"It is a great pity computers can't be switched on programmed straight away"

By djh1697

Paragon (1380)

djh1697's picture

10-02-2004, 19:09

I heard the above quote be Sir Clive Sinclair on a TV programme yesterday. I have to agree with his sentiments. I really like using machine language, can that be done on todays PC's? of course not, or at least not easily!

We can program out MSX machines straight away when we switch them on, which is great! Any one else want to pass some comments ?

When I had my heart surgergy 18 months ago, some of the computers where designed for the job, i.e. ECG, they were all connected to a machine running OS/2 . When I got into the operating theratre I asked the surgeon if the machines where running MicroSoft Windows, his reply was "You have nothing to worry about! We are running IBM OS/2 with pre-emptive crash protection" - no Blue screen of death to kill me then!

Seriously, PC's are so complex these days they can crash, and I think the comment by Sinclair was a valid one!

Login or register to post comments

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9733)

wolf_'s picture

10-02-2004, 19:25

I think you can't compare a PC to a classic home-computer in its default form. A PC is a machine to run enormous pieces of software, a classic home-computer can do little/average games and small-scale software.

For both is a market, and I use them for both, but I wouldn't compare them with eachother. They're just two different machines.

By IC

Hero (557)

IC's picture

10-02-2004, 19:26

I really like using machine language, can that be done on todays PC's? of course not, or at least not easily!

Machine language is straight to the point. Like 'II want that, so I creat this'. Thats what I like about machine language. The prob with the current PC's is that hardware vendors don't now jack shit about eachouther what they are creating (and that's what all the driver issues is all about).

Today is a time where vendors create a componment and create a translation system to work with this stuff.

On MSX the times were different. Z80 was alway Z80, nothing more and nothing less (ok, there's a R800...).

Same with the Vdp, almost always the same.. This is where I think the PC FAILES!! BIG TIME....

If you create a tool on a 3Dfx Voodoo 3 in Ml, it will not work on a Nvidia Whatsover.. Only if you create it in C using that (what should I call it) Direct Nill.. Ehr... X...

Well.. Enough about this..
Later...

By Arjan

Paladin (697)

Arjan's picture

10-02-2004, 19:48

WIN+R
notepad <enter>
<script language="JavaScript">alert("Hello World!");</script>
ALT+F, A
C:HelloWorld.html <enter>
WIN+R
C:HelloWorld.html <enter>

There ya go, programming right out of the box (assuming you have windows installed of course Tongue)

By Jorito

Mr. Ambassadors (1757)

Jorito's picture

10-02-2004, 19:51

WIN+R
notepad <enter>
<script language="JavaScript">alert("Hello World!");</script>
ALT+F, A
C:HelloWorld.html <enter>
WIN+R
C:HelloWorld.html <enter>

There ya go, programming right out of the box (assuming you have windows installed of course Tongue)

Better teach it right, arjan, afaik the <html> tags are still required in a HTML document Wink

By Maggoo

Paragon (1188)

Maggoo's picture

10-02-2004, 19:56


Machine language is straight to the point. Like 'II want that, so I creat this'. Thats what I like about machine language. The prob with the current PC's is that hardware vendors don't now jack shit about eachouther what they are creating (and that's what all the driver issues is all about).

Sorry but I don't agree, PCs 10 years ago were crap to program but things have improved thanks to things like DirectX and programming languages like Blitz Basic, C++, Delphi7. Assembly is great for machines like the MSX, simple architecture, limited ressources, I'd use nothing else on a MSX. But backward hardware compatibility is very hard to achieve (and increase hardware development cost), so why bother when you can do it thru software. Not to mention keeping backward compatibility always create bottlenecks like it was the case for MSX and early PC (trying to keep compatiility with "standard EGA/CGA modes noone cared about after a few years).


Today is a time where vendors create a componment and create a translation system to work with this stuff.

On MSX the times were different. Z80 was alway Z80, nothing more and nothing less (ok, there's a R800...).

Same with the Vdp, almost always the same.. This is where I think the PC FAILES!! BIG TIME....

If you create a tool on a 3Dfx Voodoo 3 in Ml, it will not work on a Nvidia Whatsover.. Only if you create it in C using that (what should I call it) Direct Nill.. Ehr... X...

Why on earth would you program a PC in ML these days ? Again we did that on MSX because resources were scarces not because of compatibility. When you wrote a ML routine for the PSG, there was no way the same routine would have produced any sound on your FMPAC, Music Module or OPL4. The VDP routines only worked because the VDP hardly evolved for 10 years. It's also what made the MSX a technically obsolete machine. If it changed at the speed today's video card change, you'd probably have ended up with 500+ VDP registers, not something I'd like to code for in assembly.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

10-02-2004, 19:59

Machine language/assembly is still possible on PC's, even in Windows.
The problem is that PC CPU's these days have such deep pipelines complete with dozens of different stalls (wait-state), that it's incredibly hard to produce machine language that's actually better than what a compiler produces.

By Arjan

Paladin (697)

Arjan's picture

10-02-2004, 20:41

Better teach it right, arjan, afaik the <html> tags are still required in a HTML document Wink
a) it's wasn't meant to teach anything, just to show you can 'code' stuff right out of the box
b) do I have to remind you of the bombaman.net html code? Wink heck, it could even be done smaller, the language=stuff could be removed.

My MSX profile