From: Noel Chiappa
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 8:25 AM
> As to who actually did do EMACS, it was a cast of characters, and I wasn't
> enough part of it to know who should be listed. RMS was, of course, primus
> inter pares, but there were others. E.g. I remember Gene Cicarelli did
> some stuff.
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 10:01 PM, Nigel Williams
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> Right. And further tweaked by myself, also at DEC (for RSTS/E), though I
>> don’t believe that version was sent back to DECUS.
>
> Neat! I'm a big fan of RSTS/E, are you able t
Yeah, Plan 9 is lean but not that lean! I wanted to mention it maybe more
an aside, as a modern operating system that has a little bit more of the
fluidity of old UNIX .. there's not a lot of "nonsense" to cut through
before you can write useful programs.
Best,
Sean
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:18
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> Right. And further tweaked by myself, also at DEC (for RSTS/E), though I
> don’t believe that version was sent back to DECUS.
Neat! I'm a big fan of RSTS/E, are you able to make your tweaked
version available?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Eric Christopherson <
echristopher...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
> in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
>
> --
On 2015-08-09 20:46, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Paul Koning
> Algol 60, that is. It was used as the inspiration by just about
> everything that followed
I've just remembered that the Algol (probably Algol-60, but the manual
doesn't say) interpreter used for the programming langu
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Nigel Williams
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> There’s DECUS ALGOL, which is essentially a PDP-11 version of Burroughs
>> Extended Algol. It generates bytecode which even looks somewhat like B5500
>> machine code. I still ha
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> There’s DECUS ALGOL, which is essentially a PDP-11 version of Burroughs
> Extended Algol. It generates bytecode which even looks somewhat like B5500
> machine code. I still have a copy, though I need to do some work to find the
> correct s
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> From: Paul Koning
>
>> Algol 60, that is. It was used as the inspiration by just about
>> everything that followed
>
> I've just remembered that the Algol (probably Algol-60, but the manual
> doesn't say) interpreter used for the programmi
On 8/9/2015 11:22 AM, Sean Caron wrote:
Have you tried Plan 9? It's like a breath of fresh air ... :O
Best,
Sean
But alas almost all the classic machines endup being a IBM 360 or
a PDP-10. I don't think plan 9 was written for them.
Ben.
PS: checks Google to see how much memory PL/I had to co
Have you tried Plan 9? It's like a breath of fresh air ... :O
Best,
Sean
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Noel Chiappa
wrote:
> > From: Eric Christopherson
>
> > people who like to program in languages or language implementations
> or
> > libraries that are no longer in common mai
2015 19:10
> > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> >
> > Subject: Re: Classic programming
> >
> > On 2015-Aug-09, at 10:40 AM, Robert Jarratt wrote:
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015, Douglas Taylor wrote:
I've watched this thread with interest because I am struggling with getting
up to speed using Microsoft Visual C++ version 1.5, which I think was their
first IDE.
??!?
December 1993
1.0 was February 1993
Do you really mean "first Microsoft IDE"??
Howz
> From: Paul Koning
> Algol 60, that is. It was used as the inspiration by just about
> everything that followed
I've just remembered that the Algol (probably Algol-60, but the manual
doesn't say) interpreter used for the programming languages course at MIT was
adapted from the Delphi
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Brent
> Hilpert
> Sent: 09 August 2015 19:10
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: Classic programming
>
> On 2015-Aug-09, at 10:
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul Koning
> Sent: 09 August 2015 19:00
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Classic programming
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 2015, at 1:40
On 2015-Aug-09, at 10:40 AM, Robert Jarratt wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul Koning
>> Sent: 09 August 2015 18:22
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> Subject: Re: Clas
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Robert Jarratt
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul Koning
>> Sent: 09 August 2015 18:22
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Po
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul Koning
> Sent: 09 August 2015 18:22
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Classic programming
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 2015, at 12:47
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Robert Jarratt
> wrote:
>
> ...
> I used to like Algol68, and got to play with an implementation called
> Algol68C on a DECSYSTEM-20 in the late 70s. Occasionally I ask if anyone has
> got the media for it, I still live in hope. I think there are some other
> i
> From: Toby Thain
> Peter Siebel's "Coders at Work" features a chapter/interview with
> Steele:
Ah, thanks for pointing that out; I do have that volume, but I guess I didn't
read Steele's chapter.
> "So I worked seriously on the implementation of Emacs probably for only
> ab
On 8/7/2015 12:18 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote:
Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
I've watched this thread with interest because I am
On 08/09/2015 08:31 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Johnny Billquist
> And one should not forget Algol.
IIRC, Algol is mentioned in the paper I linked to. Of course, Algol's DNA is
in pretty much every procedural language ever created since it was.
It seems everyone has forgotten JO
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul Koning
> Sent: 09 August 2015 16:40
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: Classic programming
>
>
> &g
On 2015-08-09 11:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Eric Christopherson
> people who like to program in languages or language implementations or
> libraries that are no longer in common mainstream use?
I prefer to write code under (effectively) V6 Unix; I find that I can get
thin
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> From: Johnny Billquist
>
>> And one should not forget Algol.
>
> IIRC, Algol is mentioned in the paper I linked to. Of course, Algol's DNA is
> in pretty much every procedural language ever created since it was.
Algol 60, that is. It wa
> From: Johnny Billquist
> And one should not forget Algol.
IIRC, Algol is mentioned in the paper I linked to. Of course, Algol's DNA is
in pretty much every procedural language ever created since it was.
> From: Andy Holt
> (and, for that matter, PL/1 should probably be conside
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> ...
> There was this thing called IVORY which IIRC 'purified' TECO code so that it
> could be dumped out in a compressed form (for faster loading, execution, etc
> - it may have also been possible to have it read-only, and the page(s) shared
> From: Eric Christopherson
> people who like to program in languages or language implementations or
> libraries that are no longer in common mainstream use?
I prefer to write code under (effectively) V6 Unix; I find that I can get
things working and done faster there than in any othe
Probably negative inspiration due to its complexity what to NOT do.
;)
On 8/9/2015 4:39 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote:
>> And one should not forget Algol.
> 60 or 68?
>
> (and, for that matter, PL/1 should probably be considered an unsung
> inspiration for C as it was the implementation language for
> And one should not forget Algol.
60 or 68?
(and, for that matter, PL/1 should probably be considered an unsung
inspiration for C as it was the implementation language for Multics
in which Bell labs was a partner and must have inspired at least
the name for Unix)
On 8/9/2015 1:21 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-08-08 15:14, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Kip Koon
> I have often wondered what the inspiration for the C Language
was. BCPL
> -> MCPL -> B -> c, quite an interesting list of languages.
I don't think MCPL is in there; B was dir
On 2015-08-08 15:14, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Kip Koon
> I have often wondered what the inspiration for the C Language was. BCPL
> -> MCPL -> B -> c, quite an interesting list of languages.
I don't think MCPL is in there; B was directly inspired by BCPL. See Dennis
M. Ritchie,
On 8/8/2015 5:47 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 08/08/2015 12:13 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> I have always felt that the language name is SNOBOL, with multiple
>> versions, kind of like FORTRAN II (which is what the 1410 had),
>> FORTRAN IV, FORTRAN V, etc., but Griswold seems to think otherwise.
>> ;)
August 08, 2015 6:27 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Classic programming
>
> I think I've got a 68HC11 development kit somewhere if you're interested;
> I'll dig for it and contact you privately if I find it.
>
> m
On 08/08/2015 12:13 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
I have always felt that the language name is SNOBOL, with multiple
versions, kind of like FORTRAN II (which is what the 1410 had),
FORTRAN IV, FORTRAN V, etc., but Griswold seems to think otherwise.
;)
I think the test would be "Can language x+1 run, wi
assiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Noel
> Chiappa
>> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 9:15 AM
>> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
>> Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
>> Subject: Re: Classic programming
>>
>> > From: Kip Koon
>>
>> > I have often wondered wh
It was thus said that the Great Sean Caron once stated:
> I love this list, I always learn so many interesting things ... reading the
> article on SynthesisOS now; a few pages in, it sounds like an early attempt
> at building a reflective operating system? Neat. I wonder if the Quamachine
> still e
ailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Noel
Chiappa
> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 9:15 AM
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: Classic programming
>
> > From: Kip Koon
>
> > I have often wondered what the i
Hi Phil,
I checked out your SNOBOL4 page and I just wanted to note for your list of
historical platforms that SNOBOL4 and SPITBOL were also implemented on the
Michigan Terminal System (MTS) on S/360 ... this is actually the
incarnation I've been playing with recently ... along with numerous other
I have always felt that the language name is SNOBOL, with multiple
versions, kind of like FORTRAN II (which is what the 1410 had), FORTRAN
IV, FORTRAN V, etc., but Griswold seems to think otherwise. ;)
>From a CACM article "A history of the SNOBOL programming languages" from
R. E. Griswold, the a
On 08/08/2015 08:44 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
If you like to play with classics like SNOBOL in their original
form, then you can run SNOBOL and SPITBOL under the Hercules IBM
mainframe emulator.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/hercules-390/files/SNOBOL4/
http://www.snobol4.com/spitbol360/
(Thes
On Sat, 8/8/15, Kip Koon wrote:
> I have often wondered what the inspiration for the C Language was. BCPL ->
> MCPL -> B -> c, quite an interesting list of languages.
Kip,
As Noel mentioned, MCPL wasn't part of the evolution; it actually
is pretty recent compared to the other three.
> I had he
If you like to play with classics like SNOBOL in their original form,
then you can run SNOBOL and SPITBOL under the Hercules IBM mainframe
emulator.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/hercules-390/files/SNOBOL4/
http://www.snobol4.com/spitbol360/
(These days I use Perl for the stuff I used to do
> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
> in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
I don't think of it as "retrocomputing" per se, but I maintain a
SNOBOL4 implementation: http://
> From: Kip Koon
> I have often wondered what the inspiration for the C Language was. BCPL
> -> MCPL -> B -> c, quite an interesting list of languages.
I don't think MCPL is in there; B was directly inspired by BCPL. See Dennis
M. Ritchie, "The Development of the C Language":
http
Hi Brian,
I have often wondered what the inspiration for the C Language was. BCPL ->
MCPL -> B -> c, quite an interesting list of languages. I had heard of B,
but not BCPL and MCPL. Are there any write-ups, manuals or articles on
those three languages still around?
I'm currently trying to teac
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 at 18:11:09 -0400, Sean Conner wrote:
>
> But I'm also interested in older software as well. One of my "when I get
> around to it" projects is playing with the Viola web browser [4]. Written
> in the early 90s, it *barely* compiles on a 32-bit Unix system and while it
> ma
+1. This is my philosophy as well. If I can run something besides UNIX on a
machine, I will, and if I can program in something besides C, I will often
like to take the time out to play (although if I'm actually trying to "do"
something, I'll most likely do it in C because I'm most comfortable there
I love this list, I always learn so many interesting things ... reading the
article on SynthesisOS now; a few pages in, it sounds like an early attempt
at building a reflective operating system? Neat. I wonder if the Quamachine
still exists? :O
Best,
Sean
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Sean Co
Yikes, that looks like more "fun" than even MVS JCL ... it'll definitely
help you win an obfuscated programming contest :O The more I play with the
truly older machines (emulations, mostly, to be honest) I have really
gained a new respect for how difficult and time-consuming it must have been
"back
On Aug 7, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Eric Christopherson
wrote:
Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
Well, I wrote a very big program in 199
I am writing this in Celeste, which is the email app in the Squeak
Smalltalk programming language and system. The way you normally use
Smalltalk is to save a snapshot (called an "image file" in Squeak) of
your full working environment and which you can later restore to have
everything back exactly
On Fri, 8/7/15, Eric Christopherson wrote:
> To Brian L. Stuart: What separates MCPL from CPL and BCPL?
> I'm not finding much about it, although it looks like it has the benefit of
> nice pattern matching.
The pattern matching mechanism was, I think, the big thing
he was experimenting with when
> On 8 Aug 2015, at 4:15 am, Paul Koning wrote:
> For other languages: I’ve been maintaining the Cyber1 PLATO system from the
> start of that project, which involves periodic work in TUTOR. And I’m
> working on recovering software for the Electrologica EL-X8 and EL-X1 systems;
> the former wa
It was thus said that the Great Eric Christopherson once stated:
> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
> in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
I am to some degree, although
Sometimes a language doesn't appear to be "mainstream" until you dig
deeper. For example, Forth used in OpenBoot. Heckuva great idea. I
haven't the faintest idea of where OpenBoot stands now.
--Chuck
-
"The first thing we do, let'
I view the language issue along the same lines as the OS (or monitor, or
???) that exists on
the various classic computers. With some notable exceptions, I tend not
to run Unix on my
classic HW but one of the original OS's that the HW was shipped with.
The same goes for
programming languages.
> From: Eric Christopherson
> I should check TECO out some day.
Only if you want to damage your brain. Have you ever _actually looked_ at any
TECO code? If not, try this:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/09/22/worlds-greatest-pathological-l-1/
(It is not without reason that it is
I suppose so ... in the process of building various little
single-board-computers based on historical microprocessors, I end up using
their corresponding assembly languages, some of which are probably no
longer really in commercial use.
Mostly on UNIX I just use C (or Perl, or ...) but on other pl
All the young kids are using Python and PHP these days! :O
Best,
Sean
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:24 PM, David Cooper wrote:
> I program in Perl every day at work. I suppose that puts me in that
> category. :)
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Eric Christopherson
> Sent: Friday, August 07
I program in Perl every day at work. I suppose that puts me in that
category. :)
-Original Message-
From: Eric Christopherson
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:18 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Classic programming
Is there a subset of this group for
From: tony duell
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:31 PM
> Not many languages let you built up what looks like a program in a
> string (using the normal string operators) then turn that string into
> a program (also on the stack) and then execute it.
Tony, have you met my friend TECO? I think you
From: Eric Christopherson
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:09 PM
> ... Fortran and the Lisps
They're playing an all ages, no cover set at Showbox SoDo tomorrow night!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'd pay to go see a band called "Fortran and
the Lisps", whether by value or by name. ;-)
I am not a programmer, but...
> A few years ago I developed quite an interest in PostScript, and
> through it discovered Forth and bits of other stack-based languages.
I love stack-based languages in general (Forth was the first high-level-ish
language I
learnt after BASIC (which in turn I lear
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Eric Christopherson
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rich Alderson
> wrote:
>> From: Eric Christopherson
>> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:18 AM
>>
>>> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
>>> languages or language implem
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Rich Alderson
wrote:
> From: Eric Christopherson
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:18 AM
>
>> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
>> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
>> in common mainstream use? Or o
On 2015-08-07 12:18 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote:
Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
Or perhaps "not yet in common mainstream use"?
On 08/07/2015 11:16 AM, Rich Alderson wrote:
As others have noted, there are a lot of subjective unstateds in
your basic question.
Jerome's post in connection with this put me in mind of a BASIC package
written by an old (I lost track of him a long time ago) friend, Mike
Louder--Prime Factor
From: Eric Christopherson
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:18 AM
> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
> in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
As others have noted, there are
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Eric Christopherson
> wrote:
>
> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
> in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
I suppose a lot of readers of
> Quite recently, I have a requirement to square very large unsigned
> integers up to one billion bits [...]
Are you aware of faster-than-n^2 multiplication algorithms like
Karatsuba, Toom-Cook, or Schönhage-Strassen? If not, you might want to
look into them; if you're working with numbers that l
>Eric Christopherson wrote:
Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
It may be possible that FORTRAN 77 under RT-11 on a
PDP-11 qualifies a
On 08/07/2015 09:18 AM, Eric Christopherson wrote:
Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
languages or language implementations or libraries that are no
longer in common mainstream use?
"Classic" to me is a confusing term. Do you mean languages such as
COMTRAN or 7
On Fri, 8/7/15, Eric Christopherson wrote:
> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
> in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
Funny you should mention that. I just recently wrot
That would be fun, although I don't think this list is setup for
"sub-Reddits." I occasionally hack with my first love, APL. Wouldn't mind
some SNOBOL or PL/1 dalliances, but no time.
Lee C.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Chris Osborn wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Eric Christopherson
>
On Aug 7, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Eric Christopherson
wrote:
> Is there a subset of this group for people who like to program in
> languages or language implementations or libraries that are no longer
> in common mainstream use? Or other groups for such a thing?
I do programming in BASIC twice a year
77 matches
Mail list logo
