lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu (Rob Lentz) (03/09/89)
While we are on the subject of traditions (ROM names), I am curious as to what special meaning, if any, the number 31 holds for Apple. After all there is no Tech Note 31 for some reason, and one of the most useful items of the system has got to be INIT 31. This is one piece of folklore which I have not heard about. Robert "Curiosity killed the cat, but I am no cat" Lentz lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu
stearns@Apple.COM (Bryan Stearns) (03/11/89)
From article <10330143@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by lentz@accuvax.nwu.edu (Rob Lentz): > While we are on the subject of traditions (ROM names), I am curious as to > what special meaning, if any, the number 31 holds for Apple. After all > there is no Tech Note 31 for some reason, and one of the most useful items > of the system has got to be INIT 31. This is one piece of folklore which > I have not heard about. As the original author of INIT 31 (though Larry Kenyon rewrote it before it shipped), I can safely say that there's no significance to the number (other than that that was the last INIT that would be found by the original boot code). There's no Technical Note 31 because the individual TechNote authors used to assign their own numbers ("Hey, Scott! What's the next number?") BEFORE writing the note; sometimes we wouldn't get around to finishing a note, and the number we picked would get reassigned (or, in this case, not). ... Bryan Stearns Apple Computer Finder & Applications Group (& former resident of Apple's Papeete Developer Support Center)
casseres@Apple.COM (David Casseres) (03/11/89)
In article <901@internal.Apple.COM> stearns@Apple.COM (Bryan Stearns) writes: >As the original author of INIT 31 (though Larry Kenyon rewrote it before it >shipped), I can safely say that there's no significance to the number (other >than that that was the last INIT that would be found by the original boot >code). > >There's no Technical Note 31 because the individual TechNote authors used to >assign their own numbers ("Hey, Scott! What's the next number?") BEFORE >writing the note; sometimes we wouldn't get around to finishing a note, and >the number we picked would get reassigned (or, in this case, not). Bryan, are you SURE??? I thought it was connected to the fact that a week has 7 days and a (normal) month has 31, because both numbers are all-one's in binary so when you implement a binary-logic calendar you get ... Oh, never mind. David Casseres
lim@iris.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) (03/11/89)
In article <905@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@Apple.COM (David Casseres) writes: >In article <901@internal.Apple.COM> stearns@Apple.COM (Bryan Stearns) writes: > >>[...] >>There's no Technical Note 31 because the individual TechNote authors used to >>assign their own numbers ("Hey, Scott! What's the next number?") BEFORE >>writing the note; sometimes we wouldn't get around to finishing a note, and >>the number we picked would get reassigned (or, in this case, not). > >Bryan, are you SURE??? I thought it was connected to the fact that a week >has 7 days and a (normal) month has 31, because both numbers are all-one's >in binary so when you implement a binary-logic calendar you get ... Oh, >never mind. Gee, both of you are from Apple so this makes me hesitant about sticking my neck out on the line. But here goes... I was sure that the reason 31 was not used was because someone released an April fools Tech Note #31 that was a parody of Tech Notes. Then someone at Apple released a Tech Note of the same number that was even more ridiculous in response to make sure that everyone knew the first one was not written by Apple and was somebody's joke. I'm sure this happened because I remember seeing it in the back of someone's book on Mac programming (Scott Kronick or someone?). The Tech Note made fun of a previous quote that said the System would never change during the running of an application. It warned Mac programmers that things really might change after all and that you would have to continually check for the existence of traps, hardware additions, and such while your application is running. OK, maybe I have the Tech Note number wrong, maybe I have the Tech Note writer being parodied wrong, maybe I have it all wrong??!! I was sure this was why 31 wasn't used though because a long time ago Apple went through and filled in all the holes in the numbering. The only other hole is 49 which was an accidental duplicate of 44. I don't usually blabber when I post... +++ Lloyd Lim Internet: lim@iris.ucdavis.edu Compuserve: 72647,660 US Mail: 146 Lysle Leach Hall, U.C. Davis, Davis, CA 95616
t-jacobs@wasatch.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) (03/11/89)
In article <901@internal.Apple.COM> stearns@Apple.COM (Bryan Stearns) writes: >... Bryan Stearns > Apple Computer Finder & Applications Group > (& former resident of Apple's Papeete Developer Support Center) ^^^^^^^ just exactly what kind of support was centered there!!! -- Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (03/11/89)
In article <3794@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> lim@iris.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) writes: > >I was sure that the reason 31 was not used was because someone released an >April fools Tech Note #31 that was a parody of Tech Notes. Then someone at >Apple released a Tech Note of the same number that was even more ridiculous >in response to make sure that everyone knew the first one was not written It was TN-110. >by Apple and was somebody's joke. I'm sure this happened because I remember >seeing it in the back of someone's book on Mac programming (Scott Kronick >or someone?). No, Scott Knaster in "Macintosh Programming Secrets" ______________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet)