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_at_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]
Received on Sat Apr 17 1999 - 15:53:30 BST