Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ulowell!m2c!wpi!dseah From: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Why Keep the //.... Message-ID: <1323@wpi.wpi.edu> Date: 14 Mar 89 23:13:58 GMT References: <9064@claris.com> Reply-To: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. USA Lines: 56 >From article , by jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness): > >> The Apple // may not built like a workstation like a Mac, designed to handle >> raw power with little overhead, but the // has more to offer to the young >> programmer than any other machine. The logical progression from BASIC to >> Machine Language to the first assembler was crucial to many CS and CE >> majors today. Those that I have asked say this is NOT possible now that the >> // is disappearing and the Mac has taken over. The Apple // generation will >> be the last of the CS generation. If this sounds rash, consider trying to >> interest a 14-year-old in UNIX. The next generation will look at computers as >> appliances, things to be used but without a clue and much less an interest in >> how it works. [STUFF DELETED] I wish I had applied to Carnegie now! This school is narced up with AT&T PC6300s! Yuk. Krazy@Claris.com (Jeff Erickson) responds > >The "logical progression" from BASIC to machine language? Pardon? I guess >this is all a matter of opinion. More and more CS and CE majors these days >are going through life without ever having to deal with assembly language >much at all, and NEVER having to deal with machine language directly. I don't >think it's necessary to learn exactly what the computer's doing with your >code (machine language) before learning how to make your code WORK. I do >think it's important to have some exposure to assembly language, but I >don't think it has to be that soon, unless of course that's what the kid >wants. > >I went from Applesoft BASIC to Pascal instead of to assembly. So I'm weird. I too started with Applesoft, then went to machine language. In those years, one strong emphasis on the Apple II was game development. After diddling with slow Applesoft shapes, fast animation was my goal. So, the step to machine language was "logical" for me. If I had had a Commodore 64, I would most likely be a rabid Amiga game player today, majoring in English Lit or Physics. The accessability of the Apple II's internals (easily popped case, machine language monitor) made me familiar and comfortable with the Physical Machine itself, and coaxed me into Computer Engineering to learn more. My Apple II background has given me an incredible advantage over my classmates in CS and Comp Eng courses. I think that the machine language monitor is probably the best single feature of the Apple, because it taught me how memory was organized, how data is represented in memory, the concept of memory-mapped I/O, indistinguishability between code and data, etc. This stuff is not as important to the Pascal programmer, I imagine, because the applications they write can depend on libraries that handle machine specific features. But who's gonna write these libraries, if CSs and CEs (not Civil) can squeeze through college with minimal exposure to Assemblers? What kind of Computer Engineer would someone be with little knowledge of machine language? You would get an engineer who designs a computer that really, really _sucks_ to program at the ML level! Then you get nasty firmware and system tools, fraught with bugs and bombs... | <<<<<(((((( DAVE SEAH ))))))>>>>> | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu | Worcester Polytechnic Institute | Bitnet: dseah@wpi.bitnet | Computer Engineering Class of '90 | ALink PE: Omnitreant