From: kludge@panix.com   
      
   In article , Rich   wrote:   
   >I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class,   
   >and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside)   
   >class, all required classes for Engineering.  Pascal class was trivial   
   >(had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so   
   >just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we   
   >were using.  Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate   
   >Fortran in the end.  Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already   
   >understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects.  The assembler   
   >class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this   
   >point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an   
   >'assembler' of sorts).  Just had to "learn the language" rather than   
   >the "how to program" part.   
      
   That's pretty unusual.  The reason why Fortran is a good thing is because   
   engineers can't be trusted with pointers.  And COMPASS?  That's a very   
   very strange assembler to teach.... I went to gatech which had Cyber   
   machines which the CS folks avoided like the plague.  COMPASS is not   
   exactly a normal assembler and has a lot of fast-float-performance   
   craziness... it is not something I'd really teach anyone whom I was trying   
   to teach about the principles of computing or how systems work.  And the   
   PPUs code?  That's worse than IBM channel controller stuff.  I'm sorry   
   you had to do that.   
   --scott   
      
      
   --   
   "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)