Re: Apple III question (couldn't find a 3 group to ask)

[dgk@my.domain (Dowe G. Keller)]

mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) writes:

> Dowe G. Keller replied:
> 
> >mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) writes:
> >
> >> bathswife wrote:
> >> 
> >> <insightful comments snipped>
> >> 
> >> >Is there still a market for computers that can be 'talked to'?  Those
> >> >of us still using Apple II's that pine away for the 'good old days'
> >> >are probably using some form of Linux or something comparable but  are
> >> >limited by what can be done with the hardware aren't they? I don't
> >> >know...I'm actually new to the Apple II having just bought one used
> >> >but prefer using it to write on for some inexplicable reason.
> >> >  Why can't there be a personal computer using faster processors and
> >> >newer technology that can be 'talked to'....modified and with the
> >> >options that 'simplification' for the masses took away?  Is that
> >> >impossible?  I don't know.  How many people would be interested in a
> >> >machine like that and willing to pay for it (I 'm sure it would cost
> >> >more than the average pc made today)?
> >> 
> >> I was just talking with a friend this evening about the Apple II, and
> >> found that it was his first exposure to computing years ago.
> >> 
> >> We reminisced about the joy of working with a computer that,
> >> as soon as you turned it on, responded with a BASIC prompt
> >> beckoning to be programmed.  What a far cry this is from the
> >> computers of today!
> >
> >I was reading this and realized that that is exactly what my computer does.
> >The UNIX shell isn't much (if any) less powerful as a programming language
> >than integer basic.  When my machine boots up, The prompt is waiting there
> >for me just like in my IIe.  I can even set the prompt to a ">" :-).
> 
> Command lines are cool, but they directly invite shell programming,
> not the construction of a program to, say, do a Monte Carlo
> simulation with graphical output, as Applesoft does.

True, you don't have access to graphics with sh(1), but you can do a
lot with simple termio routines.

> Those are all examples of "scripting languages" I referred to.
> 
> But I agree that the examples you cite are powerful enough
> to support interesting interactive programs.

Perl/Tk - GUI and drawing made excruciatingly easy.

Guile/Gtk - Same as above but with a nicer less grungy language.

I'm not sure if you can find Guile/Gtk for any non unix systems, but
Perl/Tk is extant on unices, Windows and Mac.

> >> The fact is that the "barrier to entry" for programming today's
> >> machines is so high that few venture more than a scripting
> >> or macro language, if that.
> >
> >If by scripting language you mean an interactive interpreter, thats
> >been beeing done since Dartmouth introduced BASIC in 195?.  And as for
> >high "barriers to entry" you mean price, then all I have to say is
> >gcc, there's a version for (as far as I can tell) all the UNIX clones,
> >and 95% of the other OSes out there on nearly every machine built.
> 
> Price is, for many, not the biggest barrier.  Complexity is the
> barrier.

If you mean to understanding the system as a whole, yes it is a huge
barrier, but to understanding a particular interpreter or compiler, I
don't agree.  After all, forth, scheme and god-forbid FORTRAN are
still what they always were.  If your hung-up on BASIC, then grab one
of the free BASICs.

> Of course, a good part of the problem is that expectations for
> a program have changed in the last 20 years!  Now, doing an
> "INPUT" and "PRINT"ing the results seems primitive compared
> to getting input from a dialog box.  And learning to control a GUI
> is much more complicated than solving the problem you started
> out to solve.  ;-)

There are sometimes when a GUI is a waste, then simple prints and
inputs are a real advantage.

> I regularly sit down at the Apple II with an idea and create a
> useful and enlightening program in 45 minutes to an hour.  And
> it is easy enough and incrementally rewarding enough that I
> continue to come back for more.  I have not found this experience
> on modern machines apart from much more limited spreadsheet
> programs.

Try perl or scheme, I think you underestimate so called 'scripting'
languages.  The term is rather blatently applied to all interpreted
languages by the media.  Does that make writing Applesoft games
scripting?  In that they are easy to hack up in short order, and to
modify and debug, I guess it does. :-)

> But the machines to do the job are _already_ available, and for
> a pittance.  They are the Apple II machines (and a few others).
> There are plenty of them to satisfy the needs of the hobbyist
> market (judging from the fairly constant, low prices on eBay),
> so why do another one?

I never suggested building special purpose hacking machines.  I picked
up a negativistic view by you that hobbyism was on the decline.  While
I believe that lots of potential computer hobbyist are discouraged by
hermetically sealed OSes, I still hold out hope.

> And, of course, there is an application/tool base of thousands
> of programs, which no new platform could possibly hope to
> achieve for several years.

No doubt.

> If you mean hardware hacking, I agree.  But any emulator provides
> countless opportunities for software hacking on the emulated
> platform.  The purpose of the emulated environment is to transform
> the WinXP environment into a, say, ProDOS environment.  ;-)

I enjoy simulated systems, I currently run SIMH on my system.  It is a
group of related simulators for a number of mini and micro computers
from bygone days.  I was looking for an Apple ][ emulator for my
system (FreeBSD) but have had no luck.  I found a Linux version, but
it relies hevily on assembly language routines.  BSD uses different
calling conventions, so no go without doing some heavy duty hacking.
I might port it to BSD, but my IIe is setting next to me so I don't
have alot of incentive.

> >> Perhaps the real issue is that computers have become passe.
> >> 
> >> Everyone has a couple, they are necessary to life and business,
> >> like shoes, and are about as intrinsically interesting as shoes.
> >> Young people aren't excited by the prospect of being a cog in
> >> the giant software machine of a "major label", and regard a
> >> "major software innovation" as a tempest in a teapot.
> >> 
> >> True to the dreams of the inventors of the personal computer,
> >> it has become ubiquitous--more conspicuous by its absence
> >> from a room than by its presence.  It is now a commodity.
> >> It is boring, humdrum--taken for granted.
> >> 
> >> Q:  "How would you like to learn to _program_ a computer!"
> >> A:  "Whatever..."
> >
> >You can't lead kids to computing, they have to catch it.  You
> >mentioned macros, and this may be a good trend (except for in mail
> >reading software), to get people interested.
> >
> >I try to introduce young people to programming when I can, the trick
> >is to put them in an enviroment where they can explore.  I'll never
> >forget that moment, on a Timex Sinclair 2000 (not a thousanth of an
> >Apple ][), that I realized that That little machine would do anything
> >I wanted (Later I learned about memory and how 2K wasn't enough).  You
> >get a kid hooked on that high and he/she'll never give it up.
> 
> Perhaps we are in greater agreement on this point than you imagine.
> 
> What you call "put(ting) them in an enviroment where they can explore"
> is what I would call "leading them to computing".  The point is that
> most computing experiences they have do not encourage or even
> permit exploration or discovery of programming.
> 
> The barrier is very low when your first program is:
> 
> 100 ?"Hello, world!"
>
> and it can be immediately followed up with:
> 
> 110 goto 100
> 
> Wow--a program!  ;-)

in perl:

while (1) { print "hello world!" }

> Of course, the situation is not unique to computers.
> 
> The modern radio is not easily tinkered with, nor is the
> modern automobile.  If we were systematically trying to
> keep kids from figuring out how things work and playing
> with their own ideas, we could hardly have done better.  ;-(

Yes, its sad when engineers forget the KISS principle.

-- 
Dowe Keller				dgk@igalaxy.net

	  Please disregard the following crud.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----