Ethan Dicks wrote:
--- Neil Cherry <ncherry(a)home.net> wrote:
He was
writing about the very early days of computer programming, when
every computer was unique. In these days of bloatware, there are very
few programmers that still practice the art of achieving the maximum
results from the minimum system (hardware and software). But those of
us that do so *still* derive "an immense intellectual satisfaction". :-)
Eric
Hey there are still those of use who have managed to write an asm prog
for a PIC based Cheese box in less than 50 bytes!
What kind of cheese? :-)
Velveeta of course! :-)
I was a participant in an official contest a few years
ago - write the
smallest useful program for the Amiga in C... My two submissions were
well under .5 KB. One reduced the WorkBench color depth from two bitplanes
to one (so that text could scroll twice as fast), the other peeked at the
processor status bits in a system structure and printed out what processor
and co-processor were installed. The asm version of that one was just over
200 bytes, the C version was under 256 bytes. The trick - no startup code
linked in (which is where argv/argc are populated) and no libraries. The
printf that was used was the tinyprintf in ROM - integer, character and
string qualifiers only.
I got spoiled with builtin rom routines on most of my computers (not the
PC/XT/AT/whatever family). The PIC doesn't have any of those. I still like
assembly language, it has it's place as does the other 2 dozen languages I
know (now if I could only speak English).
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)home.net
http://members.home.net/ncherry (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52 (Graphics)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ (SourceForge)