17 Apr
1999
17 Apr
'99
3:53 p.m.
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Do we really want to build hardware for the sake of
this comparison?
Writing a bare-bones simulator would be straightforward enough. It's really
just a big switch statement. The beauty is that you can include/exclude
undocumented features as you see fit. The gotcha is that it's easy to go
down a road which has no relevance to reality, i.e. if the processor doesn't
work like that, even though it should, then simulating it like that is not
valid.
Ok, let's first assemble a committee to decide all these issues. We'll
have to start with a Statement of Work. Perhaps we should put out an RFP
first to select the person or group who should develop the SoW. Of course
we'll have to pull together a comittee to draft the RFP. Once that's all
done, then we must put together an administrative committee. We'll have
to vote in a President, Vice President and Secretary. Perhaps we should
incorporate as well. Let's choose the state of Delaware, since that seems
to be the quickest route.
Fucken-A people! Is this supposed to be a simple coding challenge, or a
competition to see how much work we can create around the same? At the
rate you all are going, it will be a year before we can even decide what
it is we'll be coding!
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 04/03/99]