I found the CHR$ and the PETSCII character set to be the most fascinating part of this line of code. While the floating number and random number make sense to me on their own, the book provides the least amount of time explaining this character set. This seemed like one of the most important pieces of this line of code to me because it references a completely manufactured set of rules. Of course the RND function operates on its own set of rules which seems to be investigated more thoroughly, at least in the introduction of the book. The arbitrary human distinctions which dictate future iterations of programming are to me more fascinating than this single line of code. The idea that there is a lower level of programming that dictates which character is picked makes this line of code appear less robust than how the book intends to depict it.
They touched upon the idea of fetishizing code and how they aim to avoid this practice. I'm not sure if they did that successfully. It doesn't help that they are using a retro piece of equipment, something often tied with nostalgia and internet culture in some big mess. I'm not sure if one can avoid fetishizing code solely by focusing on its variants on a single platform. I think the opposite approach, deeply examining the underlying systems and context of the code, is more important. Of course you could lose yourself in the details and the whole point of the book is to focus on a singular topic but I think they did a poor job of avoiding fetishizing this single line of code which is fascinating but ultimately insignificant.
I found the CHR$ and the PETSCII character set to be the most fascinating part of this line of code. While the floating number and random number make sense to me on their own, the book provides the least amount of time explaining this character set. This seemed like one of the most important pieces of this line of code to me because it references a completely manufactured set of rules. Of course the RND function operates on its own set of rules which seems to be investigated more thoroughly, at least in the introduction of the book. The arbitrary human distinctions which dictate future iterations of programming are to me more fascinating than this single line of code. The idea that there is a lower level of programming that dictates which character is picked makes this line of code appear less robust than how the book intends to depict it.
They touched upon the idea of fetishizing code and how they aim to avoid this practice. I'm not sure if they did that successfully. It doesn't help that they are using a retro piece of equipment, something often tied with nostalgia and internet culture in some big mess. I'm not sure if one can avoid fetishizing code solely by focusing on its variants on a single platform. I think the opposite approach, deeply examining the underlying systems and context of the code, is more important. Of course you could lose yourself in the details and the whole point of the book is to focus on a singular topic but I think they did a poor job of avoiding fetishizing this single line of code which is fascinating but ultimately insignificant.