On 25/05/10 10:07, Liam Proven wrote:
Reading these comments about "proper
collectors" versus those who are
not and are thus clearly below contempt has been very interesting.
It's starting to sound a lot like the Real Programmers vs Quiche-Eaters
argument...
(and in that particular argument, I don't care whether people consider
me a "real programmer" or not -- that's their opinion and they're
entitled to it)
I don't regard myself as a collector - I lack the
money or the space.
I do have a small collection of interesting 1980s kit, though, which I
enjoy getting running, playing with, learning a bit about and so on. I
like learning about them, talking about them, reading about them,
discussing them and so on.
I'm pretty much the same -- I keep machines around for technical or
personal reasons:
1) My Sinclair/Amstrad Spectrum +2A. The first programmable computer
I ever owned. I'll keep that thing around until the bitter end, simply
because of the sentimental value attached to it...
2) My Acorn BBC Master. First computer I ever used -- not this
specific one, but another of that type. Again, sentimental value, and
it's an incredibly expandable machine. Also based on a CPU I consider to
be one of the nicest ever designed (the 6502).
I'm a bit bothered and, yes, even slightly
offended by the implied
comment that I'm not a REAL enthusiast or collector or aficionado or
anything because I didn't wire-wrap my own CPU when I was 6, have
never used punched-cards and am not familiar with the assembly
language of 23 1960s minicomputers.
Again: Real Programmers vs Quiche-Eaters.
"Real Programmers write their code in binary with no assembler mnemonics
to speak of".... That's not a Real Programmer, that's a crazy lunatic
who doesn't care that his code is going to be maintainable as soon as he
forgets how it works (in general, about 2 weeks after he wrote it)!
If I knew this thread was going to turn into yet another flamefest, I
wouldn't have bothered starting it...
--
Phil.
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/