Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Peter000, May 11, 2014.
They're losing me; almost out. I FF'd thru most of this one.
I was kind of whizzing thru it and then suddenly there is Gordon soaking wet in a parking lot looking at a dead person.
Actually a lot of the show was like this - Head guy looking at billboard and changing appearance. Cameron looking frustrated and sulky then looking high. Gordon soaking wet and finding dead person. Head guy at home with Gordon's wife playing with kids the way Gordon should have been. Wife eating grapefruit with other guy because for women in the 80's there was the grapefruit diet.
Was there something about coding in there? I don't know. The drama is supposed to hold me since I know nothing of coding. It is failing. Yet, I don't have much else on my TiVo to watch so I keep going.
you all just need to relax. The show is FICTION, its not meant to be historically accurate. I am sure if we all worked for the DEA we would think that Breaking Bad was a pile of horse manure riddled with factual errors.
Pinpoint. While the complainers in this thread say they FF thru portions of the show and ***** about the tech inaccuracies, I FF thru the complaining in this thread and just enjoy the show.
Was the dead person supposed to be the store owner? Most of this episode made very little sense to me. And up to now, I've enjoyed the show.
No. I don't think we were supposed to know who it was. Just someone who got electrocuted when the power lines came down. And because Gordon had just committed a crime, he couldn't call the police or do anything to help.
Gordon would have to redesign the h/w because Cameron said her changes would require more memory. An extra 384k means more chips and redoing PD. This is in the days where "640k should be enough for anybody".
And C++ style comments in 1983 C... no.
Darn, you guys brought up the two main issues that TOTALLY jumped out at me during the show.
Heck, were there even *C COMPILERS* for personal computers at that point in time? This show is what, 1981-2 or so? e.g. the original Mac interfaces were assembly or Pascal, and that's 1984 (shipping to people).
There was Lattice C available in the early 80s. A lot of funkiness in that version, but there were a lot of CPM programs ported to DOS using that. Heck, there was C++ around then, too (someplace I've got a really, really old version of Cfront, the C++' 'compiler' that was really a preprocessor, and did some gnarly name mangling to make all the C++ stuff work)
Although it's distinctly too early for // comments. Those showed up sometime after the first edition of Stroustrup, IIRC.
I hate you people. I just spent about an hour trying to hunt down the earliest C compiler I remember (well, "remember" was a bit incorrect till now) using; and surprisingly it's not in Wikipedia*.
It was DeSmet-C from C-Ware Corporation. I found a site dedicated to it, that offers many of the versions for download as well as source code of the compiler itself (the guy tracked down the owners and got permission, believe it or not, since they were long out of business).
The earliest version they have on the site has files dated near the end of 1983. It's version 2.40, so I'd sort of guess it was out earlier in 1.0 and pre-1.0 forms.
*And now my first Wikipedia edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compilers#C_compilers
A couple times in this show they've made comments about what a huge, successful company Apple is. I can't remember if it was this episode or a previous one, but someone mentioned that Apple spends millions each day just on catering, or something like that. Was Apple really all that successful in 1983?
Also, with regard to the coding comments, did we actually see any code with comments, or are we just talking about that scene where Cameron was looking at the screen and laughing at the comments Yo-Yo had put in the code?
The first C compiler was written in 1979. By K&R (you know, of C and Unix fame?). So yes, there were C compilers back then. They were nowhere near as sophisticated as today's compilers, though. In fact, I think when you bought the IBM PC, you could buy a development kit that included C compilers and all that.
"//" style comments didn't make it in ANSI C until C99 (although most compilers accepted them before then). ANSI C didn't come into play until 1989 (aka C89), so the code that Cameron wrote would NOT look like what she wrote - K&R is distinctly different.
The code we're talking about was getToken() that Cameron wrote on her Zenith computer. In fact, compilers of back then were often limiting identifiers to 8 characters or less.
As for Apple, yes, they were really successful. The Apple II, II+, IIe, etc. were wildly successful computers (1977, 1979, 1983), so back then, Apple was flush with cash.
A little history. I believe the original C compilers were quite a bear to use - prior to hard drives, when you wrote your code, you then invoked the compiler. The compiler ground for minutes loading stuff off disk, your source code, then running it through the compilation process. The compiler was too big to fit on a floppy disk, and midway through, you had to eject the disk, swap it with the second stage compiler, and resume the compiling process. Then you had to swap disks again to run the linker and finally you had a binary. (You had to have two floppy drives - your code was on the second drive, the compiler parts and DOS used the first floppy drive).
This was such a pain. Back in 1983, a little upstart called Borland released Turbo Pascal. What made it "Turbo" was that it provided an editor, compiler and linker on *one* disk, and compiled in RAM. When you finished coding and hit compile, it would take the code, run the compiler on the code and store the object code in RAM. It then linked the code in RAM (pascal at the time made it really easy to do a single-pass compilation). This made the Borland tools MUCH faster - "lines/sec" was proudly displayed during compilation, but the need to not swap floppies and suspend/resume compiling meant you were running in under a minute, versus ten minutes or more.
Turbo C accomplished similar things as well, but this was back in 1989 or so.
Whatever happen to all the Infocom games? They were fun. Can they be download from somewhere. Don't think anyone own them anymore.
here you go.requires Java http://pot.home.xs4all.nl/infocom/
There a lot of "karma" going on the dead person who was electrocuted was the same person who sold Gordon the empty box for $80.00 so he could buy a Cabbage Patch doll for his kid. The entire episode was a game of "Adventure".
I thought the electrocuted person was a woman.
I installed Frotz on my ipad and play my old Infocom favorites that way.
(A few weeks ago someone mentioned HHGTTG, and I mentioned that I could play through the entire game in 15 minutes since I remembered the steps. Indeed, fired up Frotz and gave him a demo)
It was. He's hallucinating....
Cameron's suggestion of having the computer ask the user what they wanted to do gave me flashbacks to Clippy the paperclip from Office.
I remember in the 70s interacting with a program called Eliza. at the University of Minnesota. There was also a primitive talk program allowing multi user chatting. We had a lot of fun when we connected the two up and essentially had a virtual chatter. Many live people did not know they were talking to a phony person.