virtualagc VS ghc

I don't think that's a great example.

For instance, I can step through and even modify that code using tooling like AGC emulators like this one http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/#gsc.tab=0

What makes it open source is access to the same level of source access that the original developers worked in.

That's what's missing here. Mistral's engineers do not simply open this binary in their editor to do their job.

Glad you're enjoying the videos! I'm Mike from them. :) The Apollo 14 code I linked above was reconstructed in the same way as Luminary 69/2, but the process was far, far too involved for a video. Like I said above, I probably won't be much help with math, but I'd be more than happy to assist with finding documentation or navigating AGC code whenever you want!

The fact that all the information about the computer and software is public and you can verify it yourself like thousands of people have. https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/

If you’re curious about the the technical specs of the AGC check out Ron Burkey’s website, it’s even got the source code for you to see for yourself: https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/

Of course you should be able to tell us because all the hardware architecture and software can be found here. So you must have fully reviewed it and located the issues. Right? Than please point out where the error is.

It had manually encoded ROM in the form of "core rope memory", which is pretty wacky, but it was a digital computer. In fact, it was the first IC computer.

You can learn way too much about it and even operate (a simulation of) one here: http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/

of course it does! what else would you call something like chicken scheme [https://call-cc.org/], ats [https://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/], or ghc [https://www.haskell.org/ghc/]? they are not "scripts", they are full-blown compilers that happen to use C as their compilation target, and then leverage C compilers to generate code for a variety of architecures. it's a very sensible way to do things.

Agree about Haskell... as far as I'm aware there is actually no declarative/easily-readable definition of the Haskell syntax that is also complete, especially when it comes to the indentation rules, and the syntax is basically defined by the very (ironically) imperatively-defined GHC parser[0].

I prefer a syntax like in Pure[1], where the ambiguous, hard to parse indentation-based syntax is replaced by explicit semicolons (Yeah, you can use braces/semicolons in Haskell as well, but most code doesn't).

[0] https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler/GHC/Parser/L...

[1] https://agraef.github.io/pure-lang/

GHC, the main Haskell compiler

GHCi, version 9.6.3: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help Loaded GHCi configuration from /Users/daniel/.ghci ghci> :{ | split :: Float -> [Int] | split value = map(read . (:[])) . show | :} :3:15: error: [GHC-83865] • Couldn't match expected type: [Int] with actual type: a0 -> [b0] • Probable cause: ‘(.)’ is applied to too few arguments In the expression: map (read . (: [])) . show In an equation for ‘split’: split value = map (read . (: [])) . show

GHC is hosted on Gitlab, the Github repo is just a mirror. So money.

https://github.com/ghc/ghc

☁ ~ ghci GHCi, version 9.4.7: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help ghci> 6 + 3^2 * 4 42

Depending on who you ask, a programming language can be different things. If you ask the Haskell community, many will tell you that the language is the Haskell specification, and that what currently is being used is not Haskell itself, but an extension of Haskell that is supported by the GHC compiler. Similar to the C language, a programming language would be a specification.

GHCi, version 9.4.2: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help Loaded GHCi configuration from ~/.dotfiles/ghc/.ghc/ghci.conf