On Sat, 15 Feb 2025, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
The Bendix G15 (introduced in 1956) had ALGO, their variant of Algol. Not
sure when this was available, but likely after 1958 or so. I think it was
the only high level language available on that computer.
Running anything like Algol on a machine wi
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Liam Proven wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 00:55, ben via cctalk wrote:
PS. is me or just the internet browsing getting so full of ads
and questionable redirects that on can't use it any more.
FWIW, I find the combination of Firefox and the uBlock Origin
extension stops me s
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 20:44 +, Wayne S wrote:
> Is it posted anywhere?
It's at http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/1401/progs/Fortran/ but not really
organized well.
The ones I reverse engineered are in directories named v3m0 and v3m4.
Gary's code is in Mokotoff. The version I revised for CHM is in
On Mon, 2025-02-17 at 03:39 +, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> CDC 6000-series turned in better performance benchmarks on COBOL tha
> did the high-end IBM S/370 iron
In the mid 1970s at JPL, we were using Uniac 1108 for scientific
computing and IBM 370 for administrative computing. My group go
Did any classic computers have a subroutine call as (S++)=PC, PC=(EFA)
as well as the standard call (--S)=PC,PC=(EFA) ?
One could have a virtual stack machine, using helper functions without
having to deal with return addresses on the stack.
Ben.
On 2/16/25 15:52, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 16, 2025, at 5:30 PM, paul.kimpel--- via cctalk
>> wrote:
>>
>> The question concerned good ALGOL code generation, not the feasibility of
>> ALGOL code generation.
>
> I know that, but just as RISC machines can run very fast no mat
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 18:52 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> For example, the EL-X8 has an addressing mode for resolving
> references through the "display" of static scopes in what looks like
> a single operation.
When Tom Pennello was a grad student studying under Frank de Remer at
ACSC, h
On 2025-02-16 4:52 p.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
On Feb 16, 2025, at 5:30 PM, paul.kimpel--- via cctalk
wrote:
The question concerned good ALGOL code generation, not the feasibility of ALGOL
code generation.
I know that, but just as RISC machines can run very fast no matter what
a
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 21:51 +, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 2/16/25 11:54, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote:
> > On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 09:32 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> > > A lot of early "ALGOL" compilers did major subsetting because it
> > > was
> > > considered to hard to do the
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 21:34 +, paul.kimpel--- via cctalk wrote:
> one for the 220 and one for the Datatron 205.
When I was an undergraduate there was a B220 in the computer room,
beside the IBM 7094.7044 direct couple. It was used to read paper tapes
from the synchrotron into the 7044. It had
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 5:30 PM, paul.kimpel--- via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> The question concerned good ALGOL code generation, not the feasibility of
> ALGOL code generation.
I know that, but just as RISC machines can run very fast no matter what
applications you feed them, compilers created wit
On 2025-02-16 1:51 p.m., paul.kimpel--- via cctalk wrote:
I don't understand -- ASCII had only two versions, 1963 and 1967, and both had
square brackets. The IBM PC used ASCII, but had nothing to do with its
standardization.
https://archive.org/details/enf-ascii-1965-1966/page/n47/mode/2up
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 4:56 PM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> Then again, the CDC 6000 surely isn't, and I would be surprised if the CDC
> Algol compilers weren't machine code generators.
>
>
>
The 6000 was a bit before my time, but as I recall the CDC Algol-60
compile
The question concerned good ALGOL code generation, not the feasibility of ALGOL
code generation.
On 2/16/25 12:41, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote:
> The IBM 1401 FORTRAN II compiler consisted of 63 phases. It read the
> program into core, then loaded phases that massaged what it had in core
> until it eventually had machine code. It ran from a deck of about 2,500
> cards, or from one tape. I hav
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 4:06 PM, paul.kimpel--- via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> The thing you really need for good ALGOL code generation is a target
> architecture designed to support it. All of the early implementations I know
> about that attempted full support of ALGOL-60 targeted a virtual machin
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 2:54 PM, Van Snyder via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 09:32 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> A lot of early "ALGOL" compilers did major subsetting because it was
>> considered to hard to do the real language.
>
> IBM invented PL/1. IBM (or at least IB
On 2/16/25 12:40, paul.kimpel--- via cctalk wrote:
> Yes, the B1700/1800/1900 systems had bit-addressable memory, but I think the
> data registers were limited to 24 bits.
As did the CDC STAR/CYBER 200 systems, as well as the ETA machines.
Pretty much a requirement if one has bitmapped control/sp
On 2/16/25 11:54, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 09:32 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> A lot of early "ALGOL" compilers did major subsetting because it was
>> considered to hard to do the real language.
>
> IBM invented PL/1. IBM (or at least IBM Canada) wrote their e
Except for all of those people in the U.S. and elsewhere who were actively
using ALGOL for serious work on their Burroughs/Unisys stack-oriented machines,
and are still doing so today. It's not yet a dead language.
Donald Knuth wrote an ALGOL compiler for the ElectroData/Burroughs Datatron
205, a drum-memory machine with 4080 words of memory, in 1960. It was based on
ALGOL 58, though.
It's true that what we now call ALGOL 58 was never a specification, let along a
standard. But it wasn't a dead end, either. The title of the report that
described it was "Preliminary Report--International Algebraic Language"
(Communications of the ACM, Volume 1, Number 12 (December 1958), pages
On 16/02/2025 20:51, paul.kimpel--- via cctalk wrote:
I don't understand -- ASCII had only two versions, 1963 and 1967, and both had
square brackets. The IBM PC used ASCII, but had nothing to do with its
standardization.
I can't find the context for this, but it was early EBCDIC devices whic
The thing you really need for good ALGOL code generation is a target
architecture designed to support it. All of the early implementations I know
about that attempted full support of ALGOL-60 targeted a virtual machine at run
time. The outstanding counter-example, of course, are the Burroughs
B
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 1:53 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> I admit to a bit of pique here: I don't even bother updating Wikipedia
> articles
> anymore because they'll always get reverted by someone with less of a life
> than
> me for any number of specious reason
I don't understand -- ASCII had only two versions, 1963 and 1967, and both had
square brackets. The IBM PC used ASCII, but had nothing to do with its
standardization.
Is it posted anywhere?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 12:41, Van Snyder via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 13:08 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> You might want to look at the GCC internals manual. GCC has an
>> explicit layering, with front end processing steps
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 13:08 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> You might want to look at the GCC internals manual. GCC has an
> explicit layering, with front end processing steps that construct
> parse trees which are then transformed in stages, until they reach
> the "target" code which conve
Yes, the B1700/1800/1900 systems had bit-addressable memory, but I think the
data registers were limited to 24 bits.
> do you start discussions around u redits on the articles complaining about
> the removal ofthe info
I used to. Then I realized they enjoy that.
--
personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 13:08 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> Parsing -- splitting text into tokens (lexing) and building parse
> trees -- is part of the compiler's job but usually the easiest part.
> Not quite as easy if you want good error messages or error recovery.
I put an LR parser gen
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 16:59 +, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> CALGO ever since the beginning has also allowed algorithms in
> FORTRAN,
> it being the only language a lot of number-heavy shops use (e.g.
> JPL).
The JPL suite of navigation software — orbit and trajectory
determination, trajecto
Hi Van,
just wanted to point out, that there is a 803 emulator out there:
https://www.peteronion.org.uk/Elliott/
I have got a real 900 series machine running, which is from the very
early 1970ies and also runs a form of Elliott Algol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-gF5g0nnoE
Best wishes,
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 09:32 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> A lot of early "ALGOL" compilers did major subsetting because it was
> considered to hard to do the real language.
IBM invented PL/1. IBM (or at least IBM Canada) wrote their excellent
Fortran compilers in a subset of PL/1 called P
And several RS computers and peripherals used 4-pin DIN connectors for
RS-232 serial...
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 1:56 AM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
> > Didn't the original TRS-80 have a kind of screw up, where the tape and
> > display connector
On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 09:56 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> Well, "ALGOL 58" is not a thing. The document describing the 1958
> language called it "International Algebraic Language". I only
> glanced at it -- the first time I saw an actual description is when I
> read the 1958 report in an
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 1:45 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>
>> You're right that "original research" doesn't go into Wikipedia. But "major
>> mainstream outlet" is not required. For example, the Electrologica X1
>> article cites sources for its content, most of which are rather
do you start discussions around u redits on the articles complaining about
the removal ofthe info
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 12:45 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> > You're right that "original research" doesn't go into Wikipedia. But
> "major mainstream outlet" is n
> You're right that "original research" doesn't go into Wikipedia. But "major
> mainstream outlet" is not required. For example, the Electrologica X1
> article cites sources for its content, most of which are rather obscure
> publications such as tech reports in the CWI archives. The point
I think that was a reply to someone else's comment.
You're right that "original research" doesn't go into Wikipedia. But "major
mainstream outlet" is not required. For example, the Electrologica X1 article
cites sources for its content, most of which are rather obscure publications
such as te
On 16/02/2025 14:56, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
On Feb 16, 2025, at 9:46 AM, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk
wrote:
I had the impression from talking to people (quite possibly Tony Hoare, but I
don't want to put words in his mouth) that Algol was not, initially, a
programming language - it was
Wikipedia policy excludes what they call "original research". Unless your
article was published by some major mainstream outlet, you're toast, even if
you are literally the last person on Earth who knows the stuff.
From: Paul Koning via cctalk
Sent: Sunday, Feb
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 11:56 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
>
> On 2025-02-16 7:32 a.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>
>> A lot of early "ALGOL" compilers did major subsetting because it was
>> considered to hard to do the real language. Those subsets may not actually
>> bear any real resembla
On 2/16/25 06:56, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> My father (a metrologist and professor of mechanical engineering) would read
> ALGOL programs written by others, based on their resemblance to English.
> And yes, it was for years the choice for expressing algorithms in journals
> such as CACM.
On 2025-02-16 7:32 a.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
A lot of early "ALGOL" compilers did major subsetting because it was considered to hard
to do the real language. Those subsets may not actually bear any real resemblance to the actual
language. For example, a "subset" that omits recursio
> On Feb 15, 2025, at 11:24 PM, Steve Lewis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> I'm not very familiar with ALGOL, but just today I met someone at VCF who
> has essentially built a replica of the LGP-30 (in FPGA form, more on that
> to come down the road, but it is a system from 1955/1956). Then related
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 9:46 AM, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 16/02/2025 04:24, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
>> I'm not very familiar with ALGOL, but just today I met someone at VCF who
>> has essentially built a replica of the LGP-30 (in FPGA form, more on that
>> to come down t
On 2/15/25 22:11, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
Had an interesting talk with Usagi today around his LGP-21 (yes from 1963),
debating whether the ASR-33 was RS-232 or not. He thinks not all ASR-33
were current-loop, but whether they were adapted after the fact, we're not
sure (there was also KSR
Paul Koning
> It would be great to learn more about that. It's a rather early machine
> for ALGOL to show up there, though a precedessor of ALGOL (IAL,
> "International Algebraic Language") appeared in 1958. That was a bit of a
> mess and the 1960 Report on ALGOL-60 is quite different. Apparent
On 16/02/2025 04:24, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
I'm not very familiar with ALGOL, but just today I met someone at VCF who
has essentially built a replica of the LGP-30 (in FPGA form, more on that
to come down the road, but it is a system from 1955/1956). Then related to
that, two different pe
On 16/02/2025 02:15, David Wise via cctalk wrote:
I want a piece of the action. I have an 8-channel paper tape reader and I'm
happy to archive any tape you care to bring by.
Dave Wise in Hillsboro Oregon
From: Van Snyder via cctalk
Sent: Saturday, February 15,
51 matches
Mail list logo
