Survey posted 2000-09-30 06:43 by Andy Selle.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

anyone who programs in machine code is an 3l33t h4x0r

Anyone who takes the time to write anything but a compiler in machine code is a very naive person

Or programs on such archaic chips that they probably have never heard of this site except occasionally on /.

I like ASM simply because it is a challange to me, and to learn to program, which is something that I like to have sometimes. Although I do program TI-BASIC, I like ASM better because it is faster, although it is tough to learn, and you usually need a computer to compile it. Another thing I like about it is that when I program ASM I usually learn something, which I also like to do.
(Assembly Language #2)

My favorite way to program is C/C++ but sometimes I prefer BASIC, it just depends on what I am coding. But I know some of all the langs listed, kinda a tough question to answer.

kaizer_911

I chose assembly because it is quick and easy to write. It is also easy to update, but then again, i can program in all of those languages (except LISP, never heard of it) and it started with REXX in 1993 when I was in 3rd grade.

"I chose assembly because it is quick and easy to write."

Quick and easy? Compared to what?

compared to machine code

Or punchcards...

My dad worked with punchcards in college (this was BEFORE the advent of UNIX, mind you) and he programmed in FORTRAN (yes, he worked with punchcards), which still seems easier than machine code, even back in the days when mainframes had less memory than a TI-92.

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.599850351139 punchcarded cents

stop trying to show off mr. big pants!

I disagree, you can only program in assembly on the computer. With BASIC, you can program anytime with your calc.

Nope, you're wrong...
OnTIC
http://www.ticalc.org/ pub/89/asm/programs/ontic.zip

On calc compiler. Not the fastest way to go, but gets the job done... Barely

Tim Dorr
timdorr@timdorr.com
http://www.timdorr.com

pencil & paper.

you get the added bonus that you can see all the code at once.

'course then you gotta type it all in & assemble it, and if you're still learning you make lotsa mistakes that you don't know about until you try to assemble it...

Also, for the 86 there is ZAC, check out link above. Can take up memory, but it is on-calc.

LISP: "lots of irritating single parenthesis" :) well, technically "LISt Processing"

you've got two main data types: atoms (think "words") and lists. lists are groups of things (atoms or other lists)
functions are lists. file/console input/strings are either a really funky atom or parsed into a list. numbers are special atoms you can do math with. oh, btw math is all done in rpn, eg (+ 5 6).

it's a useful language for ai/natural language processing, but there's probly better ones now.

the first language i learned was LOGO, which is basically a derivative of lisp, except you don't have to have the dang () everywhere & it's got fun turtle graphics. (hey, i was like 5...)

TI-BASIC is fun to program when your bored in math or physics class, however, I prefer assembly because you have so much more freedom to do whatever you want to the calc. Occasionally I might write a program that does something like freezing the calc, causing it to spontaneously combust, or bringing about the second coming of Christ, but as long as those last two don't happen that often, coding in assembly is the way to go.

The Fishy One's Infinite Wisdom #28: Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.

What second coming? I'm already here! But seriously, I'd have to say that religion is wrong, and is a crutch for the weak minded.

and everyone who believes the theory of evolution is either a blind sheep or stubbon hypocrite.

or are we not having a contest to see how many people we can get mad?

-=- Just think about it. -=-

Evolution ... Monkey ... Evolves ... 2 ... a ... Man.
Wait a second, if they "Evolved" then why are the Monkeys still around? -=- Just think about it. -=-

The Monkeys "Evolved" right? -=- Just think about it. -=- then there are no monkeys cause they "Evolved" into man. -=- Just think about it. -=-

O.K. so there are monkeys still, therefore evolution is not they way whatever happened obviously.


But this is a freakin calc site, not a religious institite. I don't mind when you live by your religion accordingly for what you post. But I don't come here to get Preached at, that is what I go to church for.

-JrJinfinity

No, the answer is we're still monkeys. think about it... wars, violence, sex... <--- animals. trust me if you don't get it

I feel badly for anyone who believes everything that they hear in school.

-JrJinfinity

Evolution is not even tought in any public school I know about.

That's funny because its required by law to be taught in US schools in a biology course which is also required to Graduate.

-JrJinfinity

hmmm, that's funny, cuz it's not taught in biology anymore, they made it illegal to teach the theory of evolution in school

I only posted on how it was when I was in Biology 20 billion years ago, being such an old Bastard, I thought this was still the case.

However I would like to see some evidence of this perhaps a link to somewhere?

-JrJinfinity

Jr is right - It's still taught, and quite heavily from early grades (2nd is the earliest I've seen it be taught). However, I don't think it's required nationally - It's requirement is made on the state level (the reason Kansas schools, and only Kansas schools, just went through the attempt to get rid of it recently)

Monkeys split into two species, one that still remains to this day (with evolutionary changes of course), and into humans.

Just look at zebras and horses.

That's funny your method defy's evolution even though you are supposedly supporting it.

Yet Another reason why Evolution isn't & couldn't be the answer.


-JrJinfinity

Evolution explains a lot of phenomena that occur in nature and can't be dissmised so easly. how else do you explain how diseases gain risistence to drugs so quickly?

Diseases are not forms of life, but rather the effects of biological or sporological invasions. Bacteria and viruses are notorious for having beneficial mutations to counteract our best efforts to destroy them. Fungi and protists can be troublesome too.

Exactly. I should work on my termenology.

Evolution & Mutation are two completely different things, this is why more people need to attend Biology classes instead of Calculator Gaming Courses.

-JrJinfinity

this is a standard trick used to avoid the issue.
evolution within a species happens.
evolution to create new species does not.

no matter how resistant the bacteria gets to a given treatment, it's still essentially the same bacteria.

Get youre facts right... The monkeys split in several branches. One was the apes. From the ape-line the gibbons branched of first, from the remainder that were to be the orangutangs, gorillas, chimpanses, bonobos and humans. Later the orangutangs branched of, and even later the gorillas. Then the apes that were to be humans branched of from the chimpanse/bonobo-line, that split later. The would be humans evolved and branched several times more but only one of those spices remains today, us.

To ask why there are both monkeys and humans, is as naive as asking why there are more than one spices at all. Spices does not evolve towards a fixed goal, but to fit into a specific niche in nature.

So what exactly do all these different Spices have to do with any of this? Sure they taste good when applied to food you eat, but who doesn't use a little bit of Kitchen Spices on their food?

-JrJinfinity

Mm... it's spieces of cause... Sorry, but english isn't my native language.

Or is it specis or species or... I can't seem to get it right... :-)

Species is the correct one, I was only joking a little bit there ;)

-JrJinfinity

The Theory of Evolution is sort of a misnomer. Life doesn't *evolve*, it undergoes nearly random mutations, and there is also often interbreeding between exceptionally similar species. It has been theorized that the whole idea of the last common ancestor of any two given closely related species is not one ancestral species, but rather a set of closely related but nevertheless distinct species. It has been estimated that there were 10-20 direct ancestral species to Homo sapiens sapiens. Thus, Instead of a tree of life, its more like a braided delta of life. It seems to me that "mutated" is much more accurate than "evolved", as the latter suggests the previous species ceased to exist, while the former suggests that the current species arose from a natural genetic alteration, which would not spell doom for the previous species.

This is one reason that monkeys are still around, even though apes mutated from them, and we mutated from apes. It has even been theorized that the origin of life on Earth would almost have to have been an incredibly simple form of life, such as a protein sphere containing a self-replicable form of RNA. It has been estimated that the entire genetic sequence for this life form was only 12-18 bases long. It has been near-impossible to find evidence of life more than 3.6 billion years old, primarily because that is the time when multicellular life with relatively hard tissues (cellular walls, cartilage, bone, exoskeletons, etc.) started to form. I personally think that life most likely formed many millions of years before then, but did not reach sufficient sophistication to be well-preserved until that time.

For further reference, read Here Be Dragons: The Scientific Quest for Extraterrestrial Life by David Koerner and Simon LeVay.

In case you can't tell by now, I believe in the Theory of Mutation (see first paragraph for explanation as to why I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution, despite the similarities between these two theories).

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.599850351139 mutated cents

If you want to go around thinking that you came from such a dumb animal as an Ape, go right ahead.

I will continue to believe that life forms are more complicated than the 10% of our human brains can comprehend at this time.

-JrJinfinity

the word "evolve" means "change". this happens. it doesn't create new species, but it happens.

i'm curious about this "incredibly simple form of life" how was it formed? random chance? assuming there was a randomly generated protein shell & some rna that could copy itelf, you still don't have cell division. the rna would replicate itself until it ran out of space or free bases inside the protein shell.

because the "monkeys" man supposedly evolved from were not the same ones that are alive today. the tree split. that's not the problem.

the problem is that if this were correct, there would be much more fossil evidence, more in-betweens. and don't say that evolution works in giant steps. any mutation is more likely to be fatal than beneficial & a large mutation is exponentially more likely to be fatal.