←back to thread

244 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.247s | source
Show context
POSSIBLE_FACT ◴[] No.44603645[source]
Absolutely loved when I randomly caught an episode of Computer Chronicles back in the old time days.
replies(2): >>44603765 #>>44608696 #
rbanffy ◴[] No.44603765[source]
I think that, by now, I have watched every episode. He was the Bill Gates we needed.
replies(3): >>44603804 #>>44603845 #>>44604028 #
whobre ◴[] No.44603845[source]
He was nothing like BG. Gary was an inventor, educator and most of all a visionary. He hated running a business, even though he started DRI after failing to convince Intel to buy CP/M.

Yes, there are quite a few videos on YouTube about him, named “The man who should have been Bill Gates” but that’s just click baiting. Watch the special episode of “The Computer Chronicles” about Gary Kildall and see what his friends and business associates say about him.

replies(7): >>44603943 #>>44603983 #>>44604145 #>>44604163 #>>44604595 #>>44604601 #>>44604876 #
terabyterex ◴[] No.44604145[source]
This paints Bill Gates as not a tech person and a business first person, which is not true. He got a BASIC compiler on the altair which MITS thought couldn't be done. He helped Wozniak implement a version of BASIC supporting floating point numbers. Gates didn't even want to take Microsoft public. They had to convince him. Ballmer was the biggest businessman in the bunch. Hell, he was the one that suggested kidall since Microsoft wasn't in the OS business.
replies(3): >>44604243 #>>44604605 #>>44604689 #
rbanffy ◴[] No.44604605[source]
> BASIC compiler

Interpreter - an entirely different kind of animal. Microsoft didn't get a BASIC compiler until much later.

> He helped Wozniak implement a version of BASIC supporting floating point numbers.

No. He sold Apple a BASIC, then used it as leverage to prevent Apple from making a BASIC for the Macintosh.

> Ballmer was the biggest businessman in the bunch.

He suggested cutting Paul Allen's family off when Allen was battling cancer.

replies(1): >>44606194 #
WalterBright ◴[] No.44606194[source]
Um, it is necessary to compile a program before being able to interpret it. I don't know how early BASICs were implemented, but the usual method is to compile it to some sort of intermediate representation, and then interpret that representation.

D's compile time function execution engine works that way. So does the Javascript compiler/interpreter engine I wrote years ago, and the Java compiler I wrote eons ago.

The purpose to going all the way to generating machine code is the result often runs 10x faster.

replies(5): >>44607379 #>>44607380 #>>44607445 #>>44608493 #>>44609120 #
1. wvenable ◴[] No.44609120[source]
Early BASICs didn't compile a program before interpreting it. The interpreter read the code as written and executed it step-by-step. There was some tokenization; keywords were turned into single or double bytes and that was literally done when you pressed enter on the keyboard. Your source code was these actual tokenized bytes. On the Commodore 64, you could type the tokenized versions of keywords instead of the full keyword as a shortcut. Even numbers were not transformed into bytes ahead of time.

This was used to save memory -- there wasn't much room to hold both the source code and an intermediate form. But also it wasn't that necessary, with the keywords tokenized and the syntax so simple that there wouldn't have been much savings in space or performance.