On Monday, 1 August 2016 01:22:02 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:11 AM, <bart4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (128MB or 128KB? In the 1980s we were all running in 64KB to 640KB of > > memory. 128MB might be what a well-endowed mainframe might have had!) > > Yes, and we didn't have Python then. When I had a computer with 640KB > of memory, my options were (1) BASIC or (2) 8086 assembly language, > using DEBUG.EXE and its mini-assembler. Later on (much much later), I > added C to the available languages, but it was tedious and annoying, > because one tiny change meant minutes of compilation. This wasn't my experience. I used my own tools and designed them to always be quick enough in use that compilation speed was never really an issue. Not even on 8-bit machines. I was also happily running my interpreters within 640KB (less than that too depending on customers' machines). So that 128MB limit, or *two hundred* times as much memory, was a hardly a limitation! -- Bartc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
