Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50538
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 22:55 -0700 |
| References | (8 earlier) <nm3gic$pbe$1@dont-email.me> <552de51e-52f1-4470-b079-725099716f33@googlegroups.com> <nn6j17$p19$1@dont-email.me> <9f2ac50f-25e5-4e10-abfa-6a1b599d9e24@googlegroups.com> <npddn3$6qd$1@dont-email.me> |
| Message-ID | <568c56ce-ee41-4fa9-a703-e272257ea466@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style |
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:32:52 AM UTC+12, rickman wrote: > In fact, the 68000 family had some issues with the limited 24 bit > address space. When later models came out with full 32 bit address > pins, there was code that was not compatible.. The fact remains, the incompatibilities were far less of a problem than with x86, where going to 32-bit required major changes and took many more years.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 19:32 -0400
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 22:55 -0700
Re: Forth coding style vs "Algol et al" coding style hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 00:34 -0700
csiph-web