A
aussiblu
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
The world has moved on from the early 80's. Can't imagine why anyone
swanny said:The world has moved on from the early 80's. Can't imagine why anyone
would bother. Nostalgic dust collectors?
Joey.G said:If they opensourced the hardware then it might be a good learning
tool.
Is there anything else around that the average joe blow could get their
hands on and program? Has some interesting I/O option for projects.
swanny said:Average Joe Blow's do not program. They have difficulty getting their
minds around the TV remote control.
Since the OS is uCLinux, you could use any old PC and load up a flavour
of Linux and start programming straight away.
As for hardware there are plenty of ARM, PIC, Atmel, Coldfire etc
embedded dev boards around and dev tools to match.
Is there anything else around that the average joe blow could get their hands on and program? Has some interesting I/O
option for projects.
soz, wasn't talking about the couch spuddies, but the bit more active.
In the days of basic, plenty did.
You must be jesting. In C, absolute pox of a programming langage.
Linux is not an easy language to learn yourself. It has two major camps
of programmers, the elite(if you can not read my code, then you are not
good enough) and the ones who want to sell you their pathetic program.
And the average bloke could use these?
Err, Linus is a programmer, Linux is an OS<snip>Rubbish. C is an excellent language to program in. If the best you can
do is Basic then you probably need to learn how to program properly.
Linus is an OS, not a language. It's a simple to use and easy to program
under. The toolsets are there as well as debuggers. It is also very robust.
That is where I see the major limitation. 100 is a miniscule number butThe problem with this system is that if they are only making 100 of
them, there isn't going to be much of a community to support and
innovate with them, especially with the newer side of it (coldfire
processor and its linux system)
There is the Maximite that is the same sort of thing, but does not
have the coldfire processor (or similar) so is not Linux compatible or
colour display.
Not Z80 though, but not much is these days.
The good thing with this is that it is fully open source, a shitload
of them have been sold, built, and there is a solid community
developing with them. Also VERY cheap, especially if you use an old
keyboard/monitor with it.
Finally, if you come up with a project that you like and want to use
full time, you only have to buy another kit for about $70 and use it
for that dedicated purpose. If it only needs to be simple, you can
just buy the chip and make up the hardware for a lot less.
swanny said:Rubbish. C is an excellent language to program in. If the best you can
do is Basic then you probably need to learn how to program properly.
Typical comment I've come to expect. How did you learn it?
If C is so great, how come there was that security bug in randomisation
for so many months. It was a basic mistake and in any other language it
could have been picked up by a beginner reading te source code.
Typical comment I've come to expect. How did you learn it?
If C is so great, how come there was that security bug in randomisation
for so many months. It was a basic mistake and in any other language it
could have been picked up by a beginner reading te source code.
swanny said:In 1983, at Sydney Uni.
A random function has nothing to do with the language, it would have
been in someone's library. Unlikely that this library was widely used
either, or it would have been found during testing.
keithr said:What a load of crap, that would be a problem with a particular
implementation not the language itself.
Bring back COBOL.terryc said:It was actually a change made that wasn't picked up. My 2c is that in
other languages the particular mistake would have been obvious, but in C,
because you "can do interestig things" and its general obscurity, it
wasn't.
Hence my argument that it isn't sutable for teach yourself.
The problem is that the language is so cryptic, you have to be well
versed to spot a simple mstake. similarly, it makes it very difficult
for people to teach themselves by reading the code.
My 2c is that if the language lends itself to faulty implementations,
then it isn't such a great language.
swanny said:The language is not cryptic,
easier to work through the coding flow than something as horrible as Basic.
I learnt a great deal by reading the Unix SysV source code and using the
K&R C book.
Poor programmers lead to faulty implementations, not the language.
T.T. said:Bring back COBOL.
If it is above zero, it wouldn't be by much.terryc said:Is this a horses for course comment?
Do you have any figures on the current percentage implementation of Cobol?