Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 200 Rep.
See reduced ads
Badges
5
Newest
 Commentator
Impact
~10k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 31 votes cast
Nov
3
comment Why does the stack grow downward?
Well, not having executable stack(s) probably helped Multics just as much as intelligent stack direction, and of course with many programs written in PL/1, string overflows were also not really a problem.
Nov
3
comment What was the first hierarchical file system?
I believe the first hierarchical file system from ICL was in the GEORGE 3 OS and it was apparently inspired by Multics.
Nov
3
comment What was the first hierarchical file system?
For anyone not familiar, ICL's CAFS is a whole different idea that also comes from the 1960s, and was first prototyped in the early 1970s. CAFS stands for Content Addressable File Store.
Nov
3
awarded  Commentator
Nov
3
comment What was the first hierarchical file system?
This is a mostly paper-based system, though it is possible Neumann was aware of it.
Nov
3
comment What was the first hierarchical file system?
On his WWW home page (csl.sri.com/users/neumann) Peter Neumann, the author of the paper linked above, lists Albert Einstein as one of his mentors and as his inspiration for hierarchical abstractions, and he further relates this idea directly to its application in Multics.
Nov
2
awarded  Editor
Nov
2
revised Why (not) segmentation?
corrected broken links
Nov
2
awarded  Teacher
Nov
2
answered Why (not) segmentation?
Nov
2
comment Why (not) segmentation?
80386 address offsets are 32 bits! 80386 segments can be paged!
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
Nov
19
answered Serializing Data Structures in C
Nov
18
comment Simple C: How do I scan this information in properly?
re-entrant functions do not seem to be a requirement by the OP, nor would they seem to be needed for a valid solution to the problem.
Nov
18
comment Is it necessary to understand what's happening at the hardware level to be a good programmer?
and, btw, I did actually answer, albiet implicitly, the one true question from the OP: one should have enough of an understanding of hardware to be able to model the abstract machine at the core of a language's design.
Nov
18
comment Is it necessary to understand what's happening at the hardware level to be a good programmer?
comments are not versioned, and not permanent, and so are useless for adding to a set of answers. Most posters are also prone to ignoring use of comments to update their answers, and most answers are not tagged as "community wiki" answers and so cannot be edited by others in such a way as to maintain some attribution to the subsequent contributor(s). Besides, this particular question has started a true discussion, and like it or not that's the way some of these things go. Trying to force every contribution into one mold is a major failing of the stackexchange concept.
Nov
18
comment Command line options style - POSIX or what?
POSIX 1003.1-2003, Base Definitions, Chapter 12, Section 2 gives the following guidelines about utility command-line syntax: "Each option name should be a single alphanumeric character (the alnum character classification) from the portable character set." and "All options should be preceded by the ’−’ delimiter character."
Nov
18
answered Is it necessary to understand what's happening at the hardware level to be a good programmer?
Nov
18
comment Is it necessary to understand what's happening at the hardware level to be a good programmer?
I would suggest that PDP-11 assembler is a bit nicer to learn than all of the others mentioned. What all of the others teach are the limitations forced by more limited hardware resources, and/or by more limited hardware design and forethought. Something like one of the all-too-common 8051 family teaches how really bizarre the programming model can get on such limited hardware (where Steve's mention of different address spaces, for example, come into play).
Nov
18
awarded  Supporter