Re: New DOS-Interpretable formats...
On 30 Jul 2000, at 4:17, Patrick Quist wrote:
> Hy,
>
> Yeah, I also thought about the ID's of the variables and
> at first I had only 26x26 combinations {'A'-'Z','A'-'Z'}.
> I replaced that with 1Byte which can hold Id's of 256 variables
> and is a lot easier to interpret and faster.
> I don't think anyone uses more than 256 vars which can be
> Integers and 1D-Sequences. Anymore than 256 Procedures would
> also be absolete, right?
<klaxon horn> Inexperience alert !
Don't restrict programmers if you don't *need* to, look at what we haveto live
with from
micro$oft because of hard-coded limitations: 2^16 resources, 2^16 socks ports,
limited
hardware ports, limited interrupts, hd designations limited to 24, the infamous
640K
barrier is alive and well, 64K page limits in VB, hd size limits, time limits
(remember
Y2K?), etc.. Personally, i have written code with thousands of integers, in an
industrial
monitor. Since we cannot do function overloading, it's possible someone may want
to
write more than 256 procedures too. Ditto for functions. What if they wanna
write a
whole new OS on dos to replace the windoze gui?
As for the byte being faster to test than the 16bit word or a 32bit word, if the
"compiler"
is smart, it would use the appropriate machine code and speed would not be an
issue,
since the comparison is done in hardware in the cpu, and the memory access speed
for anything up to 32bits is identical ever since the 486. Even if Eu uses
32bits to store
8bits, you are talking about only one more memory access, and that's prolly from
the
cpu's onboard cache, so i'll accept that 5ns speed drop to get 256x or 2^24x
more
than your proposed 8bit limit any day.
On 30 Jul 2000, at 4:43, Patrick Quist wrote:
> Hy,
>
> I'm glad that you say that you don't understand it.
> I always wondered why I didn't get so much mail about my projects.
> What's the problem?
> I know I don't give much comment on my sources, but... Oh well.
>
> What RWL2 does?
>
> As you can see in the ASM sources there are some things to process
> by the compiler, there are Procedure names and Argument names.
> So what the compiler does is:
> - Procedure names (Max. 8Bytes)
<confused mode> Errrrrr..... 8 BYTES now? i thought it was 8 BITS ?
> - Argument names (3Bytes) + The Register(16 regs (8x8Bit,8x16/32Bit))
> - Translating the string-asm to byte-machinelanguage with the help of
> ASM.E by P.Eberlein
>
> What the Interpreter does:
> - Read a specific RWL-file
> - Poking the procedures to memory
> - Assigning values to the registers with the variable names
> - Calling the procedure
Have you been able to lock the called procedures so any form of multitasking
doesn't
grab the cpu and re-enter the procedure? Or inadvertently share the vars? Since
your
proposed code could be used to enable multithreading with shared libs, have you
decided on implementing the task swapping in Eu too? <intrigued now> That would
be
great, imo.
<daydreaming mode> Making windoze socks work in dos5.x+/7.x+, being able to
dynamically control thread priority, their interrupts, and all the other vars of
the task
swapper, and have the source code for it in Eu.... <glazed look in eyes>
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
