On 9/24/2015 2:12 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
> From: Jay Jaeger
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 8:01 AM
>
>> You seem to be supposing that I said one could/would implement ANSI/ISO C
>> on a 1410 in native code
>
> [snip]
>
>> I would not suggest that one would implement ANSI/ISO C on such
On 09/24/2015 12:12 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
Wasn't there? I realize that the 1410 was not code compatible with
the 1401, but the architectures are similar enough that I would
expect them to have similar compilers. I know that the 1401 had a
FORTRAN IV compiler, because that was my first compu
From: Jay Jaeger
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 8:01 AM
> You seem to be supposing that I said one could/would implement ANSI/ISO C
> on a 1410 in native code
[snip]
> I would not suggest that one would implement ANSI/ISO C on such a machine,
> any more than I would expect to implement cur
On 2015-09-24 12:06 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Eric Smith wrote:
And the length of a char? It's required that all types other than
bitfields be fully represented as multiple chars, not e.g. an int
being two and a half chars, and a char has to cover at least the range
0..255, or
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Eric Smith wrote:
And the length of a char? It's required that all types other than
bitfields be fully represented as multiple chars, not e.g. an int
being two and a half chars, and a char has to cover at least the range
0..255, or -128..127, and it has to have a range based
On 9/24/2015 2:04 AM, ben wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 11:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>
> 0-99 can hold a trimmed character set and 10 digits per int.
> 5chars per word sounds right on decimal machine.
> Logic operations would be on the digit rather the binary
> level.
On a 1410 (or 1401) 0-63 can
On 9/24/2015 12:22 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> An int just has to be able to store numbers of a certain magnitude.
>> Same with long. You do have to be able to convert between longs (and
>> possibly ints) and addresses (*). So, you make an int 5
On 2015-09-24 3:04 AM, ben wrote:
On 9/23/2015 11:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) §3.6 ¶1 - a byte has to hold any member of the
basic character set
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) §3.7.1 ¶1 - a character is a C bit representation
that fits in a byte
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) §5.2.4.2.1 ¶1 - the
> Well, there are plenty of word-but-not-byte/character addressable
> machines out there, which makes life interesting for the likes of C.
C is able to support them just fine, though a whole lot of C code isn't
(beacuse it assumes things like "all pointers are the same size", or
even more specific
On 9/23/2015 11:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) §3.6 ¶1 - a byte has to hold any member of the
basic character set
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) §3.7.1 ¶1 - a character is a C bit representation
that fits in a byte
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) §5.2.4.2.1 ¶1 - the size of a char is CHAR_BIT
bits, wh
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
> An int just has to be able to store numbers of a certain magnitude.
> Same with long. You do have to be able to convert between longs (and
> possibly ints) and addresses (*). So, you make an int 5 digits (which
> matches the natural length of
On 09/23/2015 05:54 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
...
The C macro facility barely qualifies as such. PL/I had a wonderful
preprocessor;
That depends on the compiler.
Well, IBM did have a real PL/I compiler (after all, they invented the
stuff)--a
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> ...
> The C macro facility barely qualifies as such. PL/I had a wonderful
> preprocessor;
That depends on the compiler. I remember the PL/C compiler (from Cornell,
running on IBM 370s). In graduate school, we were forced to use it beca
On 09/23/2015 04:29 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
Shades of SIL for SNOBOL and also STAGE2.
The first time I did this was for translating COBOL to a special-purpose
dialect. Not a simple lexical task--it was a full-blown two-pass affair.
The initial test versions of the thing were very, very slow.
On 9/23/2015 6:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/23/2015 02:27 PM, ben wrote:
>
>> The 60's idea that MACROS could do that seems to have faded away.
>> Ben.
>
> It depends. One very handy method is to devise a machine architecture,
> complete with registers and opcodes, and write the applicatio
On 09/23/2015 02:27 PM, ben wrote:
The 60's idea that MACROS could do that seems to have faded away.
Ben.
It depends. One very handy method is to devise a machine architecture,
complete with registers and opcodes, and write the application code in
macros, creating instruction words--and the
On 9/23/2015 4:27 PM, ben wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 2:39 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote:
>>> From: "Chuck Guzis"
>>
>> …
>>> After all, languages are supposed to expose features
>>> of the underlying machine to the programmer.
>>
>> Many believe that the purpose of languages is to HIDE (abstract) the
>> underly
On 9/23/2015 2:39 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote:
From: "Chuck Guzis"
…
After all, languages are supposed to expose features
of the underlying machine to the programmer.
Many believe that the purpose of languages is to HIDE (abstract) the underlying
machine.
The 60's idea that MACROS could do that s
At NCAR there was a structured Fortran preprocessor named IFTRAN that was in
use for a long time. The earlier versions of the NCAR Local Network (NLNET),
later renamed MASnet (Mainframe and Server network), as well as a variety of
graphics packages were written in it. I still have the IFTRAN
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> >> From: Toby Thain
> >
> >> It did exist for some exotic, word addressed architectures
> >
> > {Innocent look}
> >
> > You mean, like the PDP-10?
> >
> > {Ducks!}
> >
> >Noel
>
> St
On 09/23/2015 10:21 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Noel Chiappa
wrote:
From: Toby Thain
It did exist for some exotic, word addressed architectures
{Innocent look}
You mean, like the PDP-10?
{Ducks!}
Noel
Strangest C I saw was on a DPS-8 mainframe running GCOS-8
On Sep 23, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Toby Thain
>
>> It did exist for some exotic, word addressed architectures
>
> {Innocent look}
>
> You mean, like the PDP-10?
>
> {Ducks!}
>
>Noel
Strangest C I saw was on a DPS-8 mainframe running GCOS-8.
Zane
On 9/23/2015 11:17 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
> On 09/23/2015 03:39 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote:
>>> From: "Chuck Guzis"
>> …
>>> After all, languages are supposed to expose features
>>> of the underlying machine to the programmer.
>> Many believe that the purpose of languages is to HIDE (abstract) the
>> unde
On 2015-09-23 12:25 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Toby Thain
> It did exist for some exotic, word addressed architectures
{Innocent look}
You mean, like the PDP-10?
Chris Torek mentioned Data General. Typical post:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/8HosoTwHEBM/BPXX_4yvR
> From: Toby Thain
> It did exist for some exotic, word addressed architectures
{Innocent look}
You mean, like the PDP-10?
{Ducks!}
Noel
On 09/23/2015 01:39 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote:
From: "Chuck Guzis"
…
After all, languages are supposed to expose features of the
underlying machine to the programmer.
Many believe that the purpose of languages is to HIDE (abstract) the
underlying machine.
And I take your point. At least on sup
On 09/22/2015 08:49 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/22/2015 06:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken
started
thinking about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took
off in a
different direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORTRAN
was a really
old language,
On 09/23/2015 03:39 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote:
From: "Chuck Guzis"
…
After all, languages are supposed to expose features
of the underlying machine to the programmer.
Many believe that the purpose of languages is to HIDE (abstract) the underlying
machine.
Well, as far as I know, the 1401 series do
> As far as I can remember, the C standard still do not require that
> the computer uses two complement.
No, but unsigned integer types have to work as if it did. Signed
integer types may use two's complement, one's complement, or even
sign/magnitude, but nothing else; for example, implementing s
On 2015-09-23 16:43, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 23, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
On 9/23/2015 9:10 AM, Mouse wrote:
I am 100% certain, for example, that it would be possible to come up
with a C compiler for a 40K IBM 1410, which is in the set you
describe.
Possible? Sure. But it w
On 2015-09-22 10:25 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/22/2015 07:11 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
There is a big difference between "can run" and "does run". I'd
wager that C *can* run on anything one could use for any reasonably
useful FORTRAN (thus excluding things like the IBM 1410 card oriented
FORTRAN
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>
> On 9/23/2015 9:10 AM, Mouse wrote:
>>> I am 100% certain, for example, that it would be possible to come up
>>> with a C compiler for a 40K IBM 1410, which is in the set you
>>> describe.
>>
>> Possible? Sure. But it would be difficult; yo
On 2015-09-23 16:30, Jay Jaeger wrote:
It might not be ANSI C (any more than FORTRAN II is FORTRAN IV or BDS C
was ANSI C), but one could certainly come up with a decent, useful C for
such a machine.
Can we skip this thread. It seems you are arguing the point that any
machine can behave like a
On 9/23/2015 9:10 AM, Mouse wrote:
>> I am 100% certain, for example, that it would be possible to come up
>> with a C compiler for a 40K IBM 1410, which is in the set you
>> describe.
>
> Possible? Sure. But it would be difficult; you would need to simulate
> a binary machine - C has a whole bu
> I am 100% certain, for example, that it would be possible to come up
> with a C compiler for a 40K IBM 1410, which is in the set you
> describe.
Possible? Sure. But it would be difficult; you would need to simulate
a binary machine - C has a whole bunch of stuff that is defined to
operate "as
On 9/23/2015 1:23 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 09:06 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>
>> That is just because they are so old that, aside from collectors or
>> those interested in a particular old machine, nobody ever *bothered*.
>> By the time C came along, those machines were well on their way
> From: "Chuck Guzis"
…
> After all, languages are supposed to expose features
> of the underlying machine to the programmer.
Many believe that the purpose of languages is to HIDE (abstract) the underlying
machine.
On 09/22/2015 09:06 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
That is just because they are so old that, aside from collectors or
those interested in a particular old machine, nobody ever *bothered*.
By the time C came along, those machines were well on their way to their
eventual demise.
I am 100% certain, for ex
I agree; AFAIK I was never aware of any link between Fortran and early C
... although if you squint at Ratfor just the right way it looks at times a
little bit like K&R without C-style function declarations and calling
semantics and some of the other frosting... I could see this being the root
of t
On 9/22/2015 11:22 PM, ben wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 10:08 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> On 9/22/2015 10:44 PM, ben wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/22/2015 7:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>>>
So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken started thinking
about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in
On 9/22/2015 10:08 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
On 9/22/2015 10:44 PM, ben wrote:
On 9/22/2015 7:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken started thinking
about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in a different
direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORT
On 9/22/2015 10:44 PM, ben wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 7:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>
>> So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken started thinking
>> about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in a different
>> direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORTRAN was a really old
>> language
On 9/22/2015 9:25 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 07:11 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>
> We've been here before and I don't care to chew already masticated cud.
> Suffice it to say, that I've never seen a C for a non-binary,
> variable-word-length machine using 6-bit characters. I've seen plenty
On 9/22/2015 7:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken started thinking
about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in a different
direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORTRAN was a really old
language, and considered way out of date by most universi
On 09/22/2015 07:11 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
There is a big difference between "can run" and "does run". I'd
wager that C *can* run on anything one could use for any reasonably
useful FORTRAN (thus excluding things like the IBM 1410 card oriented
FORTRAN compiler, though I am aware of an effort to
On 9/22/2015 8:49 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 06:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>
>> So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken started
>> thinking about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in a
>> different direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORTRAN was a really
>> old
On 09/22/2015 06:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken started
thinking about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in a
different direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORTRAN was a really
old language, and considered way out of date by most univer
On 09/22/2015 03:49 PM, Diane Bruce wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:35:24PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
And Unix was no different, 'C' started out as a Fortran compiler.
Really? "citation needed".
http://www.princeton.edu/~hos/Mahoney/expotape.htm
OK, Paul needed to read more closely. (Th
On 09/22/2015 03:35 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Diane Bruce wrote:
...
But back in the 60's, every manufacturer had its own variety of FORTRAN,
including (IIRC), UNIVAC's own "FORTRAN V".
Ah, yes. I remember WatFor
And Unix was no different, 'C' started out as a For
On 09/22/2015 01:27 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
I mixed up 77 and 90. Although I was assigned to TEACH F77 in the
early 1980s, I was no longer using FORTRAN. WHAT?? You can input
and output without FORMAT??!?
You'd probably enjoy F90 even less.
--Chuck
On 09/22/2015 01:22 PM, ben wrote:
On 9/22/2015 1:49 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I can't think of OS's off hand but CP/M and Flex. Mr Gates Basic does
not count as OS.
There were many others. In particular, I did a lot of work on DX-85M.
True, but the Cross Assembler still would be FORTRAN. Th
On 09/22/2015 01:35 PM, Rick Bensene wrote:
There were no index registers on this machine, only a single
accumulator register (implemented as a shift-register).
Not that uncommon, really. It was only Model II of the 1620 that had
index registers; the CADET didn't. No accumulator either--just
Reading the two referenced links leads me to a different conclusion:
FORTRAN would not do the job at all, so he started from scratch - almost
immediately.
"Anyway, it took him about a day to realize that he didn't want to do a
Fortran compiler at all. So he did this very simple language called B
a
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:35:24PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Diane Bruce wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >>> But back in the 60's, every manufacturer had its own variety of FORTRAN,
> >>> including (IIRC), UNIVAC's own "FORTRAN V".
> >> Ah, yes. I remember WatFor
> >
On 9/22/2015 2:22 PM, Diane Bruce wrote:
And Unix was no different, 'C' started out as a Fortran compiler.
And where do get said Knowledge?
Ben.
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Diane Bruce wrote:
>
>> ...
>>> But back in the 60's, every manufacturer had its own variety of FORTRAN,
>>> including (IIRC), UNIVAC's own "FORTRAN V".
>> Ah, yes. I remember WatFor
>
> And Unix was no different, 'C' started out as a Fortran compiler.
Really?
Chuck wrote:
>
> For those wondering about the notion of an "optimizing" assembler, one
> has to realize that 650 instructions were executed from a drum and were of
> the "1+1" addressing type. Calculating the optimal address of the next
> instruction was very tedious and a perfect task for autom
Wouldn't an F77 programmer be looking for Fortran, not FORTRAN?
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
It could be that "Fortran" was in common use, but I think not officially
adopted and sanctified by X3J3 until F90. I'd have to go reading through the
standards to figure it out--right now,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:07:14PM -0700, Fred Cisin wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> > what an F77 programmer might recognize as FORTRAN.
>
> Wouldn't an F77 programmer be looking for Fortran, not FORTRAN?
>
> > But back in the 60's, every manufacturer had its own variety of FO
On 9/22/2015 1:49 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/22/2015 12:36 PM, ben wrote:
PL/M in FORTRAN made CP/M possible.
That to me seems more important than Pascal in Fortran.
I think that's an overstatement. There were plenty of 8-bit OS-es
written in assembly. That Gary did the first version of C
On 09/22/2015 01:07 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
what an F77 programmer might recognize as FORTRAN.
Wouldn't an F77 programmer be looking for Fortran, not FORTRAN?
It could be that "Fortran" was in common use, but I think not officially
adopted and sanctifi
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
what an F77 programmer might recognize as FORTRAN.
Wouldn't an F77 programmer be looking for Fortran, not FORTRAN?
But back in the 60's, every manufacturer had its own variety of FORTRAN,
including (IIRC), UNIVAC's own "FORTRAN V".
Ah, yes. I remember
On 09/22/2015 12:36 PM, ben wrote:
PL/M in FORTRAN made CP/M possible.
That to me seems more important than Pascal in Fortran.
I think that's an overstatement. There were plenty of 8-bit OS-es
written in assembly. That Gary did the first version of CP/M using PL/M
was more a matter of conv
On 9/22/2015 12:11 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
National's assembler for Programmable Array Logic (PAL) chips, I
believe, was distributed as a FORTRAN product. Several microprocessor
cross-assemblers were likewise offered by their manufacturers.
PL/M in FORTRAN made CP/M possible.
That to me seems
On 09/21/2015 11:37 PM, Dave Wade wrote:
If you wanted portability then Fortran or Cobol were pretty much all
you had. Whilst there may have been C compilers you probably didn't
have one, certainly in the world of commerce. Which is why our X.25
code was in Fortran..
There's always PRIMOS, the
If you wanted portability then Fortran or Cobol were pretty much all you
had. Whilst there may have been C compilers you probably didn't have one,
certainly in the world of commerce. Which is why our X.25 code was in
Fortran..
On Sep 22, 2015 1:41 AM, "Toby Thain" wrote:
> On 2015-09-21 5:58 PM,
On 2015-09-21 5:58 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 21, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/21/2015 01:37 PM, Dave G4UGM wrote:
I wrote X.25 software in Fortran:-(. We had some machine specific
routines to allow the Fortran code to wait for a packet to arrive.
There was also a huge vect
67 matches
Mail list logo
