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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372027 > unrolled thread

Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 20:47 +0000
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 21:36 +0000
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 22:33 +0000
        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 21:57 -0600
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jürgen Großenbuch <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-15 15:02 +0000

#372027 — Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:

> Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote:
>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jmfbahciv wrote:
>> 
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> <snip>
>>> 
>>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means.
>> 
>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
> 
> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.

Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, 
you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16 
bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set, 
but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything, 
16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.

I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a micro-
controller if you wish.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372036

In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote:
> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:
> 
>> Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote:
>>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> 
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means.
>>> 
>>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
>> 
>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
> 
> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context, 
> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16 
> bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set, 
> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything, 
> 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.

No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.

The 8086 was 16 bit only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#372041

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:

>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may
>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
> 
> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
> The 8086 was 16 bit only.

I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference, 
stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the 
instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller 
than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a 
RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/X86_Assembly/Machine_Language_Conversion
"The x86 architecture is a complex instruction set computer (CISC) 
architecture. Amongst other things, this means that the instructions for 
the x86 architecture are of varying lengths. This can make the processes 
of assembly, disassembly and instruction decoding more complicated, 
because the instruction length needs to be calculated for each 
instruction."

See now you are an idiot?

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

#372046

In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote:
> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:
> 
>>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may
>>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>> 
>> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
>> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>> The 8086 was 16 bit only.
> 
> I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference, 
> stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the 
> instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller 
> than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a 
> RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

Read it an learn what an idiot you are.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#372052

On 12/14/2015 2:47 PM, Jason Wyome wrote:
> ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:
>
>> Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> wrote:
>>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>

>>>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means.
>>>
>>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
>>
>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>
> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16
> bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set,
> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything,
> 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>
> I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a micro-
> controller if you wish.
>

It is the size of the accumulator.

the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16 
bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code.

The accumulator is part of the processor, it is hardware.


       google for it.


I don't have the time to learn you all that.

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

#372075

gilber34 wrote:

>>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>>
>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>> instruction-set,
>> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to
>> anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>> I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a
>> micro-controller if you wish.
>
> It is the size of the accumulator. 
> the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16
> bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code.
> The accumulator is part of the processor, it is hardware google for it.
> I don't have the time to learn you all that.

jimp said "instruction set", you stupid sack. Of course is the ALU, more 
exactly the size (wideness) of the Registers, and also usually the size of 
Data-Bus (usually read through a single-cycle). Jason Wyome is perfectly 
right. You and jimps are morons.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web