Prev: How to talk like a programmer
Next: Ping Warren Simmons
From: Alistair Maclean on 1 Jun 2010 07:24
On May 31, 4:05 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
> In article <b12ffa82eb23fb9938f6582510bed...(a)msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> Fritz Wuehler  <fr...(a)spamexpire-201005.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Those devices don't have much if any microcode.
>
> >> Oh but they do.  They all have microchips in them.  And microchips are
> >> nothing more than code turned into a circuit.  It may be something
> >> simple like, current present, turn light on, current not present, turn
> >> light off.  But it is code nonetheless.
>
> >Oh but they don't. You don't understand the difference between code and
> >microcode. All code runs on a microprocessor. That doesn't make it
> >microcode.
>
> Note, class, the difficulties which can arise when one, by causes which
> include laziness, ego, 'I thought *Everyone Knew* that*...', neglects the
> structures left by the Architects whose works have proven their worth for
> millennia.  As Euclid constructed his Geometry, a work which not only
> stands in theory but in the practise which allows buildings to outlast the
> dynasties which constructed them, one begins:
>
> I: Definitions.
>
> II: Postulates.
>
> III: Common Notions.
>
> IV: Proposotions which are to be proven using *only* reason (logos) and
> that which precedes the reasoning has shown to be demonsatrable.
>
> Here, it seems, there is a demonstration of 'what you are calling (x)
> isn't (x)' so it obvious that you don't understand (x) from its very
> basics.  This makes you, technically speaking, a poopie-head.'
>
> Consider Mr Wuehler's asseretion that 'All code runs on a microprocessor'..  
> Those who have sat at benches, carefully putting letters into blocks,
> might be surprised that they were not - and may never have! - been writing
> code because COBOL does not 'run on a microprocessor'... the instructions
> into which the source code has been manipulated are the ones the
> microprocessor executes.'
>
> (Oh... and never mind the fact that folks were 'writing code' before
> microprocessors were invented, that just muddles things further.)
>
> *Please*, gentlemen... when a disaggreement of such a nature arises you
> might consider the value of falling back on The Basics.
>
> If one's desire is to learn, rather than demonstrate superiority, this may
> prove to be a better method: admit to ignorance, state one's definitions,
> postulates, common notions, proposition and proof and conclude 'this would
> appear to refute your assertion of (x).  Where do our disagreements lie?'
>
> Of course... that doesn't allow a participant to toss off a 'you just
> don't know what you're talking about' without running the risk of
> appearing a fool... but what is Life without a bit of Risk?
>
> DD

If we can not get our definitions right, etc., then is it more a
wonder that our code ever works?
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Jun 2010 07:25
docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote:
> In article <5a389e3ce5092a807fbd0b2e9d57b251(a)mixmaster.it>,
> George Orwell <nobody(a)mixmaster.it> wrote:
>> Too long to read, but you're still wrong.
>
> 'I did not read it but can make assertions about how correct it is.'

Come on Doc, this is the credo of every book reviewer I have ever met :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


From: starwars on 1 Jun 2010 07:48
docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:

> In article <5a389e3ce5092a807fbd0b2e9d57b251(a)mixmaster.it>,
> George Orwell <nobody(a)mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >Too long to read, but you're still wrong.
>
> 'I did not read it but can make assertions about how correct it is.'
> Perhaps, class, this is another lesson in it'sself but it serves well to
> demonstrate the lesson previously given.

Sadly, wrong again. Your original contention that any code that runs on a
microprocessor or FPGA is microcode is wrong, no matter how much time you
spend trying to rewrite thread history or post irrelevant material.

From: Anonymous on 1 Jun 2010 08:11
In article <86k90vFst3U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote:
>> In article <5a389e3ce5092a807fbd0b2e9d57b251(a)mixmaster.it>,
>> George Orwell <nobody(a)mixmaster.it> wrote:
>>> Too long to read, but you're still wrong.
>>
>> 'I did not read it but can make assertions about how correct it is.'
>
>Come on Doc, this is the credo of every book reviewer I have ever met :-)

That might be a reason for my never having taken on that particular trade,
Mr Dashwood.

DD

From: Anonymous on 1 Jun 2010 08:15
In article <8fbc62d701b6b51fa1f6f8b6bf196d3c(a)tatooine.homelinux.net>,
starwars <nonscrivetemi(a)tatooine.homelinux.net> wrote:
>docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>
>> In article <5a389e3ce5092a807fbd0b2e9d57b251(a)mixmaster.it>,
>> George Orwell <nobody(a)mixmaster.it> wrote:
>> >Too long to read, but you're still wrong.
>>
>> 'I did not read it but can make assertions about how correct it is.'
>> Perhaps, class, this is another lesson in it'sself but it serves well to
>> demonstrate the lesson previously given.
>
>Sadly, wrong again. Your original contention that any code that runs on a
>microprocessor or FPGA is microcode is wrong, no matter how much time you
>spend trying to rewrite thread history or post irrelevant material.

Document that, please, or retract it. To the best of my knowledge I have
never contended that 'any code that runs on a microprocessor or FGPA is
microcode'.

(this should be interesting)

DD

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: How to talk like a programmer
Next: Ping Warren Simmons