Apple II Debugger
in [ASM]
|
From: Charles A. Crayne on 1 Aug 2006 02:12 On 31 Jul 2006 22:24:25 -0700 "Dragontamer" <prtiglao(a)gmail.com> wrote: :Some would argue that everything at that age was OSS. When I went to work for IBM in 1967, all of IBM's system software was both open source, and free of charge. It was only some years later, after other companies started making IBM clones and telling their customers to get free software from IBM, that IBM was forced to start charging separately for software. -- Chuck
From: Phil Carmody on 1 Aug 2006 02:57 rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> writes: > > > > And the way TeX was written, using WEB programming language, was > > > > truely innovative. > > > > > > Uh... > > > TeX was written in Pascal. > > > > TeX was written in SAIL. > > Well, so says the Wikipedia (and we know how reliable that is). Good call. Anything I see in Wonkypedia I always verify elsewhere. However, my source for such things was fortunately not Wackypedia, but good old fashined 'foldoc': http://foldoc.org/foldoc.cgi?query=TeX&action=Search > OTOH, > if it was first written in SAIL, then it was converted to Pascal fairly > quickly. Because I remember compiling Knuth's Pascal code (very > carefully written in ISO Pascal to be portable just about everywhere) > at UCR in the very early 1980s. It was actually some classy Pascal > code. I trust your memory far more than I actually trust Pascal compiler vendors to be able to actually conform to an ISO standard! Phil -- The man who is always worrying about whether or not his soul would be damned generally has a soul that isn't worth a damn. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-1894), American physician and writer
From: f0dder on 1 Aug 2006 06:19 rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu wrote: > f0dder wrote: >> TeX is a pretty nifty idea, but IMHO it's too arcane to be really >> useful. Becomes more human with things like LaTeX, but still - >> unless you're using some pre-packaged template, there's *some* >> amount of manual setup you need to do. > > The sad part is that WYSIWYG editing happened with the Lisa and the > Macintosh just a short time period after TeX appeared so other than on > systems that didn't support bit-mapped graphics and fonts (e.g., *nix > systems), the need for TeX evaporated overnight. That's also why TeX > became popular in academia and on *nix systems -- because that's all > they had for quite some time. I'm in two minds about WYSIWYG editing... too often, I think it gets in the way. And especially with Word, many users spend too much time tweaking fonts etc. rather than producing content. The really bad thing is that most people I've worked with haven't figured out how to use typographic styles... when working on a 20-page document where people have contributed individual files, it's too much annoying post-processing putting the pieces together. On the other hand, it sucks being 100% at the mercy of the typesetting program. I find using images in TeX is quite bichy, and it's not exactly friendly when it comes to non-vector images. The ideal for me would probably be something with an "edit mode" and a "layout mode", and with *forced* use of typographic styles (ie., NO way to "just tweak the font style/size on this piece of text". I've tried LyX, but it didn't quite fit... still too TeX-centric. Not to mention it's not all that comfortable to use on a windows system, because the various unix tools weren't integrated that tightly. >> It's also a bunch of bother to change fonts and such (no, not >> changing fonts in the traditional Office style, but setting up a TeX >> equivalent of a CSS style). It would be nice if there was something >> as intuitive as XML/CSS that could give as pretty output as TeX... > > SGML? > I'm not sure it's intuitive, but it's certainly got the power (e.g., > Framemaker was able to store files in this format). I'm not very familiar with all the various HTML-like languages, so I wouldn't know. But I find HTML/XML pretty comfortable (as "languages" - browser-related issues suck) to work with. I guess one choice would be "pre-parsing" ;) XML/SGML/HTML/whatever to .tex and then relying on the TeX engine to pretty it up. >>> BitTorrent is certainly an example of an innovative product, for >>> sure. >> >> Innovative, ho humm. Perhaps my sense of time is schewed, but >> weren't there a bunch of p2p apps available before bittorrent showed >> up? > > Yeah, but the "massive # of peers to me while I upload to others" was > a pretty cool idea. I still think other approaches were more innovative, like some of the networks that are entirely decentralized. I guess the popularity of BitTorrent is partly that it's NOT decentralized... it requires a tracker, specified in the .torrent file, and this makes it perfect for piracy reasons ("private" trackers, ratio counting, etc.)
From: Dragontamer on 1 Aug 2006 09:43 f0dder wrote: > rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu wrote: > > f0dder wrote: > >> It's also a bunch of bother to change fonts and such (no, not > >> changing fonts in the traditional Office style, but setting up a TeX > >> equivalent of a CSS style). It would be nice if there was something > >> as intuitive as XML/CSS that could give as pretty output as TeX... > > > > SGML? > > I'm not sure it's intuitive, but it's certainly got the power (e.g., > > Framemaker was able to store files in this format). > > I'm not very familiar with all the various HTML-like languages, so I > wouldn't know. But I find HTML/XML pretty comfortable (as "languages" - > browser-related issues suck) to work with. I guess one choice would be > "pre-parsing" ;) XML/SGML/HTML/whatever to .tex and then relying on the TeX > engine to pretty it up. Tis how Jade/Docbook does it. But then the issues arise as fonts in TeX are totally different beasts than fonts in whatever editor you used to make DocBook. --Dragontamer
From: rhyde on 1 Aug 2006 09:46
f0dder wrote: > > I'm in two minds about WYSIWYG editing... too often, I think it gets in the > way. And especially with Word, many users spend too much time tweaking fonts > etc. rather than producing content. Well, it's not like TeX reduces the time producing content. Maybe they don't tweak fonts as much (because it's not as easy to do), but they do spend a lot of time proofing for TeX errors in their documents because they couldn't see what they were writing the first time around. > The really bad thing is that most people > I've worked with haven't figured out how to use typographic styles... Give them a copy of "The Mac is not a Typewriter". Still a classic after all these years. > when > working on a 20-page document where people have contributed individual > files, it's too much annoying post-processing putting the pieces together. One word: Framemaker. > > On the other hand, it sucks being 100% at the mercy of the typesetting > program. I find using images in TeX is quite bichy, and it's not exactly > friendly when it comes to non-vector images. When I got my first Apple Lisa, I immediately said goodbye to troff, nroff, and TeX. And I haven't looked back. > > The ideal for me would probably be something with an "edit mode" and a > "layout mode", and with *forced* use of typographic styles (ie., NO way to > "just tweak the font style/size on this piece of text". I've tried LyX, but > it didn't quite fit... still too TeX-centric. Not to mention it's not all > that comfortable to use on a windows system, because the various unix tools > weren't integrated that tightly. One word: Framemaker. Too bad Adobe doesn't still support it for the Mac, just Windows and Unix these days. Cheers, Randy Hyde |