What's your point? Everything they did, including Einstein's (and everyone else's at the time) quantum mechanics work, was based on continuous space and time variables.
Quantum mechanics does not mean everything is quantized. It got its name because the first predictions of quantum mechanics were quantized energy levels in some example systems, but that does not even mean that all energies are quantized in quantum mechanics. There are many systems you can study where energies are continuous, and many examples where other quantities are continuous in quantum mechanics.
Thanks for looking into it. Yes this is correct.
Knowing what I hear about wolfram, even if there is
a record in history wolfram claims
He is the first.
The 8088 has a external 8 bits bus. The performance improvement hardware 16 bits ALU is neglected by the slower memory access.
And that memory access was also the reason a 6502 carefully programmed will have better performance than a 8088 with 5x the clock speed. The first 256 bytes (0 pages) had better access performance.
This comment is misleading. Z80 also has an 8-bit external bus. And, FWIW, so does the 6502. The reason zero page is fast on the 6502 is because of more concise encoding, not because that memory is somehow faster.
I'm broadly skeptical that a 6502 outperforms an 8088 at 5x clock speed in practice. Would love to see benchmarks. Certainly I'd expect it to be highly task dependent.
I've programmed in 6502 Assembly for decades and your skepticism is right on.
These comparisons have so many variables that they are extremely hard to make accurately.
FTA - I would have guessed that the 8088 is much faster at about
the same clock speed, because it has more 16-bit operations
and does multiplication and division in hardware.
Does the compiler of the compiler make use of these extra 16-bit operations? How many layers of abstraction does it go through for each of the environments? Does it use DOS interrupts when running on DOS and optimized machine code on CP/M?
These comparisons are strange thought experiments.
The compiler uses the same level of optimization on both DOS and CP/M. It is self-compiled on both platforms. It uses DOS interrupts on DOS and BDOS functions on CP/M, but I/O is really not a big issue here. The DOS compiler does make use of the extra 16-bit operations.
Is it still an inaccurate comparison? Sure. But I expected something dramatically different, so I asked.
There are also some very questionable statements in the articlle like saying that 6502 instructions only need one cycle. It's 2 to 7 in reality.
Over the years the comparison between 6502 vs Z80 tend to show that you have to clock the Z80 at about twice the frequency of the 6502 to get the same performance. 8088 having a slight edge over the Z80 it is clear that a 5 MHz will be quite faster than a 1 MHz 6502 (C64 was even under 1MHz as the VIC chip would steal some cycles every 8th display line)
A C benchmark on the 6502 seems suspect to me given that the 6502's architecture tends to make writing stack-based language compilers for it more complicated than other platforms. Some of the difference may be just because the object code generated for the 6502 isn't efficient.
That said, any 16-bit optimizations the 8088's compiler could take advantage of, well, that's fair game.
There exists an abundance of resources related to TeamWare. From online documentation [2], to patents [3]...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_WorkShop_TeamWare
[2] https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3573/TeamWareTOC.ht...
[3] https://patents.google.com/patent/US5481722