mschaef

I have a lot of fondness for the language. When I was in college, there were a series of three 1-hour language intro courses. (C++, Lisp, and Fortran). I took all three. Lisp is the only one I use these days, but the Fortran class made an impression.

It was one of the last courses, and we were discussing optimization techniques for matrix multiplication. There were the usual three nested loops and the instructor started talking about memory access patterns and stride through the arrays. He re-nested the loops, showed the improvement in access patterns, and pointed out that the compiler itself could do that automatically. (Not to mention vectorize, etc.)

This was around mid-90's, and it gave me a strong appreciation for the fact that simpler languages can be easier to reason about, transform, and optimize. If I'd spent most of the class wondering why the language was as limited as it was, that one session gave a good explanation why it could be viewed as a strength.

Parallel to all of this, I worked a few summers for a major electric utility company. They had a cluster of Cyber mainframes (Descendents of the CDC 6600) that they used to run the grid in real time. Everything was in Fortran (77?), and the shop had a number of people well versed in the language. I didn't a whole lot of direct experience, but it was interesting to see. One thing I do remember is that the memory/disk layout of the data structures were fixed at build time. They ran quarterly builds to update the layouts to add fields, etc. and made do in the interim. Between the constraints of the language, the hardware limitations, and the need for hard real time requirements, there wasn't a lot of room for flexibility.

Many of those pictures look like great reasons for lockout tagout.

> Even 256 meg of hard drive. That would have been impressively expensive in the 80s.

I only have a couple reference points around this scale:

My dad's company had a system set up with a searchable index of a bunch of legal testimony. It was a Compaq Deskpro 386 running Unix with an attached 1GB disk. The 1GB disk set up was as big as the machine itself.

A few years later, I worked with a Cyber mainframe equipped with around 30GB of total attached disk storage. The disk array literally filled a room.

256MB disk on an 80's PC would have definitely been quite a bit.

> OK, but we spent a decade having to worry about this garbage, until the tooling finally caught up.

This was less about tooling than it was about economics - there was 32-bit hardware available in the personal computer space in 1984, if not before. The issue was cost. In today's currency, a 32-bit capable Mac was $8,000 with 128K. The first 32-bit capable PC was closer to $20,000.

That's a heavy lift in a world where a segmented architecture machine costs a fraction of that amount, runs software you might already have, and works the same way as your co-worker's machine.

> There were literally millions of man-hours wasted on segment registers.

A software developer in 1986 was not forced to deal with segment registers... but they often chose to deal with them to gain access a (much) bigger audience of potential customers for their software.

> A kludge that helped Intel conquer the world, but what a filthy, disgusting architecture, and what a waste of everybody's time and brain power.

The other side of the coin is that (for reasons I state above), segmented architectures got more capable software into more hands more quickly. It arguably did a lot for end users.

> And this is the problem, it was very painful just to walk through a 200 KB buffer. This required compiler/runtime tricks, different selector increments in real vs protected mode, and special pointer types.

Most of that could be (and often was) hidden by the tooling. If you needed to bypass it, you could, but you didn't need to. That's not very different from today... there's a lot of hidden magic that can be bypassed if you need to for whatever reason.

I'd argue that these are useful engineering abstractions that made the best of a less than ideal situation. (The reality of the world being that there are no "ideal" situations... you have to work with what you have at the moment to solve the problem you have. These days, I'd argue that a pointer into a 'flat' memory space is counter productive to the extent it hides issues around cache hierarchy, NUMA, etc. In 1986, we had to worry that a flat memory space looked discontiguous. In 2026, we have to worry the a discontiguous memory space looks flat.

That would make more sense. I was trying to imagine what sort of (custom?) hardware would accommodate that amount of memory back then. That was large storage even for mainframes the time. (The Cray 2 in the mid-1980's had 2GB, which was considered notably large.)

There is no such thing as a "2MB program".... all you have is a program composed of <=64K segments, which are easy enough to fit into the hole.

If you do need something approaching a 2MB block of memory, you don't need a contiguous range of memory, what you need is a contiguous range of selectors, which is a different (and probably easier) problem to solve.

> I had to use it to do image processing on a 256MB image buffer back in the 1980s in assembly language.... Give me a flat 32 bit memory address space any day (e.g. MC68000 around the same time.)

Huh?

There were no segmented x86 machines capable of addressing 256MB of RAM, aside from the 386 (maybe).

If you had a 386 and the $130K of memory your statement implies, you probably also could afford a Unix (or something else) license to get to that 32-bit address space. (If you weren't doing it all in memory, then you're having to depending on paging stuff out to disk, implying you either have a real OS or a flat memory model isn't enough to save you since you're manually having to page stuff to disk and back anyway.)

That's a super strange scenario you're describing.

The 8086 was a stopgap measure to accommodate the fact the iAPX432 was in the middle of turning into the disaster it did. Given the engineering resources and timelines involved in the 8086, it wasn't a bad compromise approach.

> But more importantly it kept the x86 world for too long in that dead end that was 8086 mode programming > > "Oh if developers would just..." They won't. They haven't. And they will not ever.

8086 real mode programming in the mainstream lasted from 1981 until 1991 or so. The last 35 years have 32-bit (and later 64-bit) flat model addressing with pages for the most part. Seems like a reasonable transition period, really.

> In hindsight maybe a binary level translator from 8080 to 8086 would have worked better (and be simple enough)

Part of the reason they liked the segmented model is that it was possible to set the segments to the same value and then ignore them entirely. That gave a programming model for the 8086 that was sufficiently close to the 8080 that it was possible to use a sort of cross assembler to do something like what you suggest. You could then opt into 8086 specific instructions and segmentation as you needed. (Which took a few years... the first IBM PC's shipped with as little as 16K of RAM.)

This is a small one, but significant to me.

I asked Claude to add support for multiple lights to my toy ray-tracer. It correctly added the support and then suggested adding colored lights to make it easier to diagnose. It felt more like a colleague making a useful suggestion than any sort of pure engineering tool.

I think there are a couple questions you need to ask yourself - the first is why is it hard for you to be alone? You're the one person you're stuck living with for your entire life - it shouldn't be hard to be alone with yourself. That's where it began. That's where it will end.

You mentioned you have a therapist - this is something you might wish to explore with them.

The second question is related - what are you looking for in the "not alone"? What do you want? What would bring you peace? Are you looking for a relationship? A friend? Sex? etc? While you have to be comfortable with yourself, part of that comfort is knowing and being confident in what you're looking for. It may be that the world won't or can't provide it, but that's why I put this question second.

The final point I'll make is that there's nothing stopping you. You're an adult... within the constraints of the laws of your society, you CAN do what you want and there's nothing stopping you. It may not go the way you want, but it might, and wouldn't it be fun to try?

Agreed, re: DeMuro.... I'm long past tired of hearing how "The ____ is the ____!"

I do like Tedward's videos, though. He seems a lot more honestly enthusiastic about it, and definitely has fun with the cars.