Compile like it's 1992 • Hacker News Board

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#31

Post by NAFV_P » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 11:16 AM UTC

russtrotter wrote: post #12

Does anyone else find it sorta ironically odd that one of the masterminds behind this great stuff is now a .... gasp Facebook ... employee?? my heart kinda aches.

> Does anyone else find it sorta ironically odd that one of the masterminds behind this great stuff is now a .... gasp Facebook ... employee??

Would you be referring to the business morals or technical requirements of Facebook? You need a lot of good hacks to deal with large bulks of data. For example: https://github.com/facebook/warp

I heard Goooogle developed Go partially because they were fed up with the time taken up compiling massive C programs.

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#32

Post by TillE » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 11:28 AM UTC

octo_t wrote: post #30

haberman wrote: post #24

In a similar vein, here is Lua 5.2 being compiled with Turbo C 1.0 (impressive that software written in 2013 compiles unmodified on a 1990 compiler!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jvLY5pUwic

Thats what happens when you used a language which has an ISO or similar standard.

Sure, but you also have to stick to the older standards. This wouldn't work if Lua were using any of the new features of C99.

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#33

Post by groovy2shoes » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 11:48 AM UTC

octo_t wrote: post #30

haberman wrote: post #24

In a similar vein, here is Lua 5.2 being compiled with Turbo C 1.0 (impressive that software written in 2013 compiles unmodified on a 1990 compiler!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jvLY5pUwic

Thats what happens when you used a language which has an ISO or similar standard.

Turbo C 1.0 was actually pre-ANSI C. Turbo C 2.0 was compatible with a draft of the ANSI C standard, and I recall having some trouble getting Lua 5.0 to compile with it due to locale stuff.

The video actually features Turbo C++ 1.0, though, which was a different product, so the title is misleading.

Regardless, I agree that standards are very nice to have.

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#34

Post by jordigh » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 11:59 AM UTC

orionblastar wrote: post #8

ekianjo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the engine is open, though, not the data files. EDIT: And it's not "public domain" either. Look at the license.doc in the github repository, there are tons of restrictions as to what you can do with the code. https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d

It is like when Microsoft released the source code for MS-DOS 2.0 and MS-Word 1.1C not open sourced but some kind of commercial license that limits use and derivatives. It kind of reminds me of that old Borland Museum that had the old Turbo languages for free download. http://edn.embarcadero.com/museum Sadly they stopped releasing old versions in 2005. I had hoped there to be a Delphi 1.0 release. I actually got Delp…

This is so different from the gpl of before. Did id only do the gpl before because of John Carmack?

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#35

Post by burnte » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 12:26 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #34

orionblastar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is like when Microsoft released the source code for MS-DOS 2.0 and MS-Word 1.1C not open sourced but some kind of commercial license that limits use and derivatives. It kind of reminds me of that old Borland Museum that had the old Turbo languages for free download. http://edn.embarcadero.com/museum Sadly they stopped releasing old versions in 2005. I had hoped there to be a Delphi 1.0 release. I actually got Delp…

This is so different from the gpl of before. Did id only do the gpl before because of John Carmack?

This was their first source release, before the GPL was widely known, so that's why they used this specific license.

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#36

Post by bluedino » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 12:58 PM UTC

zura wrote: post #19

gavinpc wrote: post #5

I remember getting the Borland C compiler as a ten or eleven year old and thinking, twenty megabytes! What in the world could they need twenty megabytes for? That was like, my entire hard drive. N.B. you have a typo Z:/> mount c ~/systen/c

Honestly, I still think that 12MB for a system like Borland C is overkill.

Then use Turbo Pascal, fits on a floppy.

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#37

Post by webmaven » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 1:36 PM UTC

Nice trip down memory lane (and a good counter-example to those who claim that web development today is soooo much more complicated and tedious than desktop development was back in the day...).

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#38

Post by pjmlp » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 1:49 PM UTC

webmaven wrote: post #37

Nice trip down memory lane (and a good counter-example to those who claim that web development today is soooo much more complicated and tedious than desktop development was back in the day...).

I am yet to find CSS/HTML/JavaScript tooling as easy as using Turbo Vision, Object Windows Library or Visual Components Library.

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#39

Post by GnarfGnarf » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 3:29 PM UTC

Borland 3.1 also came as a graphical IDE. For a while Borland was ahead of Microsoft's character-based Programmer's Workbench. Borland had a great IDE.

My company stuck with Borland until 4.5. We parted ways when the compiler generated code that GPF'ed when calling 'new' in a DLL, or declared some global variables undefined that had successfully compiled a few modules earlier. Also, Borland couldn't step through 32-bit code in debug mode. Visual Studio 6 could.

Re: Compile like it's 1992

#40

Post by webmaven » Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 3:34 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #38

webmaven wrote: post #37

Nice trip down memory lane (and a good counter-example to those who claim that web development today is soooo much more complicated and tedious than desktop development was back in the day...).

I am yet to find CSS/HTML/JavaScript tooling as easy as using Turbo Vision, Object Windows Library or Visual Components Library.

Familiarity?