Cobol today
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: How to talk like a programmer
Next: Ping Warren Simmons
From: SkippyPB on 29 May 2010 11:39 On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "robertwessel2(a)yahoo.com" <robertwessel2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 28, 9:14�am, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "robertwess...(a)yahoo.com" >> >> <robertwess...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >This statistic is often told as '80% of active code" or "80 percent of >> >the worlds data" or something like that. �One of those might have been >> >true in 1980, but now it's just BS. >> >> We would need to definition of both "code" and of "programs" that we >> could agree upon. � �But it is clear that such definitions don't >> really apply. >> >> And certainly we aren't counting microcode in radios, stoplights, >> phones, etc. � � > > >Very little of that is what's properly called microcode. Most >embedded code runs on fairly conventional processors (quite small >processors, in some cases), and is not microcode. Certainly most >stoplights don't have any "real" microcode (except what might be >embedded in the CPU), radios (including cell phones) might well have >some of the signal processing side driven by microcode, but the vast >majority of code the run is ordinary (the iPhone for example, is >basically a thin version of MacOS, Android is a Linux port). > >But we generally *do* count the code in embedded systems, but it >doesn't make all that much of a difference to the totals. Small >embedded systems tend to have relatively small amounts of code >(although they're sometimes deployed on very large numbers of devices >- whatever code Apple wrote for the iPod version X only counts once, >even if the did sell 50 million of them). Larger embedded systems >tend to look a lot like any other programming environment (consider >the 3270 emulator on your iPhone - other than being targeted at a >fairly small platform, it's not written any differently than your 3270 >emulator for your PC or Mac). And while many embedded systems have >unusual requirements (realtime, reliability, etc.), the larger the >system, the more localized those requirements are. Here is the definition of microcode as stated by PC Magazine: Definition of: microcode A set of elementary instructions in a complex instruction set computer (CISC). The microcode resides in a separate high-speed memory and functions as a translation layer between the machine instructions and the circuit level of the computer. Microcode enables the computer designer to create machine instructions without having to design electronic circuits. Writing microcode is called "microprogramming," and the microcode for a given computer is called a "microprogram." RISC computers do not use microcode, which is the reason why RISC compilers generate more instructions than CISC compilers. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "It's not getting any smarter out there, people. You have to come to terms with stupidity and make it work for you." -- Frank Zappa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Fritz Wuehler on 30 May 2010 23:14 > >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. > But it is code nonetheless. Nobody said it isn't code. You said it's microcode, now you're saying it's code. You seem confused.
From: Anonymous on 31 May 2010 11:05 In article <b12ffa82eb23fb9938f6582510bed4af(a)msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Fritz Wuehler <fritz(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
From: George Orwell on 31 May 2010 14:51 Too long to read, but you're still wrong. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it
From: Anonymous on 31 May 2010 21:14
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. DD |