Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!atsun!dwiggins From: dwiggins@atsun.a-t.com (Don Dwiggins) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: OOD applied to interpreters and compilers Message-ID: Date: 25 Oct 89 02:31:11 GMT References: <5226@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> <8721@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <15367@vlsisj.VLSI.COM> <31004@news.Think.COM> <10997@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Sender: news@ashtate.UUCP Distribution: usa Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc. Lines: 15 In-reply-to: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU's message of 21 Oct 89 00:23:22 GMT > You had BINARY? Well that shore beats all get out. Back when I was a > youngster we had a unary system, it were almost plum useless. If you wanted > to add 2+2 you needed 4 separate machines and you got your answer by > counting the number of machines present. Ahh, you folks are reminding me of my experiences in the '50s (19, that is), working on the THROBAC (THrifty ROman numeral BAckward-looking Calculator). I was designing the divide unit -- a truly challenging task. Unfortunately, the whole project was scrapped when it was discovered that we had no way to represent zero. A pity; it was going to be a truly impressive-looking machine. -- Don Dwiggins "Solvitur Ambulando" Ashton-Tate, Inc. dwiggins@ashtate.uucp dwiggins@ashtate.a-t.com