Ethan Dicks wrote:
>
> --- Neil Cherry <ncherry_at_home.net> wrote:
> > > He was writing about the very early days of computer programming, when
> > > every computer was unique. In these days of bloatware, there are very
> > > few programmers that still practice the art of achieving the maximum
> > > results from the minimum system (hardware and software). But those of
> > > us that do so *still* derive "an immense intellectual satisfaction". :-)
> > >
> > > Eric
> >
> > Hey there are still those of use who have managed to write an asm prog
> > for a PIC based Cheese box in less than 50 bytes!
>
> What kind of cheese? :-)
Velveeta of course! :-)
> I was a participant in an official contest a few years ago - write the
> smallest useful program for the Amiga in C... My two submissions were
> well under .5 KB. One reduced the WorkBench color depth from two bitplanes
> to one (so that text could scroll twice as fast), the other peeked at the
> processor status bits in a system structure and printed out what processor
> and co-processor were installed. The asm version of that one was just over
> 200 bytes, the C version was under 256 bytes. The trick - no startup code
> linked in (which is where argv/argc are populated) and no libraries. The
> printf that was used was the tinyprintf in ROM - integer, character and
> string qualifiers only.
I got spoiled with builtin rom routines on most of my computers (not the
PC/XT/AT/whatever family). The PIC doesn't have any of those. I still like
assembly language, it has it's place as does the other 2 dozen languages I
know (now if I could only speak English).
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry_at_home.net
http://members.home.net/ncherry (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52 (Graphics)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ (SourceForge)
Received on Fri Nov 17 2000 - 08:13:18 GMT