I'm trying to get a "retro-computing" class open and would like to give people the opportunity to finish projects at home (without carrying a 3kb monstrosity out of 1980 with them) I've heard that repl.it has every programming language, does it have QuickBasic and how do I use it online? Thanks for the help in advance!
You can do it (hint: search for QBasic; it shares syntax with QuickBASIC), but you should be aware that it has some limitations as it's running on an incomplete JavaScript implementation. For completeness, I'll reproduce the info from the original blog post:
What works
Only text mode is supported. The most common commands (enough to run
nibbles) are implemented. These include:
Subs and functions
Arrays
User types
Shared variables
Loops
Input from screen
What doesn't work
Graphics modes are not supported
No statements are allowed on the same line as IF/THEN
Line numbers are not supported
Only the built-in functions used by NIBBLES.BAS are implemented
All subroutines and functions must be declared using DECLARE
This is far from being done. In the comments, AC0KG points out that
P=1-1 doesn't work.
In short, it would need another 50 or 100 hours of work and there is
no reason to do this.
One caveat that I haven't been able to determine is a statement like INPUT or LINE INPUT... They just don't seem to work for me on repl.it, and I don't know where else one might find qb.js hosted.
My recommendation: FreeBASIC
I would recommend FreeBASIC instead, if possible. It's essentially a modern reimplementation coded in C++ (last I knew) with additional functionality.
Old DOS stuff like the DEF SEG statement and VARSEG function are no longer applicable since it is a modern BASIC implementation operating on a 32-bit flat address space rather than 16-bit segmented memory. I'm not sure what the difference between the old SADD function and the new StrPtr function is, if there is any, but the idea is the same: return the address of the bytes that make up a string.
You could also disable some stuff and maintain QB compatibility using #lang "qb" as the first line of a program as there will be noticeable differences when using the default "fb" dialect, or you could embrace the new features and avoid the "qb" dialect, focusing primarily on the programming concepts instead; the choice is yours. Regardless of the dialect you choose, the basic stuff should work just fine:
DECLARE SUB collatz ()
DIM SHARED n AS INTEGER
INPUT "Enter a value for n: ", n
PRINT n
DO WHILE n <> 4
collatz
PRINT n
LOOP
PRINT 2
PRINT 1
SUB collatz
IF n MOD 2 = 1 THEN
n = 3 * n + 1
ELSE
n = n \ 2
END IF
END SUB
A word about QB64
One might argue that there is a much more compatible transpiler known as QB64 (except for some things like DEF FN...), but I cannot recommend it if you want a tool for students to use. It's a large download for Windows users, and its syntax checking can be a bit poor at times, to the point that you might see the QB code compile only to see a cryptic message like "C++ compilation failed! See internals\temp\compile.txt for details". Simply put, it's usable and highly compatible, but it needs some work, like the qb.js script that repl.it uses.
An alternative: DOSBox and autorun
You could also find a way to run an actual copy of QB 4.5 in something like DOSBox and simply modify the autorun information in the default DOSBox.conf (or whatever it's called) to automatically launch QB. Then just repackage it with the modified DOSBox.conf in a nice installer for easy distribution (NSIS, Inno Setup, etc.) This will provide the most retro experience beyond something like a FreeDOS virtual machine as you'll be dealing with the 16-bit segmented memory, VGA, etc.—all emulated of course.
Related
I work on computational music. I have found the ps13 pitch spelling algorithm implemented in Lisp in 2003, precisely "Digitool MCL 4.3". I would like to run this code, preferably on a Linux x86 machine, to compare its results with other similar codes.
I am new to Lisp, but so far my research led me to think that Digitool MCL is no longer available. I thought of two ways which may help me:
a virtual environment (Docker or else) which would emulate a machine from 2003…
a code translation tool which would transform the 2003 source code into something executable today
I have not succeeded in finding one of these two options, nor running it directly with sbcl (but, as a newbie, I may have missed a small modification to make it run easily).
May someone help me?
Summary
This code is very close to being portable CL: you won't need something emulating an antique Mac to run it. I ran it on three implementations (SBCL, LispWorks, CCL) within a few minutes. However if you're not a Lisp person (and don't want to become one) it will be somewhat more fiddly to do that.
However I can't just send you a fixed version, both because this isn't the right forum for that, and also because we'd need to get the author's permission to do so. I have asked him if he would be interested in a portabalised version, and if he is, I will send him one in due course. You could also get in touch and ask to be notified.
(Meta-summary: while I think the question is fine, any reasonable answer probably doesn't fit on SO.)
Details
One initial problem with this code is that the file uses old Mac line end conventions (I think: not Unix anyway): unless whatever Lisp you're using is smart enough to spot this (some are, SBCL seems not to be although I am sure there are options to tell it) you'll need to convert it.
Given that, the code that implements this algorithm is very, very close to being portable Common Lisp. It has four dependencies on non-standard things:
two global variables, *save-local-symbols* and *verbose-eval-selection*;
two functions: choose-file-dialog and choose-directory-dialog.
The global variables can probably be safely commented out as I think they are just controls for the compiler, probably. The functions have fairly obvious specifications: they're obviously meant to pop up file / directory choosers.
However you can just not use the bits of the code that use these functions, so you can compile it, get a few compiler warnings about undefined functions, and then it's fine.
But it gets better than that in fact: the latter-day descendant of MCL is Clozure CL: CCL is free, and open source. CCL has both choose-file-dialog and choose-directory-dialog already and both of the globals exist although one is no longer exported.
Unfortunately there are then some hidden portability problems to do with assumptions about what pathnames look like as strings: it's making some assumption about what things looked like on pre-OSX Macs I think. This kind of problem is easy but often a bit fiddly to fix (I think in this case it would be easy). So, again, the answer to that is just not call the things that are doing a lot of pathname munging:
> (ps13-test-from-file-list (directory "~/Downloads/d/*.opnd"))
[... much output ...]
Total number of errors = 81.
Total number of notes = 41544.
Percentage correct = 99.81%
nil
Note that the above output came from LispWorks, not CCL: CCL works just as well though, as will any CL probably.
SBCL has one additional problem: the CL-USER package in SBCL already uses a package which exports int which is defined in this code. So you need to compile it in some other package. But given that, it's fine in SBCL as well.
I have this binary file that I wish to edit, however after loading it, all strings are in some sort of gibberish symbols. Is there anyway to format it?
Why you are seeing "gibberish":
The strings are likely obfuscated. Chances are, before each of the strings is used in the program, a deobfuscation routine is run to convert the string in memory back into something meaningful. This is a common technique used to prevent static analysis tools (such as the GNU "strings" utility or IDA Pro) from properly analyzing the binary. The rest of this answer makes the assumption that this is true of your binary.
How to deobfuscate the strings (dynamic approach):
If you are able to run the binary, you can let it take care of the deobfuscation for you. All you need to do is run the binary in a debugger and analyze the memory after it has been deobfuscated.
Several binaries that obfuscate their strings never re-obfuscate them after their use, so one interesting shortcut you might want to try first is to run the binary in a debugger and break execution right before it exits. If the strings are still debofuscated, you can do a memory dump of the appropriate section to save the deobfuscated strings. (This will not necessarily deobfuscate all of the strings for you; you'll only get the strings that were deobfuscated along the path of the binary's execution)
If the previous method does not work for you, try setting a hardware write breakpoint on the first byte of an obfuscated string, then running the binary. If the breakpoint trips, step through the instructions to allow the rest of the string to be deobfuscated. If the deobfuscation always happens from a common routine, you can place a breakpoint near the end of that routine and possibly script your debugger to print the debofuscated string each time execution passes through that routine.
Once you have a list of deobfuscated strings, you can either patch them directly into the IDA database (discussed below), or you can leave repeatable comments (use the ' key) at the addresses of each of the strings in the database, such that the deobfuscated string will display as a comment on every instruction that references it.
For small binaries, you can get away with doing the annotations by hand, but it would be worthwhile to read into scripting IDA so that you can automate this process. The IDA Pro Book contains a great reference for this.
How to deobfuscate the strings (static approach):
If you can't run the binary, or if the dynamic approach isn't deobfuscating all the strings for you, then you can deobfuscate them yourself.
Chances are good that if you view the cross-references to any of the obfuscated strings in IDA Pro (view them with the x key), you should be taken to the deobfuscation routine. If the routine isn't too complicated -- and they usually aren't -- you should be able to write a script to emulate the debofuscation routine. This will allow you to replace the obfuscated strings with the deobfuscated strings in the IDA database.
(As a point of clarification, the IDA database is entirely separate from the binary itself. Anything you do to the database will have no effect on the actual binary, and anything you do to the binary will have no effect on the database)
Your options for scripting IDA are IDC (IDA's original built-in scripting language) and IDAPython. I highly recommend using IDAPython, as it is much easier to use, and a much more powerful language. I'm not sure if you can install IDAPython on IDA Free 5.0, but it should be bundled with all vaguely recent versions of IDA Pro.
Giving an overview of scripting IDA would be beyond the scope of this answer, but here's an example to get you started. I'm writing it in IDC in case you're using IDA Free. Let's say your deobfuscation routine simply XOR'd each successive byte with 0x1F until the null byte was decoded. Then the following loop might end up being part of your IDC script:
// *EXAMPLE*
auto addr = 0x00401000; // The address of your string
while(1){
auto b = Byte(addr) ^ 0x1F;
PatchByte(addr, b);
if (b == '\0'){
break;
}
addr = addr + 1;
}
Running a script can be done from File > IDC Command... or File > Script file....
As you might guess, Byte returns the byte stored at a given address, and PatchByte writes a byte to an address. Built-in functions in IDAPython share the same names with their IDC counterparts, so the IDAPython version would be nearly identical, sans the C-like syntax. As mentioned before, I highly recommend The IDA Pro Book for a walkthrough on scripting IDA. Once you have the basics down, you can use IDA's built-in help index and The IDAPython documentation as a couple other references.
Always save your database before running a script that patches code! There is no "undo" feature in IDA, so a small coding error could trash your entire database.
Good luck!
i have been working on a perl program to process large amounts of dna. It outputs exactly what i need however it takes much longer than i would like using NYTprof i have narrowed down the major problem areas to be the loop that adds my values together. would using inline::C to do the math make my program faster or should i accept the speed and move on? is there another way to improve the speed? here is my program and an input it would run as well as an executable with the default values entered already.
It's unlikely you'll get useful help here (this included). I can see various problems with your code, and none have to do with the choice of language.
use CPAN. If you're parsing genbank, then use some an appropriate module.
You're writing assembly in Perl, and neither Perl nor you are very good at that. It's near impossible to know what's going on when you don't pass parameters to subroutines, instead relying on globals all over the place. What do #X1, #X2, #Y1, #Y2 mean?
The following might be your problem: until ($ender - $starter > $tlength) { (line 153). According to your test case, these start by being 103, 1, and 200, and it's not clear when or if they change. Depending on what's in #te, it might or might not ever get out of the loop; I just can't tell from your code.
It would help if we knew, exactly, what are the parameters to add, the in-out invariants, and what it is returning.
That's all I got.
I second the recommendation of PDL made in a comment, if it's applicable. Or the use of a CPAN module tailored to your problem (again, if applicable).
I didn't see anything that looked unambiguously like "the loop that adds my values together" in that code; please, show just the code you are considering optimizing, ideally with just enough structure around it to actually run it.
So to answer your generic question generically, yes, Inline::C can be a useful tool for optimization if you are certain your performance problem is limited to what it actually can do for you. In using it, be aware that invoking your C code from Perl or vice versa is non-trivially expensive, so you have to have enough code translated to C to minimize the transitions.
A computer scientist will correctly explain that all programs are
interpreted and that the only question is at what level. --perlfaq
How are all programs interpreted?
A Perl program is a text file read by the perl program which causes the perl program to follow a sequence of actions.
A Java program is a text file which has been converted into a series of byte codes which are then interpreted by the java program to follow a sequence of actions.
A C program is a text file which is converted via the C compiler into an assembly program which is converted into machine code by the assembler. The machine code is loaded into memory which causes the CPU to follow a sequence of actions.
The CPU is a jumble of transistors, resistors, and other electrical bits which is laid out by hardware engineers so that when electrical impulses are applied, it will follow a sequence of actions as governed by the laws of physics.
Physicists are currently working out what makes those rules and how they are interpreted.
Essentially, every computer program is interpreted by something else which converts it into something else which eventually gets translated into how the electrons in your local neighborhood fly around.
EDIT/ADDED: I know the above is a bit tongue-in-cheek, so let me add a slightly less goofy addition:
Interpreted languages are where you can go from a text file to something running on your computer in one simple step.
Compiled languages are where you have to take an extra step in the middle to convert the language text into machine- or byte-code.
The latter can easily be easily be converted into the former by a simple transformation:
Make a program called interpreted-c, which can take one or more C files and can run a program which doesn't take any arguments:
#!/bin/sh
MYEXEC=/tmp/myexec.$$
gcc -o $MYEXEC ${1+"$#"} && $MYEXEC
rm -f $MYEXEC
Now which definition does your C program fall into? Compare & contrast:
$ perl foo.pl
$ interpreted-c foo.c
Machine code is interpreted by the processor at runtime, given that the same machine code supplied to a processor of a certain arch (x86, PowerPC etc), should theoretically work the same regardless of the specific model's 'internal wiring'.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that an arch may add new instructions for things like accessing new registers, in which case code written to use it won't work on older processors in the range. Much like when you try to use an old version of a library and then try to use capabilities only found in newer libraries.
Example: many Linux distros are released as 686 only, despite the fact it's in the 'x86 family'. This is due to the use of new instructions.
My first thought was too look inside the CPU — see below — but that's not right. The answer is much much simpler than that.
A high-level description of a CPU is:
1. execute the current op
2. grab the next op
3. goto 1
Compare it to Perl's interpreter:
while ((PL_op = op = op->op_ppaddr(aTHX))) {
}
(Yeah, that's the whole thing.)
There can be no doubt that the CPU is an interpreter.
It just goes to show how useless it is to classify something is interpreted or not.
Original answer:
Even at the CPU level, programs get rewritten into simpler instructions to allow the CPU to execute more them more quickly. This is done by changing the order in which they are executed and executing them in parallel. For example, Intel's Hyperthreading.
Even deeper, each instruction is considered a program of its own, one that routes electronic signals. See microcode.
The Levels of interpretions are really easy to explain:
2: Runtimelanguage (CLR, Java Runtime...) & Scriptlanguage (Python, Ruby...)
1: Assemblies
0: Binary Code
Edit: I changed the level of Scriptinglanguages to the same level of Runtimelanguages. Thank's for the hint. :-)
I can write a Game Boy interpreter that works similarly to how the Java Virtual Machine works, treating the z80 machine instructions as byte code. Assuming the original was written in C1, does that mean C suddenly became an interpreted language just because I used it like one?
From another angle, gcc can compile C into machine code for a number of different processors. There's no reason the target machine has to be the same as the machine you're compiling on. In fact, this is a common way to compile C code for AVRs and other microcontrollers.
As a matter of abstraction, the compiler's job is to translate flat text into a structure, then translate that structure into something that can be executed somewhere. Whatever is doing the execution may have its own levels of breaking out the structure before really executing it.
A lot of power becomes available once you start thinking along these lines.
A good book on this is Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Even if you only get through the first chapter (or half of the first chapter), I think you'll learn a lot.
1 I think most Game Boy stuff was hand coded ASM, but the principle remains.
If you port code over from one language to another, how can this be detected?
Say you were porting code from c++ to Java, how could you tell?
What would be the difference between a program designed and implemented in Java, and a near identical program ported over to Java?
If the porting is done properly (by people expert in both languages and ready to translate the source language's idioms into the best similar idioms of the target language), there's no way you can tell that any porting has taken place.
If the porting is done incompetently, you can sometimes recognize goofily-transliterated idioms... but that can be hard to distinguish from people writing a new program in a language they know little just goofily transliterating the idioms from the language they do know;-).
Depending on how much effort was put into the intention to hide the porting it could be very easy to impossible to detect.
I would use pattern recognition for this task. Think about the "features" which would indicate code-similarities. Extract these feature from each code and compare them.
e.g:
One feature could be similar symbol names. Extract all symbols using ctags or regular expressions, make all lower-case, make uniq sort of both lists and compare them.
Another possible feature:
List of class + number of members e.g:
MyClass1 10
...
List of method + sequence of controll blocks. e.g:
doSth() if, while, if, ix, case
...
Another easy way, is to represent the code as a picture - e.g. load the code as text in Word and set the font size to 1. Human beings are very good on comparing pictures. For another Ideas of code Visualization you may check http://www.se-radio.net/2009/03/episode-130-code-visualization-with-michele-lanza/