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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51943 > unrolled thread

Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 06:50 -0700
    Re: Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-17 19:14 -0400
      Re: Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-17 17:02 -0700
        Re: Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:42 -0700
      Re: Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:42 -0700

#51943 — Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code

or less if you factor in all the hardware wont need

examples of this?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#51952

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code
>
> or less if you factor in all the hardware wont need
> 
> examples of this?

Do you realize that you asked this same question over and over again?
I'd swear that you ask some variation on it at least once a year.  If
you don't have an acceptable answer by now, why do you keep asking it?

Have you placed his statement into it's appropriate historical
context?  What year was this statement made?

On an ancient 8-bit micro-computer without memory and without much
hardware to program, when using threaded-code, this might've once been a
realistic statement, although a figure of 10% or higher would seem more
realistic to me, even way back in the 1970's and 1980's.

With plenty of hardware to program in modern computers and the very
large or complex software packages of today, I don't view his comment
as a realistic statement anymore.


Rod Pemberton

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

#51957

Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
> Have you placed his statement into it's appropriate historical
> context?  What year was this statement made?  On an ancient 8-bit
> micro-computer without memory and without much hardware to program,
> when using threaded-code, this might've once been a realistic
> statement,...  With plenty of hardware to program in modern computers
> and the very large or complex software packages of today, I don't view
> his comment as a realistic statement anymore.

I took it as being about today's software (or 5 years ago or whenever he
gave that talk).  And I interpreted it as meaning that given a
high-level description of the problem, he can deliver a solution 1% of
the size of today's software.

An example might be word processing: many perfectly good word processors
ran on 32 kilobyte CP/M systems, Apple II's, etc.  Microsoft Word today
is at least 1000x bigger.  Yes it has a lot more crap in it, but that
stuff reaches outside the essence of the problem.

Myself, I ported Col. G. L. Sicherman's "roff" program to Turbo C and
used it for many years on a 4.77 mhz Toshiba laptop, even in the
post-Unix era:

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/class/cop4600/minix/src/commands/simple/roff.c

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

#51978

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:02:07 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
> > Have you placed his statement into it's appropriate historical
> > context?  What year was this statement made?  On an ancient 8-bit
> > micro-computer without memory and without much hardware to program,
> > when using threaded-code, this might've once been a realistic
> > statement,...  With plenty of hardware to program in modern computers
> > and the very large or complex software packages of today, I don't view
> > his comment as a realistic statement anymore.
> 
> I took it as being about today's software (or 5 years ago or whenever he
> gave that talk).  And I interpreted it as meaning that given a
> high-level description of the problem, he can deliver a solution 1% of
> the size of today's software.
> 
> An example might be word processing: many perfectly good word processors
> ran on 32 kilobyte CP/M systems, Apple II's, etc.  Microsoft Word today
> is at least 1000x bigger.  Yes it has a lot more crap in it, but that
> stuff reaches outside the essence of the problem.
> 
> Myself, I ported Col. G. L. Sicherman's "roff" program to Turbo C and
> used it for many years on a 4.77 mhz Toshiba laptop, even in the
> post-Unix era:
> 
> http://www.cise.ufl.edu/class/cop4600/minix/src/commands/simple/roff.c

ed is pretty small
mostly i use vi

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

#51977

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:14:08 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
> polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code
> >
> > or less if you factor in all the hardware wont need
> > 
> > examples of this?
> 
> Do you realize that you asked this same question over and over again?
> I'd swear that you ask some variation on it at least once a year.  If
> you don't have an acceptable answer by now, why do you keep asking it?
> 
> Have you placed his statement into it's appropriate historical
> context?  What year was this statement made?
> 
> On an ancient 8-bit micro-computer without memory and without much
> hardware to program, when using threaded-code, this might've once been a
> realistic statement, although a figure of 10% or higher would seem more
> realistic to me, even way back in the 1970's and 1980's.
> 
> With plenty of hardware to program in modern computers and the very
> large or complex software packages of today, I don't view his comment
> as a realistic statement anymore.
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0NwqF8F0k
45:00
if only youd address it
your missing it
look at video
compute vs move bytes around

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web