> Ha! I know tricks like that one too! I had a machine like that, and wrote
> a simple but functioning accounting system in it :)
One of my colleagues once tried to write a program to calculate the
performance characteristics of large-bore oil hoses, and ran out of memory
on a 16k machine. I then wrote the thing myself in ... wait for it ... 450
BYTES!!!!! Needless to say, it was completely devoid of any eye candy, but
it worked (well, I wrote it in an evening...)
Out of interest, what machines were you using? How long ago?
> Hahahaha!! Memories are coming back indeed... And even where you needed
> more speed than the machine could actually deliver, you'd have to fool the
> processor, or invent strange code to steal a cycle here or there...
Oh yes. Some of the memory saving tricks were neat too. I used to use
existing constants to save precious register space (pi/pi for 1, pi-pi for
0, etc.). Another advantage to programming at that level was this:
You knew the value of each op. code.
You knew the location in which you stored it in memory.
Therefore, you could use these codes for constants too.
For example, if the instruction LDA (LoaD Accumulator) was 0fh (15 decimal)
and you had stored that instruction in memory location 02ff, then you could
call the value 15 by pointing to 02ff.
Self-modifying code was fun too, especially when someone else tried to parse
it #;-D
> I agree. People that learn to program these days, on visual such and so,
> can't understand that you can write a complete program in less than
> 500Kbytes.
I can't wait to get back into it with Linux.
One of these days....
Regards,
Ozz.
