|
I.visit(this);
while(I.sing(99BotlesOfBeer))
{
I.fun++;
}
www.algorithm-art.com
2008-11-12 17:05:52 
|
|
Hei, kdakin (uk), I agree with you about the semantic inadequacy of the example adopted here, but why such things so tricky as bit arrangements etc.? The site's purpose is mainly aesthetic, and not to test efficiency or things alike, so why not the Hanoy Towers, or even a simple factorial (both recursive), in place of these obscure bottles of beer? On the other hand, it seems too late to change, 1229 languages after...
2008-10-22 13:08:55
|
|
This is the sickest site I’d ever seen. I’m drunken by reading (and sometime failing to read) all these strange, esoteric programming languages. Who needs beer when the computers start to sing...
Great!
2008-09-19 05:48:19
|
|
Great idea, great community here. Keep this going on.
Greetings,
Dominique
2008-08-22 03:04:34
|
|
I think the idea is good but the example is far too simple as it doesn't really give much scope for improving the algorithm.
There are no lookups , binary searches, or arithmetic work of any consequence.
Because of the limited (99) number of iterations, it doesn't expose innefficient code to scaling problems.
Program size, re-entrancy and other issues are not 'exercised'
use of macros, & pre-processors should be banned.
I propose a 2nd more realistic program 'Hello REAL world' which includes conditional instructions based on a single byte input (I), requiring some kind of table lookup or binary search and some additional arithmetic on two 31 bit unsigned integers (A) and (B) - max values 100.
Example: If input byte = 'A', add the two integers, if 'M', multiply them, if S' subtract them and print result in each case as english such as 'ninety five' or 'five hundred'. If not valid, display 'error'.
Target: - smallest object/binary size and smallest path length in terms of instruction count for the 4 inputs (A/M/S/?) repeated 1,000,000 times.
null
2008-08-01 07:52:30
|
|
Loool.
Very nice idea and quite interesting =D.
2008-06-08 14:30:56
|
|
Hi. I just made my own version to my band "brewster", and it´s called "too many bottles of beer on a wall". It´s a funny rock-song, and someday, I hope, recorded...
2008-05-17 19:58:40
|
|
1,200 examples online!
14 years after Tim Robinson has started his list of computer programs singing the "99 Bottles of Beer" song we have 1,200 examples in different variations, languages and styles online.
Thank you all. Thank you for your interest, your submissions, the votes and the guestbook entries.
Please keep submitting new examples. If I may I would love to ask for examples of forgotten computer systems (before 1995 and older), maybe some of you have some old manuals available and could spend some time...?
Thank you all,
Oliver
2008-05-03 23:26:36
|
|
This site is legendary. Glad I came across it. Such a wide range of language examples, would make a useful resource to people learning to code.
Cheers.
Local Business Guide
2008-05-01 08:23:31
|
|
In 1967 or so, I took a course in Jovial when I worked in the SPACETRACK system in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Normally we programmed the Philco 2000 in assembly language but the contractors (System Development Corp.) got a contract to redo everything in JOVIAL. JOVIAL is "Jules' Own Version Of International Algol" created by Jules Schwartz of System Development Corp. It was derisively referred to as their "job security" language since, once you wrote it in JOVIAL, no one else in the computer industry could compete with you... (Because no one else knew JOVIAL of course...)
They wrote their programs in JOVIAL but they wouldn't fit on our Philco 2000
(32K of 48 bit Words - two instructions per word for a grand total of 64K instructions max!) so we (Air Force officers) always had to rewrite everything in assembly language.
I still have the "Jovial Programming for the Philco 2000" manual from the class
and could, with some effort, probably construct a Jovial version - if anyone is still devoting any time to this site.
Probably would not be able to error check the program. The Jovial compiler
consisted of two Generation stages that converted program text into an intermediate assembly language of a machine that didn't exist followed by four Translator stages that converted the intermediate assembly language into the assembly language of the target machine - the Philco 2000 in our case. The purpose of JOVIAL was to achieve machine independence. The problem was that machines were vastly different in the I/O areas at that time so the dream could never be fully realized... FORTRAN was the only language that was machine independent.
JOVIAL compilation was incredibly slow. About one to two hours per program. I am unaware of any currently operating JOVIAL compilers...
I can still easily write assembly language for the Philco 2000 but we never became extremely facile with JOVIAL since it looked like a major boondoggle and the generated assembly language was very bloated compared to hand generated
assembly language. (In fact, one of our guys charged with the Differential Orbit Correction program had to shorten instructions to the computer operators in order to shoe-horn in new mathematical tweaks, e.g. "Mount tape 3 on drive 7" became "Mt 3-7" and a manual to translate such things had to be provided to the operators.)
--
Thanks,
Howard, in Tempe AZ
Http://www.astroshow.com
http://www.AZcendant.com
2008-04-29 00:47:59
|