SR-52 was a giant leap. How?
|
06-17-2017, 05:10 PM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
RE: SR-52 was a giant leap. How?
This helps clarify the challenge. The way I thought about the transition was by way of economising code. For example, not literal:
In lieu of hyperbolics and inverses, that space of code was used for conditional tests and branching. Instead of SR-51 US/Metric conversion codes, pending level, parentheses code, Instead of SR-51 statistics/linear regression, 224 program steps 20 (79 extended) data registers. In other words, the technologies were there, but it was a matter of coding and quad chips. Right? Or were there challenges I've not considered? |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
SR-52 was a giant leap. How? - Matt Agajanian - 06-17-2017, 12:12 AM
RE: SR-52 was a giant leap. How? - Matt Agajanian - 06-17-2017, 12:20 AM
RE: SR-52 was a giant leap. How? - Chasfield - 06-17-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: SR-52 was a giant leap. How? - Matt Agajanian - 06-17-2017 05:10 PM
RE: SR-52 was a giant leap. How? - toml_12953 - 06-18-2017, 01:49 AM
RE: SR-52 was a giant leap. How? - Matt Agajanian - 06-18-2017, 10:23 PM
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)