Comments on comments

Debunking Replying to your comments

It’s comment time at the author’s sad little bash blog so these quotes are from a mixture of places; where possible your correspondent will try to document this jumping around. First off, a paragraph from the post itself:

I just thought I should point out two recent sensible comments which I’ve just replied to, although it took me a little while to think up really good replies. I don’t approve or reply to comments which I think are just C64 propaganda, but if you want to see them, then you can visit where the latest post is about the Commodore 64 hardware itself, not about programming it at all. This blog is about trying to PROGRAM that hardware!

The definition of propaganda includes “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.” so the author, who stated in his first post that he wanted to “[expose] how and why the Commodore 64 was crap and just a games console masquerading as a computer” is far more guilty of propaganda than your correspondent who is merely correcting the the author’s mistakes, pointing out which bits are merely personal opinion and offering his own opinion and those of others as a counterpoint.

The author has also forgotten yet again that your correspondent doesn’t have to stick to just programming with this blog should something else of interest crop up even if the author himself repeatedly struggles to keep to his own stated topic.

Now we get to the comments themselves, the first of which comes from the post The Commodore 128: the fixed and upgraded Commodore 64 where the author responds to a note from David about processors thus:

I’m afraid that’s too technical for me and for MOST people! All I meant by my comparison is that the Z80 and 68000 have lots of registers, but the 6502/6510/8502 have very few registers.

As has been repeatedly noted, the author shouldn’t be commenting about technical matters if they are “too complicated” for him. And, whilst the 6502 has less actual registers, it doesn’t actually need as many because it handles things differently; essentially the zero page can be treated like a series of registers and; since $f0 to $ff are available, that’s sixteen already with well over two hundred as an option depending on memory configuration.

Next we move to the comment from the author’s post Why was the Commodore 64 such crap where the comment from “cyber” correctly notes that the “commodore 64 does have 64K RAM, and you can access it all. It was only from BASIC there were any limitations”. The author rudely ignores the actual point entirely to instead whine that:

I read several books and maazines about the C64 when I was a C64 owner. Unfortunately, the books by Commodore and other publishers didn’t tell me how to program the Commodore 64. This and the crappy Commodore BASIC V2 were the reasons why I had to sell the Commodore 64 after 10-11 months.

I’ve only read a few books about Danish, e.g. Danish by Teach Yourself Books, and the Linguaphone Course. I understand Danish a lot better than how to program the Commodore 64 in Commodore BASIC V2. I think that this proves it’s easier to learn Danish than Commodore BASIC V2 on the C64.

There is some very flawed “logic” behind these paragraphs; ignoring the fact that one of the books the author has previously mentioned actually being a reference guide, his personal experience simply doesn’t reflect the real world so no, he has proven nothing with his own inability to learn. As a teenager your correspondent rather spectacularly (and to a degree deliberately) failed a GCSE in French whilst simultaneously teaching himself 6502 assembly language but wouldn’t even begin to assume that the same was true for you dear reader or indeed anybody else.

The Commodore 64 doesn’t rule!

This is the author drifting away from his stated topic again…

This entry was posted in Commentary, Debunking and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.