Slashdot Mirror

'There are no super hackers out there.'

In refutation, I give you the story of Mel.

Knowing about optimising registers, partitioning the stack, minimising movs, and assembly tuning in general doesn't rely on the same concepts at all.

The GP is 100% correct in its uses and you are also correct that its current use is crap.

We have abstracted ourselves far enough away and insulated ourselves so much that I think we are in danger of losing the point of fast computers.

Anyone with visual studio can get a good example of this if you see how long the immediate window takes to calculate 1+1.
It might be great and super and empowers the developer to do more, but something has been lost that I feel Visual Basic classic is fast in comparison.

Finding a decent optimisation of the core .net framework would be a major benefit and you cannot do that without an implicit understanding of assembler.

Every time this kind of discussion comes up I think of Mel.
Assemblers are a dying breed but their services are more than needed even today.

Have you ever read "The Story of Mel?"

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html

DNA works a lot like Mel's code.

You'd have to define "useful" before I could give you a better answer. But I think the answer is probably something like "no," for qualified degrees of "useful." And "all this excess DNA" too -- they call it "junk," but it's not literally Junk. Some of if just isn't understood yet. Some of it is valuable filler like padding unused fields in a fixed-length data packet.

(* Important note: I have absolutely no qualifications to be commenting on this topic.)

Have you checked out the SCA Medieval and Renaissance Music Homepage:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/music.html

You're still a noob -- a Real Programmer loads machine code into the CPU registers directly!

(Side note: Greg Lindahl is also a noob, for posting a version of the story in prose instead of free verse.)

I think its clear assembly is the best place to start learning to program.

Real men? You mean real men like these?

Mel would certainly not care for interpereted languages.

Computers are like any other machines. The main purpose of the computer is to help people carry out tasks faster than they would do if they didn't have computers. That also includes people who don't do computer programming for a living. Pascal was deemed to be too "easy", even high-school undergrads could write powerful software in Pascal (see the classic essay "Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal" -- http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html) . C is a programming language that was designed for writing operating systems; it required intimate knowledge on the "innards" of a computer and the language was designed to reflect that. When some people realized that C was actually too complicated for most computing tasks, they removed some of the really useful features and named what was left of it Java; others yet combined it with shell scripting and called the result Perl (which is great for text parsing except that, as someone so nicely put it, some Perl code is virtually indistinguishable from white noise). Of course, the Fortran people learned their lesson and added missing features to that language so that even today many, if not most, computational fluid dynamics scientist at NASA do Fortran, not C or Java programming (I have first hand information to make that assertion).

How meny biologists use C or Java? How many architects? How many mathematicians? How many school teachers?

Young people entering the field of CS have no choice but to accept the paradigm that Java is *the* programming language of the present and, why not, the future. Sure, if you want to do professional desktop programming you have no choice and the large IT corporations will make sure you stay on course.

Well, we've moved very far from the topic of people with social liabilities to the full-on playa's guide to bangin' chicks and getting laid. It's a whole different sphere of things.

Not completely a different sphere, just different ends of the same spectrum.

I do understand what you mean, and my point wasn't intended to be as patronizing as it came out.

The way I see it, people with Autism/Aspergers/Slashdot-fever who have problems in social situations have them because of their inability to relate. I'm assuming someone, who is otherwise very intelligent, is unable to pick up on people's facial expressions because they themselves don't associate their own facial expressions with the reactions that normally cause them.

To add to that, I think they are very painfully aware of this and are afraid of social interactions because of this. Each bit of interaction, especially with someone they've never met before, is a potential cause of failure.

This is what needs to be overcome and I'm saying fearlessness is the answer. There is absolutely nothing to be lost in any social situation, regardless of how it goes! Worst case scenario, the other people walk away thinking you're a fucking nerd with no life. They thought that before you opened your mouth anyway, it's no big deal.

I think over time you'll find other peoples opinions really don't matter. So why talk to them in the first place, right? Humans are social creatures, we all need other people for something or other. It'd be a shame to not take advantage of other people's help just because you didn't know how to approach them and ask.

I wish a playa's guide to bangin' chicks and getting laid existed, but like you said, not all strategies work for everyone, nor should they be tried by everyone. That doesn't mean a good strategy wont work for most people, and shouldn't be tried by people who have no reason not to try it.

Here's mine:

If you want to increase your social aptitude, regardless of whether it's to weild power and authority or just to bang hot bitches (not necessarily in the back of a bus) you must concentrate on one thing: dominance. You're the manliest of men, all the men want to be you, all the women want to do you.

Understandably, it may require a drastic shift in mentality. A good start would be some stuff written by some manly men:

Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal

Bastard Operator From Hell

Move on to less nerdier fare once you grow some balls, such as:

The Best Page In The Universe

After that you'll have already come to the conclusion that only fags need to learn how to be cool, and this shit was all a waste of time because you were the baddest motherfucker in the world from day one.

The story of Mel, the Real Programmer: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html

/Crafack

Software is instructions for your computer, much like a recipe is instructions for how to make food, instructions for your hands.

I could argue that books are nothing but instructions for your brain, just written in a machine language that is much, much richer than anything anyone has made for a computer.

It has long been held that, while you can copyright a book of recipes as a complete work, you can't actually hold copyright on the individual recipes themselves, as they constitute instructions on how to do something and NOT an actual creative work in and of themselves.

In my opinion, you're solving the discrepancy in the wrong direction; if anything, I think originial recipes SHOULD be subject to copyright.

I find the idea that computer software shouldn't be subject to something like copyright or patents absolutely untenable. I see no essential difference in the creative input required to write a piece of software and the creative input required to write, say, a novel. Read The Story of Mel; this story portrays him in a manner that would make his relation to software the same as Shakespeare's to literature.

Outside of that, there's just the fact that the same need that makes it necessary (IMO) to provide copyright protection to authors et. al. makes it necessary to provide protection to software. Without such protection, selling software becomes much harder. If current law DIDN'T provide protection for software, I'd say it should be changed.

I would argue that if software should fall under any law, it should be a new one... requiring full disclosure of what a peice fo software does to the consumer. That is, the source code. You should have the right to know, if you wish to know, what your computer is being told to do, and you should have the right to read it in a human intelligable form, and the right to change those instrucitons to fit your own needs.

Why?

If you're comparing software to recipes, food companies aren't required to include recipes on their packages; only ingredients, nutrition facts, etc.

I would favor a law that required disclosure of some aspects of what a program does, such as what network connections it initiates, what information is gathered, etc., but I don't think full disclosure of source code is at all appropriate. That's forcing a company to give away a trade secret.

It would be absurd to think that there should be a law against adding more sugar to your cake recipe, why do we not think it is absurd to do the moral equivalnet to the software recipe that someone has sold us?

Here I am in agreement. I do think that modifications to software should be allowed. (Distribution should be out unless you give up your copy in the first place.) I'm opposed to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA for example.

That said, I don't think that companies should be obligated to make it easy for you to do so (i.e. provide you with source).

From the article: "The single-player game is a strange mutant monster which has only existed for 21 years and is about to go away because it is unnatural and abnormal."

Let's see, solitaire has apparently existed since at least 1674, with other single-person "games" possibly as old as 1535. Seems older than 21 years.

You wish. Truth is that real programmers use languages where GOTO is part of each instruction

One of my favorite computer stories of all time is "The Story of Mel."

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html

The best Mel quote is:
"If a program can't rewrite its own code," he asked, "what good is it?"

Then perl newbies / passer-byers take a look at it, don't understand it, and freak out and say that perl is crap.
And in a way they are right: Perl is crap for RAD by now compared to other languages.
Then perhaps they're threatened because there's a huge community of smart perl programmers that manage to upstage them constantly.
Yeah, the zealots and their praises are probably one the main reason for the hate against perl. Its just not that good as the zealots claim. Thus people are disappointed.
To zoom out on the issue a bit, I'm really sick and tired of this current movement in computer science where so many think that programming should be made into some kind of simple task that anyone can do.
That sounds so elitist it hurts. But yes, programming should be as easy as possible, but not easier.
Hence you end up with languages like Java that hold your hand really really tight and refuse to let go. Is Grandma writing software really a good thing?
Grandma uses VisualBasic or PHP, but not Java. Oh, and its a lot better when Grandma writes software in Java than in PHP or Perl.
Or should we save it for the people who at least have a passing familiarity with computers & networks; hell, someone who might even know a little bit about the basic mechanisms in a typical UNIX kernel?
No. Your Perlcode might even run on a Non-UNIX System - this is one of the reasons to use Perl, Python, Ruby or Java.
... it's a high speed highway, damnit, and my life is on the line!
So you prefer to use a very powerful old car without any safety measures, because "you can handle it". Yeah, right.
Make no mistake - there's still an undergound of brilliant developers that understand their systems inside out and produce amazing, high performance code. Many of them are in the open source community. And we refuse to let go of our power tools. You may use whatever language you like, but expect a well-deserved ass kicking if you get in our face and try to tell us you know better.
Uhhh, Im scared. You really remind me of this guy: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

the use of 'goto' leads to "swiss-cheesing" of the brain, the inability to think logically, and a plethora of other problems, leading eventually to brain-rot and inability to write code in anything but Perl.

the use of 'goto' leads to "swiss-cheesing" of the brain, the inability to think logically, and a plethora of other problems, leading eventually to brain-rot and inability to write code in anything but Perl.

Don't Use Pascel

Ya vi and coke. That's what Real Programmers run on.

Real Programmers toggle programs in from the front panel toggle switches.

"Jim was able to repair the damage over the phone, getting the user to toggle in disk I/O instructions at the front panel, repairing system tables in hex, reading register contents back over the phone."

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html

As long as you're going to tell the story of Mel, we should also review what makes a Real Programmer, and why they don't use Pascal (which, it almost goes without saying, means they would really abhor Java).

From the comments here, it seems quite a few people here have only tried games like Diplomacy, chess etc. You're missing a whole other world of games which aren't chess. :-) Some of the hand-moderated games, in particular, have incredibly detailed worlds and plotlines. Ever wanted to be in a novel?

You might want to start here, with the PBM list. Or you could drop by the rec.games.pbm newsgroup for recommendations, chat etc. (Actually, do that anyway.) You might even consider looking at Flagship. There used to be a policy of sending a sample copy to interested folk, although I don't know if that policy still exists.

From games I've played, Lizards! is good fun; Madhouse run some good games, and have extremely good customer service. You've also got Middle Earth Games running various LoTR games.

Go on, have a stab. You too can get addicted. ;-)

I track more than 2,000 play by mail and play by email games in my pbm list.

bull! vs is junk.
real programmers program in c

For a reference on what real programmers do, I suggest reading the story of mel

cheers!

I was also planning to switch to Pascal, but I read somewhere that Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal

There has to be an equilibrium point where the simplicity/ease of design (also an arguable point I'll grant) but less performance balances out the less simple, monolithic design with excellent performance.

If you insist on using some of these new-fangled languages, at least learn how to use them properly.

It sounds like you are talking about The story of Mel.

It also raises the (unanswered) question of why geeks (ostensibly intelligent and scientifically-minded people) continue to believe some ideas (for example, 'garbage collection is slow') despite strong evidence to the contrary that has been available for many years.

It's not an unanswered question, it was answered quite long ago, in satirical form:
Real programmers don't use Pascal.

The same attitude prevails today, albeit the programming languages are different.

Personally, I've been around long enough to have heard "C is slow, you should be writing that in assembly language". And now the mantra is "Java is slow, you should use C/C++".

That is the first category of machismo anyway: speed-freaks who are quick to recommend C, yet seem surprized when their favorite program turns out to have a buffer-overflow exploit.

The second category appears to be the CS-geek-machismo which is more academic.. These are the guys who are talking about how it all should be Lisp, no matter what. And Java sucks because of its typing, etc. Practical use of the language seems to be of less concern than the design of the language itself for these guys.

Then there are those who believe in using the right tool for the right job. Sadly, you don't hear as much from these guys, probably because macho-geeks are loud and obnoxious by definition.

Anyway, I used to teach a beginners' course in programming, and often got the question on what the 'best' programming language was. I usually answered by asking: "What's the best tool, a screwdriver or a hammer?"

Reminds me of a story. Let me tell you about my tent.

I like going to SCA events. While we're there, we camp. And that means having all of our expensive gear in our tents, all our food, and our booze. Some of our gear can run in the thousands of dollars.

At my favorite event, we camp near the edge of the camp. And idiots from the local village sneak over the fence and rip us off every so often.

So I made a tent with a locking door. I built a yurt, and built into the frame a full sized, 1/2" thick, wood and iron reinforced door. With a working brass good-enough-for-your-house lock.

And while camping one year, a neighbor made fun of me for my efforts. "There's no way that would keep a determined criminal out," he said. It was still a canvas tent, albeit with a wood lattice frame. You could cut a hole through the canvas and break the lattices, easy. The door was too thin, you could kick it down. The lock could be defeated.

And I explained to him that the point was not to be burglar proof, just more burglar resistant than my neighbors.

At that moment, he was enlightened.

Weaselmancer

Perhaps a halberd is not such a great weapon if used in the style of an English knight or whatever.

No, English knights weren't stupid. They wouldn't have intentionally used a weapon wrong.

But for an experienced staff fighter who treats a halberd as a staff that happens to have a blade on one end

The techniques of staff-fighting were known in medieval England. The man-at-arms/scholar George Silver wrote in 1599 that the very best weapon for a strong, skilled fighter to carry was the quarterstaff. (Turn to section 21: "The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons")

There are 2 basic types of ways to stop something from splitting your head open: meet and follow.

The 3rd way is actually more important than those: kill the other guy first.

And that's where the halberd really outshines any other portable melee weapon (swords, rapiers, maces, etc). With the length, you can strike the opponent before he can even reach you. With it's weight, he's unlikely to block effectively.

The only thing you'd want to "parry" with a halberd would be an even longer weapon, like a pike. (And in that situation it'd work fine too, because pikemen always lose in 1 on 1 combat)

The only disadvantages of the halberd are size and visibility. A staff is nearly as large, but doesn't look as agressive, so everyone won't interpret you as a threat (it's also less expensive). A sword is much smaller, and can be carried with you everyplace, ready for emergencies (like drunken outbursts against other men-at-arms).

Years ago I worked at IBM and had to write software in Pascal.

Number one, Cringely kicks a whole lotta ass and that's why he's on my short list of dudes in the biz to whom I actually listen.

b) In reading his sketch of the likely-soon-to-be-patented PSCP technique, I was reminded of The Story Of Mel. Anyone think this qualifies as prior art?

III. What exactly does .NET bring to the table that is worth all this? I mean, look at it! This is a really complicated and convoluted technique for solving a problem that we don't have yet, right?! Could someone please explain what's so wrong with what we're doing now that makes these changes look like a good idea? Seriously! I'm confused! Open source doesn't have these problems, does it?

Full Story Here

Or at least they don't use Pascal. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet. Just a bunch of yunguns.

In one word: Mel.

Goddess, that had to be one heckuva bug / feature to track down, and had I had to do it, I too would have left it in there as an inspiration to programmers everywhere.

We all know how that story works out!

One job I was not particularly happy one day, so I pasted a copy of The Story of Mel into a comment in one particularly annoying part of the code. I wonder if it's still there.

> and it is PAscal, not this joke of a language called C or C++).

Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal

My code was hard to write to it should be hard to read. :)

"Real Programmers don't need comments-- the code is obvious."

-- Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal

I take it you prefer to program like Mel? (if that link doesn't work, just google "the story of mel." that's where I got that link.)

While I certainly won't defend Word or Microsoft in general, I will say that a little more disk space (25 years ago 20K was alot, but I think times have changed) is a small price to pay for a good, modular, robust design in a program.

That, is why ASM is better then any HLL. I think the best quote I got from one of my Computer Engineering book was (paraphrasing) "Modern compilers with their optimizations are on the road to becoming almost as good as hand writen assembler."

And if you want the ultimate in hand-written optimisation, check out The Story of Mel.

Always makes me feel humble every time I read it

Yeah, Mel the Programmer probably wrote that one. Talentless cretin.

The Department of Defense has mandated that all email must be signed starting...sometime in 2003 (I think). They are using PKI though. As for PGP specifically, I have seen some good uses for it. My favorite is signing email from the dice server for play by email games. Now you can't be sure it wasn't fixed to begin with, but at least you know where it came from!

Why not go back to a 1980's-era environment with a legacy communications package and a clunky internet email gateway?

By 1982 we had terminals of our own (I guess they paid for them by cutting the data entry staff), but they were up at the front of the room and we had to wait to use them -- often we fought over them. While we waited we revised our code by editing the printouts with red/blue double-ended pencils: red for deletes, blue for adds. I still have one of those pencils as a souvineer, and some punch cards and green striped paper printouts -- remember those? This was back in the sea-of-desks days, well before cubicals. We didn't need cubicals because we were coding on paper and the only phone calls were work related (on the shared phone, mind you - one per every 5-6 workers).

If you had email and any sort of communications package in the 1980s, you were lucky! Ahhh, the good old days.

Robot Odyssey was a good educational game that gave the basics of designing circuits and logic using your various logic gates, flip-flops, etc. It gets very involved and awfully difficult near the end-levels.

I imagine just about any sports based game (other than the obvious wrestling/rugby) would work for meeting the non-violent criteria.

You might also consider the various Play by Mail games out there - especially those that have regular turns run. This also gives added negotiating power - do the homework, get to see their next turn, etc. Of course, that requires net access.

Real Programmers don't use Pascal.

That's very generous of you... :-) But which language are you going to write it in? You could write it in assembly, but there is no assembler to assemble it.

Since real programmers write in machine code, I guess I'll volunteer to write the first assembler, entirely in hexadecimal. Now all we need is someone willing to re-instate a computer that uses vaccuum tubes or relays.