I have a feeling - call me crazy - but something tells me we will reach FIFTY PAGES worth of comments before MK comes anywhere close to launching TB to GR.
Feel free to prove me wrong anytime before then, MK!
In the 8-bit days, you could tell a real man from the girls. We didn't need stinking high level languages like BASIC or even assemblers. We'd compose everything in hexadecimal in our heads and punch them in with our toes on a keypad. Or better yet, flip DIP switches. We'd eat KIM-1s for breakfast. We could make Altairs sing with paper tapes. Real men used cassette, no sinking floppies. No one would ever need more than 16k!
Thanks for the "updated" example. You made me laugh aloud with the above as some variation of this people mentioned then, and at some extent even now. I guess people want to defend what they know even if it comes kind of "obsolete" quickly given the rapid advances calling the rest pussies for moving forward.
But, who does assembly today and for what purpose ? Device drivers ? Only for optimizing code ?
ericpeets said: You said your little grading program ran faster than stuff on the Apple II. First of all, why and how did you compare speeds when yours did not run on the Apple II.
I also used my brothers Apple II. I worked in a school with a computer lab that had another kind of computer. And, computers the school issued to individual teachers were Apple II's. Why would my program have to run on an Apple II to compare? I was comparing it to other programs.
> You need a REFERENCE to base any intelligible discussion.
Then it is really strange to have you keep pushing the notion that I didn't do what I said I did when you don't have that reference. But you do it anyway. Like saying "LDA, (not LD A)". But I referred to LD A and you, without the knowledge you say you need to have an "intelligible discussion", declared it was something else anyway! Of course, the specific reference isn't needed to establish that something exists.
> You do realize that 99, 99-1/2, 99.2 are all decimals....You said you didn't "decimals", yet give examples of "decimal" numbers. And you don't do "fractions" -- which are numbers to the right of the "decimal" point.
There is more than one definition. Definition you ignore:
>>>> Math Term Definition. Decimal. A decimal number is a number with a decimal point in it
But you limit yourself to only this one:
>>>> Definition of decimal system. 1 : a number system that uses a notation in which each number is expressed in base 10
Since I was referring to numbers (individual grades) that did not include a decimal point, the first definition is the one that fits.
> Yet you compared a comparable program to yours using 5 bytes to represent numbers versus yours that only did INTEGER/WHOLE numbers (in the very limited range of 0-254) as being better? How is that a fair comparison?
LOL. Programs tend to have tradeoffs. If a few teachers really needed fractions of a number, then they wouldn't use my program. But whatever they got would likely greatly limit how many students they could handle at once and how many grades they could give to each. This was a more important need for most teachers.
> So then, is this the computer you used? A C-64
Didn't say it was or wasn't. All I needed to do was show some systems used 5 bytes for a floating point number. I was right. You weren't.
But, who does assembly today and for what purpose ? Device drivers ? Only for optimizing code ?
I imagine few do, but I could be wrong. Times change which typically means:
1. Higher level languages get more efficient.
2. Computers get MUCH faster.
I suspect the 2nd item is the most important. It may well be that even using the same Basic as I used decades ago, I might have been able to just write the program all in Basic and have enough speed to make the MC I used not worth the effort on a computer today.
Much like how I later switched to using a spreadsheet as a grade book instead of my special program. Sure, the spreadsheet didn't do some things I wanted (though it could do some things my program couldn't), but it was more than good enough to make it so I had no motivation to learn to code on my first Apple II computer.
But back in those days, it seemed that some computers had better written apps (plenty of exceptions, of course). My theory was that you had one group of programmers writing for things like the Apple II which may only have 48K of ram. Or 64 or, later 128k. So the programs had to be pretty tightly written just to fit. Along comes computers that had, what, 640k and suddenly you could write with more waste because, at the time, that was a huge amount.
On iOS, you can go to General, then Display and Brightness, then Text Size, and if you increase that, it will increase the size of the text everywhere, including the App Store.
I've played around with this for awhile. Saw some things I didn't like at some sizes, but found if I just moved it one notch bigger, it made a significant improvement without making some things worse (at least so far). Thanks.
Game of Thrones started well before TextBlade, and has managed to finish well before TextBlade, too.
The ending won’t be spoiled by me, just as the great Game of TextBlade has an ending that MK refuses to reveal.
It was funny reading in the AI article that WT has a Tesla-like model, pay for it and one day you’ll get it.
It’s like Kickstarter or Indiegogo on Valium or something.
Thanks for your great contribution in that regard, Elon. Only an Elon could elongate things so very much, but the Mark’s on the mark with that one, too.
Elon-gate... that’s what we can call the MK TB GR scandal... the Elon-gate.
Fascinating how someone can claim that a space character (my interpretation of the highlighted difference between LDA and LD A) in an assembly command indicates that it requires to be more than one byte in the opcode. The whole point of assembly is to make instructions more readable. Then depending on importance (i.e. expected frequence of use) the opcodes may be one or more bytes.
As fascinating to see the claim that there is no add on the 6502. There seems to be ADC which makes perfect sense for adding. Sure I haven't programmed the 6502 myself but ADC is there. The little nice carrybit also mean that it is pretty easy to chain the operation to larger values.
For being someone with such strong persistency you should have learned by experience that you can go great lengths without knowing too much beforehand. The "all will, no skill" takes you far and actually is a strong skill itself. It seems very reasonable that DBK has done what he describes, I see his message as very consistent compared to all the attempts at getting him into some trap by mincing words.
Btw, I guess that we all shall remember that we are likely victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Fascinating how someone can claim that a space character (my interpretation of the highlighted difference between LDA and LD A) in an assembly command indicates that it requires to be more than one byte in the opcode. The whole point of assembly is to make instructions more readable. Then depending on importance (i.e. expected frequence of use) the opcodes may be one or more bytes.
The main point of assembly listing is to accurately portray the instruction set opcode, not create new mnemonics so it's more legible. By this logic, let's change the word 'knife' into 'nigh foo'. More legible and sensible, right?
As fascinating to see the claim that there is no add on the 6502. There seems to be ADC which makes perfect sense for adding. Sure I haven't programmed the 6502 myself but ADC is there. The little nice carrybit also mean that it is pretty easy to chain the operation to larger values.
ADC is not an instruction to add numbers. It's to check if the accumulator register has gone out of bounds, hence CARRY'ed. Binary arithmetic by nature requires checking and flipping bits, not ADD'ing in the traditional decimal sense.
Btw, I guess that we all shall remember that we are likely victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
> The main point of assembly listing is to accurately portray the instruction set opcode, not create new mnemonics so it's more legible.
No one created anything new. LD A is a code used. Doesn't matter even a little bit if it isn't used by some CPU you used.
> ADC is not an instruction to add numbers. It's to check if the accumulator register has gone out of bounds, hence CARRY'ed.
It adds and, if it exceeds the amount that can be held in a one byte register, it sets the carry flag so you can deal with it properly. Such as having 255 (11111111) and you add one to it. You get zero in that byte (00000000) but since that would also set the carry flag, you can tell it is actually 256 that the two numbers added up to. Not hard to store that in two registers. If it isn't adding, it wouldn't know when to set the carry bit!
I've been doing more research and the more I did, the more I had to wonder about ericpeets' focus on the 6502 chip when I referred to my computer having an ADD instruction. Because ericpeets did say he was familiar with the Intel 8080 and 8088, the Zilog Z80, and the Motorola 6800 as well as the 6502. 5 CPUs, but he kept locking in on just one. The only one I specifically said I didn't use!
Looking up instruction sets for these 5 systems, it seems all except the 6502 had the ADD instruction. If someone is familiar with all 5, why focus on the one exception?
The more research I do, the simpler this whole thing seems to be - which was my impression from the start. Take the ADD part. Sure, each grade only took one byte since scores could not be over 255. But I assumed I probably added by taking a register pair that would reflect an address and LD A to get the value held in that address into the A register.
But, obviously, as we increment the address to access the next grade to add in to the A register, you'd quickly - and repeatedly - exceed the 255 limit. Which is where the carry flag comes in. So I figured I probably did the math and every time I added something to the A register, if the carry flag was set, I'd increment another register to keep track of how many times it happened.
However, it seems there were also options for adding to a two byte register instead of using A. What that would mean is that the carry flag would never be set. You could have a max of 66 grades so even 66 times 255 would not come close to activating a carry flag. Thus the steps are simplified. But either approach could be taken.
It adds and, if it exceeds the amount that can be held in a one byte register, it sets the carry flag so you can deal with it properly. Such as having 255 (11111111) and you add one to it. You get zero in that byte (00000000) but since that would also set the carry flag, you can tell it is actually 256 that the two numbers added up to. Not hard to store that in two registers. If it isn't adding, it wouldn't know when to set the carry bit!
It doesn't ADD, as there's no resulting number. What you think is ADD is the result of XOR. Here's an example:
0 + 1 = no boo-boo 1 + 0 = no boo-boo 0 + 0 = boo-boo 1 + 1 = boo boo big time
Is that simple enough for you (and your fellow WT devotee) to understand?
So tell me, how did you do math with this? Especially decimal?
You don't know the difference between binary, decimal, hexadecimal
You don't even know what 'decimal' means
I seriously doubt you even did any BASIC programming
You won't name your system not because of any privacy issues, but because it will out your lies
Each of your posts digs you further into trouble
You're constantly looking for some semantic angle to crawl out of the subject
Just admit that you never did any programming, and the reason you're boasting about it is to get some tech cred before talking with some keyboard enthusiasts on WTF, to whom you felt inferior.
It doesn't ADD, as there's no resulting number. What you think is ADD is the result of XOR.
Is that simple enough for you (and your fellow WT devotee) to understand?
Seems you are wrong. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I first considered that maybe the 6502 is simply deficient compared to some other chips, so I looked up ADC details specifically about the 6502 and found this:
Accumulator Carry Bit Instruction = > Sum Carry Bit 0 0 ADC #2 = > 2 0 0 1 ADC #2 = > 3 0
As you can see, it starts off with A (accumulator) being zero. They add 2 to it and, surprise, it gives a result of 2. Just like real addition, with a "resulting number". But if the carry bit is set, from another operation, it would be 3. Just as I described as well. Of course, since it now seems more likely I was doing ADC with a register pair, I would never set carry at all so that part can be ignored.
You don't know the difference between binary, decimal, hexadecimal
You don't even know what 'decimal' means
I seriously doubt you even did any BASIC programming
You won't name your system not because of any privacy issues, but because it will out your lies
Each of your posts digs you further into trouble
You're constantly looking for some semantic angle to crawl out of the subject
Careful. Because people will notice all you did was make assumptions while ignoring facts.
1. I did MC programming. Even explained how some of it worked, even though it was decades ago. 2. I know the difference with all of them - which are essentially different ways of EXPRESSING a given number. What we think of as "10" can be expressed that way, or as "OA", or as "0000 1010". In the computer, it would be stored in binary, but programs can convert it to whatever system you want to see. 3. I know exactly what it means, and I gave you two definitions, both of which are valid based on context. You just choose to pretend the one you don't like isn't there. 4. I programmed in Basic too. Guess which one of us would actually know? We already know who ASSUMES. 5. You haven't shown any lies, but congrats on yet another assumption. 6. A claim without support. 7. You haven't shown anything wrong with my "semantics".
Meanwhile, as shown in my prior post, I showed how even in 6502 that ADC does, in fact, ADD and gets a result. You see, I don't need to make assumptions.
Fascinating how someone can claim that a space character (my interpretation of the highlighted difference between LDA and LD A) in an assembly command indicates that it requires to be more than one byte in the opcode. The whole point of assembly is to make instructions more readable. Then depending on importance (i.e. expected frequence of use) the opcodes may be one or more bytes.
As fascinating to see the claim that there is no add on the 6502. There seems to be ADC which makes perfect sense for adding. Sure I haven't programmed the 6502 myself but ADC is there. The little nice carrybit also mean that it is pretty easy to chain the operation to larger values.
For being someone with such strong persistency you should have learned by experience that you can go great lengths without knowing too much beforehand. The "all will, no skill" takes you far and actually is a strong skill itself. It seems very reasonable that DBK has done what he describes, I see his message as very consistent compared to all the attempts at getting him into some trap by mincing words.
Btw, I guess that we all shall remember that we are likely victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
That’s not quite how the Dunning-Kruger effect works, but I like the reference... It’s always worthwhile reminding people that self-awareness is indeed a virtue and something we all lose from time to time (some admittedly more so than others...)
It doesn't ADD, as there's no resulting number. What you think is ADD is the result of XOR.
Is that simple enough for you (and your fellow WT devotee) to understand?
Seems you are wrong. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I first considered that maybe the 6502 is simply deficient compared to some other chips, so I looked up ADC details specifically about the 6502 and found this:
<< blah blah blah blah revealing even more fundamental ignorance on computer, math, binary and decimal >>
Btw, I guess that we all shall remember that we are likely victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
That’s not quite how the Dunning-Kruger effect works, but I like the reference... It’s always worthwhile reminding people that self-awareness is indeed a virtue and something we all lose from time to time (some admittedly more so than others...)
I think he pulled out the big Dunning-Kruger gun, but accidentally shot Kahuna and himself.
Comments
Feel free to prove me wrong anytime before then, MK!
Thanks for the "updated" example.
You made me laugh aloud with the above as some variation of this people mentioned then, and at some extent even now.
I guess people want to defend what they know even if it comes kind of "obsolete" quickly given the rapid advances calling the rest pussies for moving forward.
But, who does assembly today and for what purpose ? Device drivers ? Only for optimizing code ?
> You need a REFERENCE to base any intelligible discussion.
Then it is really strange to have you keep pushing the notion that I didn't do what I said I did when you don't have that reference. But you do it anyway. Like saying "LDA, (not LD A)". But I referred to LD A and you, without the knowledge you say you need to have an "intelligible discussion", declared it was something else anyway! Of course, the specific reference isn't needed to establish that something exists.
> You do realize that 99, 99-1/2, 99.2 are all decimals....You said you didn't "decimals", yet give examples of "decimal" numbers. And you don't do "fractions" -- which are numbers to the right of the "decimal" point.
>>>> Math Term Definition. Decimal. A decimal number is a number with a decimal point in it
But you limit yourself to only this one:
>>>> Definition of decimal system. 1 : a number system that uses a notation in which each number is expressed in base 10
Since I was referring to numbers (individual grades) that did not include a decimal point, the first definition is the one that fits.
LOL. Programs tend to have tradeoffs. If a few teachers really needed fractions of a number, then they wouldn't use my program. But whatever they got would likely greatly limit how many students they could handle at once and how many grades they could give to each. This was a more important need for most teachers.
> So then, is this the computer you used? A C-64
1. Higher level languages get more efficient.
2. Computers get MUCH faster.
I suspect the 2nd item is the most important. It may well be that even using the same Basic as I used decades ago, I might have been able to just write the program all in Basic and have enough speed to make the MC I used not worth the effort on a computer today.
Much like how I later switched to using a spreadsheet as a grade book instead of my special program. Sure, the spreadsheet didn't do some things I wanted (though it could do some things my program couldn't), but it was more than good enough to make it so I had no motivation to learn to code on my first Apple II computer.
But back in those days, it seemed that some computers had better written apps (plenty of exceptions, of course). My theory was that you had one group of programmers writing for things like the Apple II which may only have 48K of ram. Or 64 or, later 128k. So the programs had to be pretty tightly written just to fit. Along comes computers that had, what, 640k and suddenly you could write with more waste because, at the time, that was a huge amount.
The ending won’t be spoiled by me, just as the great Game of TextBlade has an ending that MK refuses to reveal.
It was funny reading in the AI article that WT has a Tesla-like model, pay for it and one day you’ll get it.
It’s like Kickstarter or Indiegogo on Valium or something.
Thanks for your great contribution in that regard, Elon. Only an Elon could elongate things so very much, but the Mark’s on the mark with that one, too.
Elon-gate... that’s what we can call the MK TB GR scandal... the Elon-gate.
There are gating issues, after all.
Typed on Glass. Dragon Glass.
As fascinating to see the claim that there is no add on the 6502. There seems to be ADC which makes perfect sense for adding. Sure I haven't programmed the 6502 myself but ADC is there. The little nice carrybit also mean that it is pretty easy to chain the operation to larger values.
For being someone with such strong persistency you should have learned by experience that you can go great lengths without knowing too much beforehand. The "all will, no skill" takes you far and actually is a strong skill itself. It seems very reasonable that DBK has done what he describes, I see his message as very consistent compared to all the attempts at getting him into some trap by mincing words.
Btw, I guess that we all shall remember that we are likely victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
ADC is not an instruction to add numbers. It's to check if the accumulator register has gone out of bounds, hence CARRY'ed. Binary arithmetic by nature requires checking and flipping bits, not ADD'ing in the traditional decimal sense.
You said it.
No one created anything new. LD A is a code used. Doesn't matter even a little bit if it isn't used by some CPU you used.
> ADC is not an instruction to add numbers. It's to check if the accumulator register has gone out of bounds, hence CARRY'ed.
It adds and, if it exceeds the amount that can be held in a one byte register, it sets the carry flag so you can deal with it properly. Such as having 255 (11111111) and you add one to it. You get zero in that byte (00000000) but since that would also set the carry flag, you can tell it is actually 256 that the two numbers added up to. Not hard to store that in two registers. If it isn't adding, it wouldn't know when to set the carry bit!
But, obviously, as we increment the address to access the next grade to add in to the A register, you'd quickly - and repeatedly - exceed the 255 limit. Which is where the carry flag comes in. So I figured I probably did the math and every time I added something to the A register, if the carry flag was set, I'd increment another register to keep track of how many times it happened.
However, it seems there were also options for adding to a two byte register instead of using A. What that would mean is that the carry flag would never be set. You could have a max of 66 grades so even 66 times 255 would not come close to activating a carry flag. Thus the steps are simplified. But either approach could be taken.
It doesn't ADD, as there's no resulting number.
What you think is ADD is the result of XOR. Here's an example:
0 + 1 = no boo-boo
1 + 0 = no boo-boo
0 + 0 = boo-boo
1 + 1 = boo boo big time
Is that simple enough for you (and your fellow WT devotee) to understand?
So tell me, how did you do math with this? Especially decimal?
Just admit that you never did any programming, and the reason you're boasting about it is to get some tech cred before talking with some keyboard enthusiasts on WTF, to whom you felt inferior.
As you can see, it starts off with A (accumulator) being zero. They add 2 to it and, surprise, it gives a result of 2. Just like real addition, with a "resulting number". But if the carry bit is set, from another operation, it would be 3. Just as I described as well. Of course, since it now seems more likely I was doing ADC with a register pair, I would never set carry at all so that part can be ignored.
1. I did MC programming. Even explained how some of it worked, even though it was decades ago.
2. I know the difference with all of them - which are essentially different ways of EXPRESSING a given number. What we think of as "10" can be expressed that way, or as "OA", or as "0000 1010". In the computer, it would be stored in binary, but programs can convert it to whatever system you want to see.
3. I know exactly what it means, and I gave you two definitions, both of which are valid based on context. You just choose to pretend the one you don't like isn't there.
4. I programmed in Basic too. Guess which one of us would actually know? We already know who ASSUMES.
5. You haven't shown any lies, but congrats on yet another assumption.
6. A claim without support.
7. You haven't shown anything wrong with my "semantics".
Meanwhile, as shown in my prior post, I showed how even in 6502 that ADC does, in fact, ADD and gets a result. You see, I don't need to make assumptions.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47208154/how-to-add-two-stored-values-by-load-in-assembly-using-1-addressing-mode
And I quote:
They even give examples (unlike you. But unfortunately, there's no crayon illustrations
By the way, any news from WT? Or has this thread turned into "Remedial Computer Lesson for Poor Kahuna"?