The power of C++ - page 13
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
We had a Soviet analogue of the XT with a 5Mb hard drive, manufactured in Yerevan, if I'm not mistaken. It was a thick box, about five centimetres high, with a 3.5" form factor. Probably the only hard drive produced in the USSR. In Russia, as I understand it, no such attempts were made any more.
There was also a 10mb one, I think. But they were praised not so much for the fact that they constantly crashed, as for the fact that they didn't release alcohol (the healthy "screws" had alcohol on them to wipe the plates).
We had a Soviet analogue of the XT with a 5Mb hard drive in our firm, manufactured in Yerevan, if I'm not mistaken. It was a thick box, about five centimetres high, with a 3.5" form factor. Probably the only hard drive produced in the USSR. In Russia, as I understand it, no such attempts were made any more.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no capacity left to continue the production of electronic devices.
But there were high-class specialists, especially programmers, and all of them started to work in the subsidiaries of foreign companies, especially American, that started to appear like mushrooms in the mid 90's.
They, of course, required knowledge of OOP C++.
After the collapse of the union, there was no capacity left to continue producing electronic devices.
But high-class specialists remained of course, especially programmers, and all of them started to work in the branches of foreign firms, especially American ones, which started to appear like mushrooms in the mid-90s.
They of course demanded knowledge of OOP C++.
I decided to learn Python, I don't understand why all deep learning frameworks are Python oriented? Although some support C++, C#, other languages.
I've decided to learn Python, I don't understand why all deep learning frameworks are Python oriented? Although some support C++, C#, other languages.
After PHP, Python leads the way. But even without it and only with MQL and even without OOP you can create a profitable robot.
Of course, if you create a program only for trading, only for yourself and not working in a team.
After PHP, Python leads the way. But even without it and only with MQL and even without OOP you can create a profitable robot.
Of course, if you create a program only for trading, only for yourself and not working in a team.
I'm using only my own algorithms for DSP, even I'm using only one library from fxsaber, MT4Orders.
But I've got some ideas using decision support system, for that I should study ready-made frameworks, I'm not going to write bicycles. And all of them for some reason are based on Python. That's ok, I'll study it, it's easy for me. I just don't understand the orgasm of Python yet, the language is slow, there are no special features, why all obsessed with it?
I got my first personal IBM computer in '88. It was an IBM XT with a 20MB hard drive, 512KB RAM, 8 or 12MHz CPU and a CGA 13" monitor, colour, I think it only had 64 colours.
At that time we didn't know yet what it worked with. With difficulty we got GW Basic for the Bulgarian IBM compatible Pravets computer, in Bulgarian and we started digging.
But before that of course knew Basic for Iskra desktop computers.
CGA is a very underrated adapter. An example of how a great idea can be ruined.
For the vast majority of people, this adapter was remembered for its quite good 16-colour text mode, and its completely lousy graphic mode, with only four not-so-great colours from two palettes.
I just happened to be in the same years where I had full access to a CM1810 machine - a complete analogue of the IBM XT, but made entirely with domestic components. And the video adapter there was also built on domestic chips, not on a bourgeois controller. However, to its manufacturers' credit, it should be noted that from the software point of view the emulation was complete, 100%. But from the user's point of view the emulation was slightly cut down. The cutting was that our CGA had only a standard digital video output, and there was no composite output (the usual "RCA" connector for the TV set). That, as it is clear now, was a great disadvantage from the point of view of "ordinary user", although for the domestic clone it was quite a sensible decision - the original CGA's composite output transmitted an NTSC signal, for which virtually no one in the USSR had decoders.
To the vast majority of users (and to me as well), CGA was a "total crap" - not a colour, but a "tinted" adapter. Although, the idea behind it was very much the right one. The thing is, that CGA developers absolutely rightly "divided" users - business segment, and gamer segment.
Those very four lousy colours from two palettes - were outputted through a digital output, where you get a very high-quality and clear (for that time) picture. Business applications, which need graphics, four fixed colours is quite enough, there is more important clarity of a picture and readability of text. Unfortunately, most programmers, apparently, had these high-quality digital displays and more advanced adapters (EGA, VGA) - which were compatible with CGA only on the digital output. That's what led to most CGA games looking very poorly coloured. They were not intended for composite output.
But for the gamer segment, it was the very same RCA connector intended for the TV ! And just on the TV, because of the limited bandwidth, the colour of each two dots was combined according to the NTSC colour coding, and gave all sixteen colours in the graphics, but with a lower resolution. It was assumed that ordinary users would not buy separate digital monitors, and will connect the CGA to the TV, the clarity of picture and text is not very important to them, but at the same time - they get all sixteen colours. And the "lame" four colours were chosen so that in the NTSC system to get the greatest colour gamut when displaying a picture on the composite.
Alas, as most people had digital monitors, all these calculations did not work out.
CGA gave up its position and fell into oblivion... By the way, the same almost happened to another IBM brainchild, the IBM PCjr computer, which was also very poorly received, and only the cloning of it by Tandy made it popular.
The CGA is a very underrated adapter. An example of how a great idea can be ruined.
Why write so much about CGA? Don't you have anything better to do?
I just wanted to show what limited capabilities the computers of the time had.
The CGA is a very underrated adapter. An example of how a great idea can be ruined.
For the vast majority of people, this adapter was remembered for its quite good 16-colour text mode, and its completely lame graphical mode, with only four not-so-great colours from two palettes.
Just in those years I got into one office where I had full access to a CM1810 machine - a full analogue of the IBM XT, but made entirely on domestic components. And the video adapter there was also built on domestic chips, not on a bourgeois controller. However, to its manufacturers' credit, it should be noted that from the software point of view the emulation was complete, 100%. But from the user's point of view the emulation was slightly cut down. The cutting was that our CGA had only a standard digital video output, and there was no composite output (the usual "RCA" connector for the TV set). That, as it is clear now, was a great disadvantage from the point of view of "ordinary user", although for the domestic clone it was quite a sensible decision - the original CGA's composite output transmitted an NTSC signal, for which virtually no one in the USSR had decoders.
To the vast majority of users (and to me as well), CGA was a "total crap" - not a colour, but a "tinted" adapter. Although, the idea behind it was very much the right one. The thing is, that CGA developers absolutely rightly "divided" users - business segment, and gamer segment.
Those very four lousy colours from two palettes - were outputted through a digital output, where you get a very high-quality and clear (for that time) picture. Business applications, which need graphics, four fixed colours is quite enough, there is more important clarity of a picture and readability of text. Unfortunately, most programmers, apparently, had these high-quality digital displays and more advanced adapters (EGA, VGA) - which were compatible with CGA only on the digital output. That's what led to most CGA games looking very poorly coloured. They were not intended for composite output.
But for the gamer segment, it was the very same RCA socket designed for the TV ! And just on the TV, because of the limited bandwidth, the colour of each two dots was combined according to the NTSC colour coding, and gave all sixteen colours in the graphics, but with a lower resolution. It was assumed that ordinary users would not buy separate digital monitors, and will connect the CGA to the TV, the clarity of picture and text is not very important to them, but at the same time - they get all sixteen colours. And the "lame" four colours were chosen so that in the NTSC system to get the greatest colour gamut when displaying a picture on the composite.
Alas, since most people had digital monitors, all those calculations didn't work out.
CGA gave up its position and fell into oblivion... By the way, the same almost happened to another IBM brainchild, the IBM PCjr computer, which was also very poorly received, and only the cloning of it by Tandy made it popular.
I remember that CGA had fixed palettes and you couldn't use colours from different palettes, so video game developers had to switch palettes in the course of the game to create theme zones (like in Goody) or use only one palette (like in Digger) screens were garbled greenish-orange or lilac-purple, although before that on zx spectrum consoles were great colours and looked much more winning.
Why write so much about CGA? Don't you have anything to do?
I just wanted to show how limited the capabilities of the computers of the time were.
I was getting nostalgic. I couldn't help but feel a little nostalgic...
I remember CGA had fixed palettes and it was not possible to use colours from different palettes.
That's right. On the digital output. Two fixed, and terribly lame, palettes. But it had high (for those days) clarity (above Spectrum or Commodore), which for business applications was quite reasonable.
It was a good idea to play games on a TV set with an NTSC decoder. Then CGA could have given a very decent picture with the same sharpness as the competitors, and with the same colours as on the Spectrum or the Commodore.
Just think what kind of stuff people "squeezed" out of that same CGA on the composite output (true, they used dirty hacks and tambourines around NTSC colour):
I never would have thought such a thing was possible.
There were several articles about it on Habra.
By the way, the Goody game was one of the few that gave 16 colours on the composite output.