Slashdot Mirror
Six More Tech Cults
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Dan Tynan takes a humorous look at six 'sects' of fanatical tech loyalists. 'Fandom, devotion, obsession — certain technologies have a way of inspiring an extremely loyal following. So committed are these devotees, you might as well call them technology cults,' Tynan writes in this update to last year's list, which included fans of the Newton, Commodore, and Ruby on Rails, among other technologies. 'Sometimes these cults are inspired by elegant lines of code. Other times it's dedication to an ideal. Some are looking to transform the way software is made. Others hope to transform humanity itself. And some just want to argue about it all — endlessly and at great length.'"
Every technology that became big started out enthusing its supporters. If we didn't become excessively enthused about technology we wouldn't be geeks.
Seems to me the key is tolerance. We tolerate the currently-enthused, because we know we were once them and, Linux willing, will be again.
... I'm actually surprised Perl isn't in the article.
[signature]
I cordially loathe Perl. it is a grotesque collection of shell tools held together with gaffer tape. However, I must admit it is one of only two of the many languages I have used where I learned it from a book from scratch and did a useful medium-sized job in the same day. Most languages are good for something. I have even found a job that Prolog was absolutely perfect for (I have never found a second example, but every dog has its day). And yet...
Have you ever met Haskell programmers? I have met some really creepy ones. The language is not a tool, it is The Way. If you do something useful with it instead of Silently Contemplating Its Perfection In Bliss, then you will never achieve Enlightenment. Or your Computer Science degree. Woo...
I’d actually argue that the Commodore 128, Commodore 65 and CBM-II series were all mediocre successors to the Commodore 8-bit line at best. I even suspect that had the Amiga not fallen into Commodore’s lap, they might have gone bankrupt because of it.
The main problem with all three systems was their CPU. The MOS 8502 found in the C128 and CBM-II as well as the CSG 4510 in the C65 could only access 64KB of memory directly, so they all relied on bank switching to get around the limitation. Bank switching SUCKS. It is even worse than the 20-bit segmentation model found in the i8086/8088.
Apple ended up using the WDC 65816, which included a limited set of op-codes that could handle 24-bit “long mode” addresses. But it was a bolt on feature at best, and was severely limited. A better option would have been if the MOS 8502 came with a new memory mode where all existing 16-bit ($xxxx) ops could have been extended to 24-bit ($xxxxxx) instead. A processor with a flat 24-bit memory mode would have been very easy to work with.
All of the C128’s other major faults (graphics and audio) are all secondary. Sure, had they either adopted the MOS 7360’s 121-color Y/C palette or a 64-color RGB6 palette, it would have been great. Had they adopted stereo SID and/or added frequency modulation, it would have been great. But in the end, the processor would have crippled it. Just try programming for the C65 emulator under M.E.S.S. and see for yourself.