>  Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <950348948.481046768.067116.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >OTOH, OP said the person wanted to learn programming, so s/he should
> > >probably start with an HLL.  That's one thing to be said for BASIC, the "B"
> > >stands for "beginner's" for a reason.  You can learn most of the basics of
> > >programming without all the complexity.  Interpreters are available for
> > >free for most systems.
> > 
> > Dabble around in basic, yes. Or even a *n*x shell. But do go for a heavily
> > structured language too.
> > 
> > -- mrr
> 
>  Some "Basics" are structured. There must be structured Fortrans than 
> allow recursion, these days.

I'm not sure why you say "structured Fortrans that allow recursion" as 
if this is a feature exclusive to structured Fortrans.  I am fairly 
certain that my first exposure to recursion was in a Fortran class in 
the early '70s that was using whatever Fortran was installed on the IBM 
370 at U of F at the time.

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

#161651

From	Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date	2016-03-30 16:22 +0000
Message-ID	<dm2cq0FflomU18@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161642

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:14:21 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Thanks...
>>>>
>>>> The Art of Computer Programming By Donald Knuth Sounds The Ticket
>>>
>>> Overlooking those who believe that Basic isn't programming, I learned
>>> to program dicking around with Basic on an Apple ][ and an Osborne 1.
>>> Then I read K&R straight through until my head threatened to explode
>>> (near the end, somewhere around struct bitfields) and started to write
>>> C code -- on the Osborne.
>>>
>>> Once you have a basic (not Basic) notion of what bits & bytes are,
>>> IMHO K&R will get you   doing interesting things pretty quick.
>>>
>>> But then, I'm an amateur (in the best sense), not a professional
>>> hacker.
>>>
>>>
>>One way to understand programming bits and bytes is to install an
>>emulator for the PDP-8 and play with it.  Graduating to PDP-10 machines
>>would offer a more complex OS and services.  I don't recall DEC
>>documenting the algorithms developed for monitor (kernals) and
>>device/network contollers and devices.
>>The latter also shows how to do memrory management of all flavors and
>>buffered mode I/O (which was completely missing from MSoft's bit
>>bucket).
>>
>>GETting any EXE on a PDP-10, then DDTing it, gives access the entire
>>"app" the user has pulled into core.  Just stepping through the
>>locations using the <LF> character gives a nice introduction to
>>addresses, contents of addresses, data, code and bytes.
> 
> why bother with ancient architectures, when one can obtain much more
> relevent data using modern processors and software?
> 
> Everything you describe above applies to modern processors.
> 
> replace "ddt" with "gdb".

Yes, but the PDP-8 is nice and simple (only 8 opcodes) and it's easy to 
understand. A good teaching system.

I have an SBC-6120.




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#161687 — Re: Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

From	Mike Spencer <mspencer@tallships.ca>
Date	2016-03-31 02:51 -0300
Subject	Re: Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?
Message-ID	<87mvpfi4a6.fsf@roadgrime.nodomain.nowhere>
In reply to	#161651

Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:

> Yes, but the PDP-8 is nice and simple (only 8 opcodes) and it's easy to 
> understand. A good teaching system.

That's why I'm grateful that, as a middle-aged newbie, I started on an
Osborne 1. Lots of op codes on the Z80 but the overall architecture
was, by current standards, rediculously simple.  Learned Basic, C, Z80
assembler. The compiled C code was simple enough that I could work out
ways to lie to the compiler, then patch the executable to deal with C
source that made the compiler exhaust memory.

That didn'tmake me a wizard hacker and as, now, an old guy, I have
ongoing struggles with my Slackware Linux systems but all that larval
mode stuff on the Osborne gave me a valuable grasp of how, in
principle, things work under the hood.

-- 
Michael Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada       .~. 
                                                           /V\ 
                                                          /( )\
                                                          ^^-^^

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

#161709

From	jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date	2016-03-31 12:41 +0000
Message-ID	<PM00052F5735FAA37D@aca4282e.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to	#161642

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Thanks...
>>>>
>>>> The Art of Computer Programming By Donald Knuth Sounds The Ticket
>>>
>>> Overlooking those who believe that Basic isn't programming, I learned
>>> to program dicking around with Basic on an Apple ][ and an Osborne 1.
>>> Then I read K&R straight through until my head threatened to explode
>>> (near the end, somewhere around struct bitfields) and started to write
>>> C code -- on the Osborne.
>>>
>>> Once you have a basic (not Basic) notion of what bits & bytes are, IMHO
>>> K&R will get you   doing interesting things pretty quick.
>>>
>>> But then, I'm an amateur (in the best sense), not a professional
>>> hacker.
>>>
>>
>>One way to understand programming bits and bytes is to install
>>an emulator for the PDP-8 and play with it.  Graduating to PDP-10
>>machines would offer a more complex OS and services.  I don't
>>recall DEC documenting the algorithms developed for monitor
>>(kernals) and device/network contollers and devices.
>>The latter also shows how to do memrory management of all flavors
>>and buffered mode I/O (which was completely missing from MSoft's
>>bit bucket).
>>
>>GETting any EXE on a PDP-10, then DDTing it, gives access
>>the entire "app" the user has pulled into core.  Just
>>stepping through the locations using the <LF> character
>>gives a nice introduction to addresses, contents of
>>addresses, data, code and bytes.
>
> why bother with ancient architectures, when one can obtain
> much more relevent data using modern processors and software?

The machine code is readable and word oriented.
>
> Everything you describe above applies to modern processors.
>
> replace "ddt" with "gdb".

Little steps first.  Byte addressing is not straight-forward
and instructions can wrap around.

/BAH

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

#161712

From	scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date	2016-03-31 13:06 +0000
Message-ID	<Jh9Ly.113899$X_.106447@fx04.iad>
In reply to	#161709

jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> why bother with ancient architectures, when one can obtain
>> much more relevent data using modern processors and software?
>
>The machine code is readable and word oriented.

There are no word machines in common use today.  All are byte
machines.  Therefore, there is no reason that one would prefer
a word-oriented machine as a learning tool (and if there was,
I'd recommmend the Unisys clearpath libra architecture based
on the B6500 which would be far less useless today as the PDP-10,
since there are still libra's in production and need for programmers).

X86 assembler is readable as well.  You have never even used it,
how can you reject it so casually?

00000000005d22e6 <c_condition::timedwait(c_lock*, timespec*)>:
  5d22e6:       55                      push   %rbp
  5d22e7:       48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
  5d22ea:       48 83 ec 20             sub    $0x20,%rsp
  5d22ee:       48 89 7d f8             mov    %rdi,-0x8(%rbp)
  5d22f2:       48 89 75 f0             mov    %rsi,-0x10(%rbp)
  5d22f6:       48 89 55 e8             mov    %rdx,-0x18(%rbp)
  5d22fa:       48 8b 4d f0             mov    -0x10(%rbp),%rcx
  5d22fe:       48 8b 45 f8             mov    -0x8(%rbp),%rax
  5d2302:       48 8b 55 e8             mov    -0x18(%rbp),%rdx
  5d2306:       48 89 ce                mov    %rcx,%rsi
  5d2309:       48 89 c7                mov    %rax,%rdi
  5d230c:       e8 8f 0f ea ff          callq  4732a0 <pthread_cond_timedwait@plt>
  5d2311:       c9                      leaveq
  5d2312:       c3                      retq
  5d2313:       90                      nop

Looks a lot like the PDP-11, in fact.

And here's arm aarch64:

0000000000401570 <register_tm_clones>:
  401570:       b0000081        adrp    x1, 412000 <__frame_dummy_init_array_entry>
  401574:       b0000080        adrp    x0, 412000 <__frame_dummy_init_array_entry>
  401578:       910ae021        add     x1, x1, #0x2b8
  40157c:       910ae000        add     x0, x0, #0x2b8
  401580:       58000187        ldr     x7, 4015b0 <register_tm_clones+0x40>
  401584:       cb000021        sub     x1, x1, x0
  401588:       9343fc21        asr     x1, x1, #3
  40158c:       8b41fc21        add     x1, x1, x1, lsr #63
  401590:       9341fc21        asr     x1, x1, #1
  401594:       eb1f003f        cmp     x1, xzr
  401598:       fa5f10e4        ccmp    x7, xzr, #0x4, ne
  40159c:       54000060        b.eq    4015a8 <register_tm_clones+0x38>
  4015a0:       d61f00e0        br      x7
  4015a4:       d503201f        nop
  4015a8:       d65f03c0        ret
  4015ac:       d503201f        nop

To me, the x86 is more readable.  YMMV.

>>
>> Everything you describe above applies to modern processors.
>>
>> replace "ddt" with "gdb".
>
>Little steps first.  Byte addressing is not straight-forward
>and instructions can wrap around.

Say what?

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

#161714

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-03-31 09:40 -0400
Message-ID	<76298077.481122791.355354.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161712

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 
>>> why bother with ancient architectures, when one can obtain
>>> much more relevent data using modern processors and software?
>> 
>> The machine code is readable and word oriented.
> 
> There are no word machines in common use today.  All are byte
> machines.  Therefore, there is no reason that one would prefer
> a word-oriented machine as a learning tool (and if there was,
> I'd recommmend the Unisys clearpath libra architecture based
> on the B6500 which would be far less useless today as the PDP-10,
> since there are still libra's in production and need for programmers).
> 
> X86 assembler is readable as well.  You have never even used it,
> how can you reject it so casually?

A few posters have said this, but I can't understand it.  It must be a case
of "I'm familiar with this, it's simple."  I've written assembly code on a
variety of machines; while x86 is not the most complex it's certainly far
from the simplest.  I think the PDP-10 may be about the most
programmer-friendly, once you get past the base-register thing the 360 is
also very nice and clean.  You can simplify x86 programming by sticking to
a 32bit subset, but you can't get past the weird collection of registers. 
Both 680x0 (Coldfire) and Power are cleaner architectures (IMO).

> 
> 00000000005d22e6 <c_condition::timedwait(c_lock*, timespec*)>:
>   5d22e6:       55                      push   %rbp
>   5d22e7:       48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
>   5d22ea:       48 83 ec 20             sub    $0x20,%rsp
>   5d22ee:       48 89 7d f8             mov    %rdi,-0x8(%rbp)
>   5d22f2:       48 89 75 f0             mov    %rsi,-0x10(%rbp)
>   5d22f6:       48 89 55 e8             mov    %rdx,-0x18(%rbp)
>   5d22fa:       48 8b 4d f0             mov    -0x10(%rbp),%rcx
>   5d22fe:       48 8b 45 f8             mov    -0x8(%rbp),%rax
>   5d2302:       48 8b 55 e8             mov    -0x18(%rbp),%rdx
>   5d2306:       48 89 ce                mov    %rcx,%rsi
>   5d2309:       48 89 c7                mov    %rax,%rdi
>   5d230c:       e8 8f 0f ea ff          callq  4732a0 <pthread_cond_timedwait@plt>
>   5d2311:       c9                      leaveq
>   5d2312:       c3                      retq
>   5d2313:       90                      nop
> 
> Looks a lot like the PDP-11, in fact.
> 
> And here's arm aarch64:
> 
> 0000000000401570 <register_tm_clones>:
>   401570:       b0000081        adrp    x1, 412000 <__frame_dummy_init_array_entry>
>   401574:       b0000080        adrp    x0, 412000 <__frame_dummy_init_array_entry>
>   401578:       910ae021        add     x1, x1, #0x2b8
>   40157c:       910ae000        add     x0, x0, #0x2b8
>   401580:       58000187        ldr     x7, 4015b0 <register_tm_clones+0x40>
>   401584:       cb000021        sub     x1, x1, x0
>   401588:       9343fc21        asr     x1, x1, #3
>   40158c:       8b41fc21        add     x1, x1, x1, lsr #63
>   401590:       9341fc21        asr     x1, x1, #1
>   401594:       eb1f003f        cmp     x1, xzr
>   401598:       fa5f10e4        ccmp    x7, xzr, #0x4, ne
>   40159c:       54000060        b.eq    4015a8 <register_tm_clones+0x38>
>   4015a0:       d61f00e0        br      x7
>   4015a4:       d503201f        nop
>   4015a8:       d65f03c0        ret
>   4015ac:       d503201f        nop
> 
> To me, the x86 is more readable.  YMMV.
> 
>>> 
>>> Everything you describe above applies to modern processors.
>>> 
>>> replace "ddt" with "gdb".
>> 
>> Little steps first.  Byte addressing is not straight-forward
>> and instructions can wrap around.
> 
> Say what?
> 
> 

k

-- 
Pete

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

#161721

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2016-03-31 15:24 +0000
Message-ID	<ndjfg10kf5@news3.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#161714

On 2016-03-31, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> 
>>>> why bother with ancient architectures, when one can obtain
>>>> much more relevent data using modern processors and software?
>>> 
>>> The machine code is readable and word oriented.
>> 
>> There are no word machines in common use today.  All are byte
>> machines.  Therefore, there is no reason that one would prefer
>> a word-oriented machine as a learning tool (and if there was,
>> I'd recommmend the Unisys clearpath libra architecture based
>> on the B6500 which would be far less useless today as the PDP-10,
>> since there are still libra's in production and need for programmers).
>> 
>> X86 assembler is readable as well.  You have never even used it,
>> how can you reject it so casually?
>
> A few posters have said this, but I can't understand it.  It must be a case
> of "I'm familiar with this, it's simple."  I've written assembly code on a
> variety of machines; while x86 is not the most complex it's certainly far
> from the simplest.  I think the PDP-10 may be about the most
> programmer-friendly, once you get past the base-register thing the 360 is
> also very nice and clean.  You can simplify x86 programming by sticking to
> a 32bit subset, but you can't get past the weird collection of registers. 
> Both 680x0 (Coldfire) and Power are cleaner architectures (IMO).

Perhaps x86 architecture has been cleaned up sometime in the past 30 years.
I wouldn't know; early x86 was what drove me away from assembly language
programming.  (Fortunately C gave me a place to go.)  680x0 is definitely
cleaner, but you don't see much of it these days.

But for demonstrating machine code, how about the good old IBM 360?
One byte for opcode, one for registers or length(s), followed by zero,
one, or two 2-byte address specifications.  Neat and tidy, and once you
get your head around base/displacement it's quite straightforward.
After that, maybe a bit of PDP-11; I remember being dazzled by the
elegance that came from making PC and SP just two more registers.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

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

#161729

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2016-03-31 17:35 +0100
Message-ID	<20160331173502.2960fa37497b89196a51e669@eircom.net>
In reply to	#161721

On 31 Mar 2016 15:24:49 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Perhaps x86 architecture has been cleaned up sometime in the past 30
> years. I wouldn't know; early x86 was what drove me away from assembly
> language programming.  (Fortunately C gave me a place to go.)  680x0 is
> definitely cleaner, but you don't see much of it these days.

	Was it the horrors of the 80286 addressing modes that drove you to
distraction ? Even in C they were a nightmare of the first order (OK so I
want a near pointer to an array of far pointers to near pointers to
functions returning near pointers to far pointers to near pointers of ints.
- so who is volunteering to write the declaration and get it right ?).

> But for demonstrating machine code, how about the good old IBM 360?

	I was going to say 8080s are cheaper - but you'd emulate so they
aren't. Now there's a sobering thought an IBM360 is not significantly more
expensive than an 8080 (and probably cheaper than an Archimedes).

	Do systems architecture courses take advantage of this by getting
students to compare the affect of different architectures on various
workflows using instrumented emulations ? If not - why not ?

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#161752

From	Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com>
Date	2016-03-31 21:07 +0100
Message-ID	<y7qdnYtUPIH3HmDLnZ2dnUU78LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#161729

On 31/03/2016 17:35, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
{snip}

> 	I was going to say 8080s are cheaper - but you'd emulate so they
> aren't. Now there's a sobering thought an IBM360 is not significantly more
> expensive than an 8080 (and probably cheaper than an Archimedes).
>
> 	Do systems architecture courses take advantage of this by getting
> students to compare the affect of different architectures on various
> workflows using instrumented emulations ? If not - why not ?

If Intel has gone off the rails it may now be possible to replace the 
PC. Writing the word processor, web browser, pay role and operating 
system etc. means that a new lap top can be available within months. The 
CPU could be based on the VAX or IBM360 instruction set.

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

#161754

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-03-31 16:29 -0400
Message-ID	<469951631.481146022.826263.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161729

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2016 15:24:49 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps x86 architecture has been cleaned up sometime in the past 30
>> years. I wouldn't know; early x86 was what drove me away from assembly
>> language programming.  (Fortunately C gave me a place to go.)  680x0 is
>> definitely cleaner, but you don't see much of it these days.
> 
> 	Was it the horrors of the 80286 addressing modes that drove you to
> distraction ? 

It's the stupid registers!  Why is there an AH and AL, but no SIH and SIL? 
As I said, if you can stick to 32-bit mode at least you can have seven
sort-of general purpose registers, but that's not really enough and they're
not orthogional.

Even in C they were a nightmare of the first order (OK so I
> want a near pointer to an array of far pointers to near pointers to
> functions returning near pointers to far pointers to near pointers of ints.
> - so who is volunteering to write the declaration and get it right ?).
> 
>> But for demonstrating machine code, how about the good old IBM 360?
> 
> 	I was going to say 8080s are cheaper - but you'd emulate so they
> aren't. Now there's a sobering thought an IBM360 is not significantly more
> expensive than an 8080 (and probably cheaper than an Archimedes).
> 
> 	Do systems architecture courses take advantage of this by getting
> students to compare the affect of different architectures on various
> workflows using instrumented emulations ? If not - why not ?
> 



-- 
Pete

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

#161759

From	Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date	2016-03-31 21:00 +0000
Message-ID	<dm5hfbFflomU27@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161754

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:29:38 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2016 15:24:49 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps x86 architecture has been cleaned up sometime in the past 30
>>> years. I wouldn't know; early x86 was what drove me away from assembly
>>> language programming.  (Fortunately C gave me a place to go.)  680x0
>>> is definitely cleaner, but you don't see much of it these days.
>> 
>> 	Was it the horrors of the 80286 addressing modes that drove you to
>> distraction ?
> 
> It's the stupid registers!  Why is there an AH and AL, but no SIH and
> SIL?

History. AH and AL only existed, really, for compatibility with the 8080. 
And of course SI and DI were meant JUST as index registers.

Not that I'm defending the architecture. Give me a VAX or a PDP-10 any 
day. Or a nice simple PDP-8 for teaching.

>> - so who is volunteering to write the declaration and get it right ?).

There used to be a program for that...

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#161776

From	scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date	2016-04-01 13:01 +0000
Message-ID	<6juLy.87495$111.79163@fx31.iad>
In reply to	#161754

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2016 15:24:49 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps x86 architecture has been cleaned up sometime in the past 30
>>> years. I wouldn't know; early x86 was what drove me away from assembly
>>> language programming.  (Fortunately C gave me a place to go.)  680x0 is
>>> definitely cleaner, but you don't see much of it these days.
>> 
>> 	Was it the horrors of the 80286 addressing modes that drove you to
>> distraction ? 
>
>It's the stupid registers!  Why is there an AH and AL, but no SIH and SIL? 
>As I said, if you can stick to 32-bit mode at least you can have seven
>sort-of general purpose registers, but that's not really enough and they're
>not orthogional.

Of course, now 30 years later, you have

   EAX, EDX, EBX, ECX, ESI, EDI, ESP, EBP in 32-bit
and
   RAX, RBX, RCX, RDX, RSI, RDI, RSP, RBP, R8, R9, ... R15 in 64-bit.

And in 32-bit or long-mode the registers are, in large part, orthogonal.

The architecture has become much more regular in the 30 years since
the 80286.   They, like IBM Z-series, have also added many hundreds of new
instructions in that same interval.

Given the constraints of legacy software support, they've done well.

>
>Even in C they were a nightmare of the first order (OK so I
>> want a near pointer to an array of far pointers to near pointers to
>> functions returning near pointers to far pointers to near pointers of ints.
>> - so who is volunteering to write the declaration and get it right ?).

None of this has applied since the 80386.   There is a flat address
space - no concept of near/far pointers exists.   In long mode,
the flat address space is 2^64 bytes in size.  Every modern operating system
for x86 (Windows, Unix, Linux, Wind River, VMware, et alia) run in
a flat address space.   Segmentation is unused.

And there hasn't been a need to write assembler code for thirty years.
(except for compiler writers and operating system folks, a very very
small subset of the programmer community).

>> 
>>> But for demonstrating machine code, how about the good old IBM 360?
>> 
>> 	I was going to say 8080s are cheaper - but you'd emulate so they
>> aren't. Now there's a sobering thought an IBM360 is not significantly more
>> expensive than an 8080 (and probably cheaper than an Archimedes).
>> 
>> 	Do systems architecture courses take advantage of this by getting
>> students to compare the affect of different architectures on various
>> workflows using instrumented emulations ? If not - why not ?

We certainly do that when we design our processors.   We heavily simulate
any changes to the architecture with both industry standard workloads and
custom workloads using sophisticated simulation and emulation techniques.
This is true for both our MIPS and ARM64 based products.

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

#161813

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2016-04-02 06:32 +0100
Message-ID	<20160402063244.b8d9bc09b5b5b5428796e5ee@eircom.net>
In reply to	#161776

On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:01:54 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> >Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> >> 	Do systems architecture courses take advantage of this by
> >> getting students to compare the affect of different architectures on
> >> various workflows using instrumented emulations ? If not - why not ?
> 
> We certainly do that when we design our processors.   We heavily simulate
> any changes to the architecture with both industry standard workloads and
> custom workloads using sophisticated simulation and emulation techniques.
> This is true for both our MIPS and ARM64 based products.

	I would expect that and I imagine it has been going on since it was
a much more expensive thing to do. I was thinking mainly in terms of using
the technique as a teaching aid.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#161747

From	"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com>
Date	2016-03-31 14:45 -0500
Message-ID	<ndjuib$bg3$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#161721

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ndjfg10kf5@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>          [snip...]                         [snip...] 
> [snip...]
>
> But for demonstrating machine code, how about the good old IBM 360?
> One byte for opcode, one for registers or length(s), followed by zero,
> one, or two 2-byte address specifications.  Neat and tidy, and once you
> get your head around base/displacement it's quite straightforward.
> After that, maybe a bit of PDP-11; I remember being dazzled by the
> elegance that came from making PC and SP just two more registers.
>

The PDP-11 *did* make the PC and the SP just two more registers.  But later 
so did the MC68000:  A6 was the stack pointer and A7 was the program 
counter.  I do *not* know it, but I would guess that in the PDP-11, since R7 
was the PC and R6 was the SP... in most C compilers, R5 would be used as the 
frame pointer and R4 would be the globals pointer.  Just a guess...

The IBM 360 had some specialized instructions like ED and EDMK, or TR and 
TRT that were minimally useful.  But I think the great shortcoming is the 
lack of immediate instructions to load or do arithmatic with a constant. 
The similar job was done using the Literal Pool, but it's just *not* the 
same.  One always had to be mindful that the literal pool constants remain 
addressable... that you had enough base registers to extend the area.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

Page 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →

csiph-web

Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

Contents

#161849

#161890

#161889

#161900

#161914

#161925

#161911

#161651

#161687 — Re: Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

#161709

#161712

#161714

#161721

#161729

#161752

#161754

#161759

#161776

#161813

#161747