Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #3564 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 330 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:13 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 15:50 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 20:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 18:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 12:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 11:27 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 17:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 18:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 12:25 -0700
Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 09:43 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 12:35 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-14 08:32 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-14 07:10 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 09:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse arc@vorsicht-bissig.de - 2011-07-12 22:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 03:02 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-27 21:29 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 06:55 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 06:17 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 16:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-01 13:41 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:26 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:56 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-02 08:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 17:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-03 10:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 20:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 15:45 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 16:19 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 01:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:44 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 19:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 10:39 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:42 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 10:32 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse marko <marko@marko.marko.marko> - 2011-07-07 22:09 +1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:19 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 10:33 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-08 05:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 17:47 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-07-08 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-08 15:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:04 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 15:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 22:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 03:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-12 19:42 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-12 14:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 07:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 07:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-11 20:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 21:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-12 18:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 20:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-13 00:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 19:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-07-11 13:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-07-12 21:51 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-09 16:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 04:27 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 11:57 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 21:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 18:22 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-01 12:59 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 00:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-01 22:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-08 20:44 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-31 10:25 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-08 16:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-10 07:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-10 18:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 03:05 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 07:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-11 10:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:32 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-11 10:06 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 11:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-12 18:49 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 12:52 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 12:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 15:09 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 04:52 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 03:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 12:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-15 20:51 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 21:56 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 19:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-18 11:38 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-18 07:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 06:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-16 05:10 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 06:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 17:14 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 00:29 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 00:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 01:04 -0700
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 16:12 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-21 13:21 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 10:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:56 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:33 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 12:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:15 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-24 00:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-21 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-22 10:36 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 22:57 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-22 23:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 04:16 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 08:29 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 14:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-24 03:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 16:54 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 11:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 17:11 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 12:27 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 13:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 20:30 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-22 01:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 17:02 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 07:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 01:03 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 22:38 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.delete-me.de> - 2011-08-24 11:12 +0000
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 15:10 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 00:09 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 13:09 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:41 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 17:58 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-24 00:25 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-24 07:17 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-19 17:41 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-19 18:05 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-19 13:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-19 13:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 15:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 19:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 17:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-20 03:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-20 15:20 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-21 14:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:47 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-08-22 20:30 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 23:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 22:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-23 15:44 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-23 21:43 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-08-20 08:55 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 10:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:03 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-14 07:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-12 09:51 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 13:45 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 08:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 02:56 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-13 04:35 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:13 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-13 13:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-14 14:46 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-17 01:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 03:24 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-28 19:55 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 06:30 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 13:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 14:02 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-29 15:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 19:45 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 22:08 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 10:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-06-30 20:44 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 18:08 -0400
Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 20:07 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 22:12 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 17:59 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:37 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-01 06:07 -0500
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:00 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-01 14:06 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 14:57 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 16:55 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:04 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-02 22:10 +0200
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 14:36 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:36 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:25 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-03 10:53 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 23:41 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-02 22:46 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-07-18 01:25 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 14:44 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 23:24 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-03 12:04 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-03 20:24 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 02:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-04 16:02 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 10:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 12:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 15:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-04 13:23 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 11:34 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 05:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 14:28 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:39 -0700
OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 15:36 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:17 -0500
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:53 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-08 17:11 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 12:41 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:34 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-10 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-10 13:06 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-07 00:11 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-06 12:47 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 10:07 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 12:40 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 15:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 10:16 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:23 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 09:54 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 22:33 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 16:28 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 16:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-04 15:03 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 00:20 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-05 11:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:46 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-05 23:13 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 19:21 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-05 14:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-06 07:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:46 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-07 09:12 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-06 21:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-07 14:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 20:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-08 04:39 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 23:22 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-12 19:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 23:37 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-12 05:10 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-12 03:44 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-13 22:06 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 04:01 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-03 07:34 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 13:25 -0400
Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 18:27 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 17:50 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 22:45 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-30 11:42 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 13:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 08:38 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 18:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 12:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-06-30 08:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-03 15:22 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:31 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-29 23:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-01 09:42 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-01 18:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-06-29 15:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Fuschia, President-Elect of the Bright Purplish-Green Council" <fp-eotbp-gc@ibm.com> - 2011-06-29 19:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-06-30 00:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 13:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: full virtualization |
| Message-ID | <6tKdnaCOYfeAZYjTnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3859 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > BTW, why was there demand for virtualization in Intel/AMD > eventually? The thing I heard is that the conventional wisdom is to > run only one application/server on Windows or it becomes unstable. That doesn't explain the preference for virtualization on real OSs. There it's more to do with the ability to run on the cloud, to move servers across hardware, to isolate them from each other for security reasons, ease of management, and so on. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 04:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: full virtualization |
| Message-ID | <30c64215-347d-4123-a444-347591a88b01@34g2000yqr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3862 |
On Jul 7, 7:17 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Anton Ertl <an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > > BTW, why was there demand for virtualization in Intel/AMD > > eventually? The thing I heard is that the conventional wisdom is to > > run only one application/server on Windows or it becomes unstable. A bit of an old wives tale. The main reason was to do with the way these systems were acquired on departmental budgets where sharing was anathema. Even networks were sometimes purchased on a no sharing basis, but it's been some time since I saw that. Compute is going through that change right now, because economic realities demand it, not because end-users actually want it. Largely, they still prefer their own tin running their own isolated app. Shall we let 'em eat cake? No, because it's just to damn expensive. Next up; data. There's still an obsession with directly attached storage on servers, even fully virtualised ones; and it doesn't sit well with VM mobility (see below) where data sharing is a big requirement. There are a few data motion issues to overcome too, but they're being worked on. > > That doesn't explain the preference for virtualization on real OSs. > There it's more to do with the ability to run on the cloud, to move > servers across hardware, to isolate them from each other for security > reasons, ease of management, and so on. > > Andrew. The biggie here is what cloud types refer to as "elasticity". Basically, the ability to run up and down VMs based on demand, and to suspend, move and restart VM images either on the same machine or elsewhere. Paravirtual VM support is the new OS in a sense, and is more application centric; given that we can add and virtualise just about any layer in the stack, it becomes much more effective to suspend/move/resume just the application rather than the entire OS. See VMware's SpringSource for an example. (An aside. I invented cloud computing in the early 1980s. Yes, VM/CMS based running APL applications on a mainframe. Suspend to tape, send the tape to another site, resume the processing. OK, it's not quite as slick as it is now, but I think I should get some royalties, no?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 17:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: full virtualization |
| Message-ID | <2011Jul8.191119@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #3862 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, why was there demand for virtualization in Intel/AMD
>> eventually? The thing I heard is that the conventional wisdom is to
>> run only one application/server on Windows or it becomes unstable.
>
>That doesn't explain the preference for virtualization on real OSs.
Maybe, but it's what someone from VMWare told me (IIRC at the VEE 2006
conference), so I guess it's the most important reason for using
VMWare, at least at the start. I guess that once the technology was
there, it was also used for other things where running several servers
on one OS had been good enough until then.
>There it's more to do with the ability [...]
>to isolate them from each other for security
>reasons, ease of management, and so on.
Sounds to me like the Hypervisor is better than real OSs at some of
the things that OSs are supposed to provide. Well, why not?
To become a little more on-topic: I find it interesting the full
virtualization is described as a great feat here, because
virtualization is totally contrary to the philosophy of Chuck Moore
(also called the Forth philosophy): It adds another layer of software
to make it possible to reuse existing software without change (in the
case of the System 360 OSs) and to make up for deficiencies of
existing software (such as the stability problems of Windows and the
security and management problems of real OSs).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 12:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: full virtualization |
| Message-ID | <94988237-06fa-4fd7-af65-5d9eea9d2ae1@a11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3892 |
On Jul 8, 6:11 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > >Anton Ertl <an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > >> BTW, why was there demand for virtualization in Intel/AMD > >> eventually? The thing I heard is that the conventional wisdom is to > >> run only one application/server on Windows or it becomes unstable. > > >That doesn't explain the preference for virtualization on real OSs. > > Maybe, but it's what someone from VMWare told me (IIRC at the VEE 2006 > conference), so I guess it's the most important reason for using > VMWare, at least at the start. I guess that once the technology was > there, it was also used for other things where running several servers > on one OS had been good enough until then. It was relatively important, but it wasn't the main driver even back then, although it was the party line. The desire was to release the OS from the hardware entirely, to the point of moving OSes (and apps) between servers while they continued running, and to redefine the VM as an application rather than OS substrate. In my not so humble opinion, it was one of the reasons Green & Rosenblum got their marching orders in 2008; there was more than a degree of intransigence on this very point. > > >There it's more to do with the ability [...] > >to isolate them from each other for security > >reasons, ease of management, and so on. > > Sounds to me like the Hypervisor is better than real OSs at some of > the things that OSs are supposed to provide. Well, why not? > > To become a little more on-topic: I find it interesting the full > virtualization is described as a great feat here, because > virtualization is totally contrary to the philosophy of Chuck Moore > (also called the Forth philosophy): It adds another layer of software > to make it possible to reuse existing software without change (in the > case of the System 360 OSs) and to make up for deficiencies of > existing software (such as the stability problems of Windows and the > security and management problems of real OSs). I'd disagree, since virtualization is simply pushing into the hardware & software layer the same (often minimal) functionality that an OS HAL provides. An ADD instruction in a VM remains an ADD on the iron, and with MMU advances that you note, even simpler OSes than we currently have can be supported efficiently (and uniformly). Even OSes without schedulers, since the hypervisor can do that. Perhaps even no OS at all, until the hypervisor looks like YAOS (Yet Another OS) but with features that current OSes don't support. > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs:http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard:http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2011:http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 04:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) |
| Message-ID | <cc7d8d5c-c77a-4796-9bd7-3671484f6bdf@hi9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3859 |
On Jul 7, 4:36 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > >I'd also add in full > >virtualization capability, Popek/Goldberg complete, and here I'm > >thinking of VM/CP and CP-40 etc, and ok, it needed a 360/67 or better; > >but the significance of this can't IMHO be understated. It took others > >until, what, 2000 and onwards to accomplish this; Intel didn't "get > >it" until 2005. > > Sure it can be understated: Saying that it has no significance would > be an understatement, but not by much. Oh, now, that's fighting talk, Ertl... Duel at dawn. > > The usefulness of full virtualization on the later IBM 370s has to do with > the software (especially OS) environment that the 370 inherited from > the 360, and that was enriched with additional OSs that supported the > new features; it also has to do with the I/O architecture of the 360. > > Full virtualization is much less useful in other environments, so the > hardware support for that was not implemented for a long time. I > remember a comp.arch discussion (from long ago) where someone asked > why Intel Processors did not have support for full virtualization, and > an Intel architect answered that there was not enough customer demand > for it, and gave reasons why. It must have been a long time ago indeed, since virtualization (or virtualisation, pick your spelling poison of choice) is a primary requirement now; there's no question that the demand is there. > > Still, eventually there was customer demand for these kinds of virtual > machines, and VMware implemented full virtualization without hardware > support through binary translation. Then Intel and AMD added the > missing bits, so the binary translation solution is no longer > necessary. > > However, in the environment on the Intel/AMD-based machines, even with > hardware support full virtualization is relatively slow: e.g., I/O > works through multiple instructions storing to memory-mapped I/O or > I/O ports; the hypervisor has to interpret that and translate it to > the corresponding commands on the actual hardware (doing any other > translation it needs to do). > > Therefore, paravirtualization is preferred: The guest OS knows it is > being run in a virtual machine environment and communicates directly > with the hypervisor, asking it in a higher-level way to, e.g., do I/O. > Paravirtualization does not need the hardware support needed for full > virtualization. Paravirtualisation is becoming increasingly popular; and changing too, in that there is extensive work to provide VMs that are not just a mimic of the physical hardware, but include things that might be considered at a layer at or even several layers above a simple VM HAL. For instance, VM support for applications directly; a "SAL" perhaps (software abstraction layer). The end effect is to build another OS that multi-tasks/-programs but provide some new features absent from existing OSes (I'll explain in reply to Andrew's post). > > There are some other features that are useful for having decent > performance when running a lot of guest OSs that are being added by > Intel and AMD that are more significant, in particular MMU > enhancements. > > So, while full hardware virtualization is a cute idea and was useful > on the IBM 370 etc., does it have any wider significance? Not really. > It's just one thing among many that may help in implementing > virtualization, which is also a cute idea whose usefulness varied over > time. Hmmmm... I'm now getting a distinct feeling that the IBM mainframe is your least favourite platform. It's certainly the first time I've heard VM/CMS described as cute. > > BTW, why was there demand for virtualization in Intel/AMD eventually? > The thing I heard is that the conventional wisdom is to run only one > application/server on Windows or it becomes unstable. So companies > had a lot of mostly idle machines around, each running one server: > mail server, web server, SAP server, database server, ... They wanted > to consolidate these on one machine, and VMware gave them a solution > for that: run all the Windowses under VMware on one machine. ISPs > hosting (Linux or Windows) servers for several different customers on > one machine are another market. Answered in reply to Andrew. > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs:http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard:http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2011:http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 16:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) |
| Message-ID | <2011Jul10.180335@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #3885 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>On Jul 7, 4:36=A0pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> Full virtualization is much less useful in other environments, so the
>> hardware support for that was not implemented for a long time. =A0I
>> remember a comp.arch discussion (from long ago) where someone asked
>> why Intel Processors did not have support for full virtualization, and
>> an Intel architect answered that there was not enough customer demand
>> for it, and gave reasons why.
>
>It must have been a long time ago indeed, since virtualization (or
>virtualisation, pick your spelling poison of choice) is a primary
>requirement now; there's no question that the demand is there.
It was several years before AMD and Intel added the hardware feature
that is necessary to run an unaware OS without workarounds like binary
translation. As for the primary requirement, I explained why I think
that this hardware feature is not that important, but maybe I did not
come across, so here's a compact summary:
1) For performance we need paravirtualization, so the guest OS is
aware anyway that it is being run virtualized.
2) Other hardware features (like MMU enhancements) are also important,
maybe more important (a few years after the introduction of the
feature above I heard some presentation where someone said that in the
near future AMD and Intel would add hardware support for
virtualisation; he was obviously thinking of some other feature than
the one mentioned above).
>> So, while full hardware virtualization is a cute idea and was useful
>> on the IBM 370 etc., does it have any wider significance? =A0Not really.
>> It's just one thing among many that may help in implementing
>> virtualization, which is also a cute idea whose usefulness varied over
>> time.
>
>Hmmmm... I'm now getting a distinct feeling that the IBM mainframe is
>your least favourite platform. It's certainly the first time I've
>heard VM/CMS described as cute.
I was actually referring to the hardware feature that was present in
IBM 370 after 1972, but not in Intel/AMD CPUs until 2005 or so. It
occured in the "Introduction to Computer Science" course I took. Why?
Because it was so significant? I don't think so; if it had been
significant, it would not have been limited to one hardware platform
for more than 30 years. So it occured in the course because it's a
cute (or, if you prefer, "neat") idea.
Concerning IBM mainframes, I have no experience with them, so no
reason to consider them my least favourite platform.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 13:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) |
| Message-ID | <3c6c24d9-c87c-4290-b695-43d3b0adf144@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3941 |
On Jul 10, 5:03 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > >On Jul 7, 4:36=A0pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > >wrote: > >> Full virtualization is much less useful in other environments, so the > >> hardware support for that was not implemented for a long time. =A0I > >> remember a comp.arch discussion (from long ago) where someone asked > >> why Intel Processors did not have support for full virtualization, and > >> an Intel architect answered that there was not enough customer demand > >> for it, and gave reasons why. > > >It must have been a long time ago indeed, since virtualization (or > >virtualisation, pick your spelling poison of choice) is a primary > >requirement now; there's no question that the demand is there. > > It was several years before AMD and Intel added the hardware feature > that is necessary to run an unaware OS without workarounds like binary > translation. As for the primary requirement, I explained why I think > that this hardware feature is not that important, but maybe I did not > come across, so here's a compact summary: > > 1) For performance we need paravirtualization, so the guest OS is > aware anyway that it is being run virtualized. That is where the extensions will be. Paravirtualization is just a fancy word for the functions we would normally associate with an OS running on bare metal. Except that the VM "bare metal" is now much smarter then the real bare metal. > > 2) Other hardware features (like MMU enhancements) are also important, > maybe more important (a few years after the introduction of the > feature above I heard some presentation where someone said that in the > near future AMD and Intel would add hardware support for > virtualisation; he was obviously thinking of some other feature than > the one mentioned above). Personal opinion; The hypervisor is disappearing into the silicon. And OSes are destined to get thin. Very thin indeed. > > >> So, while full hardware virtualization is a cute idea and was useful > >> on the IBM 370 etc., does it have any wider significance? =A0Not really. > >> It's just one thing among many that may help in implementing > >> virtualization, which is also a cute idea whose usefulness varied over > >> time. > > >Hmmmm... I'm now getting a distinct feeling that the IBM mainframe is > >your least favourite platform. It's certainly the first time I've > >heard VM/CMS described as cute. > > I was actually referring to the hardware feature that was present in > IBM 370 after 1972, but not in Intel/AMD CPUs until 2005 or so. It > occured in the "Introduction to Computer Science" course I took. Why? > Because it was so significant? I don't think so; if it had been > significant, it would not have been limited to one hardware platform > for more than 30 years. So it occured in the course because it's a > cute (or, if you prefer, "neat") idea. > Software has been described using a number of adjectives, most of them unrepeatable here. I think you took me too seriously over the word "cute". I found your description, for want of a better word, cute. A smiley is in order ;-) > Concerning IBM mainframes, I have no experience with them, so no > reason to consider them my least favourite platform. > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs:http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard:http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2011:http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 00:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <283d1b6e0f8b23931780cf040e28481c@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #3809 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: I'm not seeing Alex's posts because of my googlegroups filtering. No offense intended to you, Alex. > In the Stretch, 8-bit bytes were just one possible byte size among > several (1 to 8 bits); it's unclear from the Wikipedia page how > addressing worked in the Stretch, but given the varying byte sizes, it > is unlikely to have had byte-addressed memory. I don't think that is correct, but I don't know for sure. If you ask on comp.lang.misc or comp.lang.pl1 there are some guys who do know though. > So byte-addressed memory appears to habe originated with the IBM 360 > (see also the thread in comp.arch). > > One trait that has not taken over the world is big-endian byte order. Depends how you count it. RISC is also big endian. Nevertheless, big endian is the sensible approach from a programmer's view. What's the point of having to read registers one way and storage the other? That's just stupid. If they would have been true little-endian everywhere then at least it would make sense. As it is, it's a bad implementation. Big endian makes sense, doesn't get in your way, and has been working longer than little endian so how popular it is really doesn't matter. How right it is does. > One trait it shares with even more modern machines than byte > addressability is 2's-complement arithmetic. > > >I'll repeat; the 360 was the most significant computing architecture > >ever introduced. > > By what measure of significance? By market share, certainly. By longevity. By profitability. By almost every metric. A better question is what hasn't been influenced by it. Just because Intel did things to not be like IBM doesn't mean anything except that Intel made a lot of stupid decisions that haunt them to this day. > Sure, in the two aspects mentioned above it's the first modern > machine, so we can say that all the world's an IBM 360. But somehow > the saying (or complaint) is "All the world's a VAX". No, because the VAX is dead. DEC is dead. The hardware and software are gone, and only a handful of sites are using anything related to them in production (just a few PDP 11's are left along with a commercial emulator). Countless microprocessor designs are dead. They all came later than IBM and IBM machines based on the original architecture are still running the world almost 50 years later. That's pretty conclusive. It's a rare example of something that is fundamentally correct and elegant and was also marketed well. Usually you have only one of those things (Windows, Linux, UNIX). example.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 12:47 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <yfSdna9tGf56eInTnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3841 |
On 7/6/11 12:11 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: ... >> >> One trait that has not taken over the world is big-endian byte order. > > Depends how you count it. RISC is also big endian. Nevertheless, big endian > is the sensible approach from a programmer's view. What's the point of > having to read registers one way and storage the other? That's just > stupid. If they would have been true little-endian everywhere then at least > it would make sense. As it is, it's a bad implementation. Big endian makes > sense, doesn't get in your way, and has been working longer than little > endian so how popular it is really doesn't matter. How right it is does. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that assessment: yet another example of technical superiority not being sufficient to triumph in the marketplace. Little-endianness maintains its dominance because of Intel and the dominance of the x86 via (primarily) PCs. Market power comes from many things, of which technical excellence is often a minor component. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 10:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Jul7.120741@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #3841 |
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
>> One trait that has not taken over the world is big-endian byte order.
>
>Depends how you count it. RISC is also big endian.
Berkeley RISC? Maybe, but it's irrelevant. Or do you mean RISC CPUs
in general? They tend to be able to work in both byte orders; some of
them are usually big-endian (SPARC, PowerPC), some usually
little-endian (ARM, Alpha), some are used in both directions in
significant numbers (MIPS).
> Nevertheless, big endian
>is the sensible approach from a programmer's view.
As a programmer, I find little-endian more sensible.
There's a reason why the names "big-endian" and "little-endian" were
chosen.
>> By what measure of significance?
>
>By market share, certainly.
Evidence?
>By longevity.
By that metric, Jeanne Calment is the most significant human.
> By profitability.
Evidence? And that metric may be significant to accountants, but why
would it make it significant in c.l.f?
>> Sure, in the two aspects mentioned above it's the first modern
>> machine, so we can say that all the world's an IBM 360. But somehow
>> the saying (or complaint) is "All the world's a VAX".
>
>No, because the VAX is dead.
And yet, the saying has survived to this day. Probably because many
more people have programmed a VAX than an IBM 360.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b69c89c2-5087-4f65-8efc-283eb9d2d53b@u30g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3787 |
On Jul 4, 6:01 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 8:31 pm, Tarkin <tarkin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 4, 2:13 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 4, 6:21 pm, Tarkin <tarkin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 4, 10:02 am, Fritz Wuehler > > > > > <fr...@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > [some snipped] > > > > > > > > the IBM environment it is simply impossible, not *only* because of the > > > > > mappings and interface, but because of other issues that simply don't exist > > > > > on other architectures. No other language available on IBM systems can > > > > > support the requirements. > > > > > This is a deliberate architectural design decision. > > > > Evidence please. > > > Evidence to the contrary, please. > > No, you made the statement. Support it with evidence. > All right, I'll retract my statement, and resubmit it as opinion, one distilled from years of following alt.folklore.computers, and absorbing the dubious practices of mainframe/minicomputer manufacturers of the the era- not limited to IBM, FWIW > [more snippage] > > > > > > > > > That's a boatload of opinion you have there. Is there any scientific > > > > work being > > > > done with MVS/zSystem? When DARPA farmed out development of > > > > ARPANet, where were zSys/MVS? And, of course, what about one of > > > > Forth's earliest applications, Radio Telescope Astronomy? What did > > > > Lorenz discover his strange attractor on? Can zSys/MVS sequence > > > > the human, or, for that matter, _any_ genome? > > > > > I opine that you have a tremendous amount of worship for what > > > > is essentially an overgrown Data Processing System, a kind of > > > > Incredible Hulk of a spreadsheet/database/timesharing system. > > > > Spreadsheets? Do you even know what you're talking about? > > > I mismatched metaphors there, perhaps. > > An overgrown spreadsheet. > > I am curious as to why you decline to opine on any appearances of > > MVS / zSys at places / times of notable innovation and > > paradigm-shifting discovery. > > I see you're impressed by whizz-bangs. The 360 was the most > significant computing architecture ever introduced. In no particular > order; > > . The 8-bit byte, with byte-addressable memory and 32-bit words > . First commercial microcoded CPU > . Floating point; the IEEE 754-1985 floating-point standard took 20 > years to arrive > . Paging, virtual memory, segmentation, instruction pipelining, memory > protection, unburstable security... > And sentiment is mirrored by least one person who worked with that system at it's inception. > A z series can stay on its feet for years, with no downtime while > major components are replaced or upgraded. It was VM ready from day 1; > something most computers couldn't claim. The Intel line of x86 chips > couldn't do VMs until 1985, and only then very badly. Solaris couldn't > do VMs until 2004. > See above; the virtualization was strong with that one. > The IBM 360/370/390/z series been at the heart of computing for 5 > decades, and ahead of the pack for most of that time. > > > > > > > > > Quaterly reports of sales of the McFlurry do not interest me. > > > > Please, enlighten me with something tremendous- control > > > > systems at CERN, digital imaging of the surface of Mars, > > > > adaptive learning networks....anything of real value to humanity? > > > > Your bank account. Boring, yes, but of real value if you have one. Or > > > work on nuclear power simulations. Boring, yes, but of real value if > > > you happen to own one. Or large scale weather simulations. Is there > > > weather where you are? One of the real strengths of an IBM mainframe > > > system is the amount of data it can move around. Cray systems were > > > often fed IO by IBM mainframes; they were the only processors that > > > could keep up. > > > Towards the end there, you expose what I consider what a mainframe's > > strength is: I/O. So, it seems there is something that we can agree > > upon. > > Nuclear simulations? A quick search turns up US D.o.E. / ANL, so, > > I'll eat crow on that one. > > > But let's look at performance: > > (http://www.ne.anl.gov/codes/mc2-2/) > > "A 1740-group consistent P1 homogeneous twelve-isotope problem with 27 > > broad groups requires about 6.5 minutes of CPU time on an IBM 370/195. > > The same problem requires approximately 30% less time on the CDC 7600 > > and approximately 50% less time on the RS6000 and the SS20 SUN > > systems." > > > Hehe. > > 370/195? CDC 7600? That's ancient history. The 1970s; before you were > even a twinkle in your daddy's eye. I am slighty older than you think. I was born in the seventies, know how to read an analog clock, and remember 45rpm records and reel-to-reels. So, now that we are over how old or young I am, isn't it fair to say that a comparably aged system beat the IBM system by 30%? But I thought IBM's solutions were superior in every way.... > > You want to model atomic particles and nuclear forces? Ok, use > > an IBM solution. You want to manipulate those forces...check > > out what CERN is using.... > > > Yes, there is weather where I am. Any source for statitistics > > regarding > > accurate predictions? I'm prepared to pleasantly surprised, but my gut > > tells me they wouldn't be much better than the Farmer's Almanac. > > Now that's remarkably silly, since I suspect what you know about > weather modelling consists of deciding to wear a coat when it rains. > Again, you'd be flat wrong. I attended one of the first Fractal Mathematics Confrences in Massachusetts, with the blessings of my High School principal and Physics teacher. You must have missed my reference to Lorentz, as I believe^H^H know it was his meteorological research that formed modern chaos theory as we know it. Now, as to whatever black magic is being used these days, if it ain't based on stochastics, it's not even _wrong_ ..... > [more snipped] > > > > > > That's a whole boatload of opinion there. > > > It's my experience one tends to get what one gives. > > Don't be too proud of this technological terror that IBM > > has constructed; the power to issue my bank statement > > is insigificant next to the power of smashing hadrons > > together.http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/ica05/proceedings/pdf/I1_001.pdf > > O get real. Computers don't smash atoms together. > No. But as Ms. Rather points out later, the machines that do are everything and anything _but_ IBM. Now, had you said, "But surely you'll agree that the governments and the banks that those CERN folks are in regular contact depend upon the enterprise computing power of MVS/zSYS somewhere down the line", well then, that would have been more honest and less "chickenshit". But please, do tell us how superior in every way that MVS/zSys is to everything else, and how rotten *nices are, even though I'd bet *nix deployments outnumber MVS/zSys by a hefty factor. TTFN, Tarkin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <AP-dnb4XDZWbZozTnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3775 |
Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > Since Andy is trying to cut in with his new-found wikipedia > knowledge, I am including PL/X variants when I say "assembler" > because that's what they are. Lots of OSes were written in various system-specific PL/ languages: I remember PLZ/SYS and PL/M. Are you really going to claim that they are all, in fact, "assembly language" or that IBM's PL/S was lower-level than those? I don't know, I never used it. The Wikipedia page says it was based on PL/1. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f3223e7-bcc9-4d2e-b08f-176e87219fbc@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3779 |
On Jul 4, 6:40 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > > Since Andy is trying to cut in with his new-found wikipedia > > knowledge, I am including PL/X variants when I say "assembler" > > because that's what they are. > > Lots of OSes were written in various system-specific PL/ languages: I > remember PLZ/SYS and PL/M. Are you really going to claim that they > are all, in fact, "assembly language" or that IBM's PL/S was > lower-level than those? I don't know, I never used it. The Wikipedia > page says it was based on PL/1. > > Andrew. PL/S was pretty low level. It was to PL/I what C is to Algol.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <itCdnb-504KktY_TnZ2dnUVZ8iKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3781 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 6:40?pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > wrote: >> Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >> >> > Since Andy is trying to cut in with his new-found wikipedia >> > knowledge, I am including PL/X variants when I say "assembler" >> > because that's what they are. >> >> Lots of OSes were written in various system-specific PL/ languages: I >> remember PLZ/SYS and PL/M. ?Are you really going to claim that they >> are all, in fact, "assembly language" or that IBM's PL/S was >> lower-level than those? ?I don't know, I never used it. ?The Wikipedia >> page says it was based on PL/1. > > PL/S was pretty low level. It was to PL/I what C is to Algol. They all were, from what I remember, although PLZ is the only one I actually used. Nothing like assembly language, though. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 10:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <786873169ef8eec59cdf1bd8af228c92@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #3779 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > > > Since Andy is trying to cut in with his new-found wikipedia > > knowledge, I am including PL/X variants when I say "assembler" > > because that's what they are. > > Lots of OSes were written in various system-specific PL/ languages: I > remember PLZ/SYS and PL/M. Are you really going to claim that they > are all, in fact, "assembly language" or that IBM's PL/S was > lower-level than those? I don't know, I never used it. The Wikipedia > page says it was based on PL/1. Oh, I knew I was right, you're getting this all from Wikipedia. It would have been a lot better if you had just asked instead of stating incorrect things as if you knew they were facts. I have never heard of PLZ/SYS, so I have nothing to say on that. I'm familiar with PL/I, it's a very nice HLL that should have been more successful. No IBM version of PL/I (and I believe only IBM ever sold a PL/I capable of running on a mainframe) can be used for writing systems software. AFAIK, PL/M *was* a derivative of PL/I that was created (I think) by Digital Research and used to write much of their DOS code. Again, it was not a mainframe language and was not an assembly language although it could be used, and was, to write system code, since that's what they designed it for. But it doesn't run on a mainframe and can't be used to write systems software on mainframes, it's strictly a PC language. I can tell you PL/S, PL/AS, and PL/X are all proprietary, high level assemblers targeting the IBM mainframe. They do have similarities to PL/I because they're all more or less ALGOL-derived languages with control structures and declarations similar to ALGOL. That's where the similarity ends. PL/X and predecessors don't have a runtime, because they translate pretty much directly to assembler and they have critical features for writing system code that HLLs don't, like being able to manipulate registers and other low level areas, and issue system service requests. All the system services requests are actually dual-language PL/AS / PL/X and assembler. This wasn't worth mentioning before because these languages don't go outside IBM, but since we are discussing it the truth is all the systems services macros can be invoked from either assembler or PL/X. Another point where the wikipedia article is wrong (I hadn't looked at it until now) is about not being able to modify the OS because of not having access to PL/S. PL/S and assembler coexist without effort, there is no problem to extend one from the other and indeed many people did all kinds of system modifications in assembler then and now. I do that for my job, and I use assembler. I'm not sure PL/S could be based on PL/I since they both came out around the same time. I don't even know whether they were developed by the same group or just happen to be similar and it's not impossible that they were designed by different groups and look similar because of the ALGOL influence. Many ALGOL descendants are strikingly similar in many ways. Syntax is similar, but that's it. What they can actually do and how they are used is completely different. So yes, PL/S, PL/AS, and PL/X are much lower level languages than PL/I, and they're only distant relatives insomuch as their structure looks familiar to a PL/I programmer...but not more than that, and in many ways much less. They have no library calls, no conversion routines, etc. They're really not much more than a custom built HLA for the IBM platform. I'm familiar with all of them more or less because we have to read code in PL/AS and I wrote code in PL/X when it was available for a short time. I didn't like it though, I feel assembler was more natural and easier to use. It's not unusual for systems software vendors to develop their own languages for writing their OS and tools and part of the reason is it keeps their staff around since what they learn isn't portable. Nobody outside IBM uses these languages, so people who spent careers learning them don't have any transferable skills, aside from their internals knowledge, which of course is valuable. That brings us around to what I have been saying. If you want to write systems software on the mainframe, it can only be done in assembler. Now I'll add, if you work for IBM, you can do it in PL/X.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 02:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8285647-c114-4ce1-900d-a3a08ab8003c@u30g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3797 |
On Jul 5, 9:16 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > > > Since Andy is trying to cut in with his new-found wikipedia > > > knowledge, I am including PL/X variants when I say "assembler" > > > because that's what they are. > > > Lots of OSes were written in various system-specific PL/ languages: I > > remember PLZ/SYS and PL/M. Are you really going to claim that they > > are all, in fact, "assembly language" or that IBM's PL/S was > > lower-level than those? I don't know, I never used it. The Wikipedia > > page says it was based on PL/1. > > Oh, I knew I was right, you're getting this all from Wikipedia. It would > have been a lot better if you had just asked instead of stating incorrect > things as if you knew they were facts. > > I have never heard of PLZ/SYS, so I have nothing to say on that. > > I'm familiar with PL/I, it's a very nice HLL that should have been more > successful. No IBM version of PL/I (and I believe only IBM ever sold a PL/I > capable of running on a mainframe) can be used for writing systems software. It was too damn complicated for the average code jockey. (Aside: I borrowed one of its features for my assembler programs; Q type address constants. Cool feature.) [snip] > > That brings us around to what I have been saying. If you want to write > systems software on the mainframe, it can only be done in assembler. Now > I'll add, if you work for IBM, you can do it in PL/X. Amongst commercial organisations that wrote major apps for IBM mainframe OSes, it was common to mix approaches; high level languages for all but the interfaces to the OS. For instance, I worked on a very large parts distribution system (100s of 100s of line items, 100s of suppliers, several tens of warehouses and automated stocking/picking) where everything was COBOL up to the IO interface. The rest was written in ASM/H and managed 100s of discrete VSAM databases using shared buffer pools, something COBOL couldn't do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gYednRcpyM0IuI7TnZ2dnUVZ8jydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3797 |
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >> > >> > Since Andy is trying to cut in with his new-found wikipedia >> > knowledge, I am including PL/X variants when I say "assembler" >> > because that's what they are. >> >> Lots of OSes were written in various system-specific PL/ languages: I >> remember PLZ/SYS and PL/M. Are you really going to claim that they >> are all, in fact, "assembly language" or that IBM's PL/S was >> lower-level than those? I don't know, I never used it. The Wikipedia >> page says it was based on PL/1. > > Oh, I knew I was right, you're getting this all from Wikipedia. It > would have been a lot better if you had just asked instead of > stating incorrect things as if you knew they were facts. Attempt at evasion noted. I was merely responding to > If you look at the IBM mainframe the operating system is written in > assembler. which seems not to have been true. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 22:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a2f10593f8a8260a3d444cb63f5dfb69@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #3808 |
A shit-eating, argumentative, know-nothing Linux clown named Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Attempt at evasion noted. > > I was merely responding to > > > If you look at the IBM mainframe the operating system is written in > > assembler. > > which seems not to have been true. Ok asshole, look here: http://www.mainframe.eu/mvs38/asm/ All the source for the only version of MVS released to the public is available for browsing online. A quick review indicates the majority of the code is pure assembler. Ok fuckhead? Happy now? Now you can apologize for jerking off in public, talking shit about things you have no idea about and no involvement in, and arguing for no good reason other than the fact you're a sanctimonious, argumentative, shit-eating sonofabitch. I hope you learned your lesson, but I sincerely doubt it. And to the ladies present, "Please pardon our French"!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 16:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LvKdnVXfHqpkHI7TnZ2dnUVZ7oCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3819 |
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> A shit-eating, argumentative, know-nothing Linux clown named Andrew Haley
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Attempt at evasion noted.
>>
>> I was merely responding to
>>
>> > If you look at the IBM mainframe the operating system is written in
>> > assembler.
>>
>> which seems not to have been true.
>
> Ok asshole, look here:
>
> http://www.mainframe.eu/mvs38/asm/
>
> All the source for the only version of MVS released to the public is
> available for browsing online. A quick review indicates the majority of the
> code is pure assembler.
Well, if I look at http://www.mainframe.eu/mvs38/asm/TSO%20%28IKJ%29/IKJCT431
I see stuff like
* /*****************************************************************/ 00079000
* /* */ 00080000
* /* CHECK GETMAIN RETURN CODE */ 00081000
* /* */ 00082000
* /*****************************************************************/ 00083000
* 0112 00084000
* IF R15^=CON0 THEN /* CONTROL BLOCKS */ 00085000
LTR R15,R15 0112 00086000
BZ @RF00112 0112 00087000
* DO; /* IF STORAGE COULD NOT BE */ 00088000
* RFY 0114 00089000
* R15 UNRSTD; /* OBTAINED THEN NOTIFY USER AND */ 00090000
* EXMSGID=M511; /* RETURN RC=16 */ 00091000
MVC EXMSGID(4),@CC01271 0115 00092000
* CALL MSGRTN; /* ISSUE MESSAGE */ 00093000
BAL @14,MSGRTN 0116 00094000
* NOTEXEC=YES; /* COMMAND PROCEDURE NOT 0117 00095000
* EXECUTABLE */ 00096000
OI NOTEXEC(ECDAPTR),B'01000000' 0117 00097000
* CT431RET=CON16; 0118 00098000
MVC CT431RET(4),@CF01028 0118 00099000
* END; /* CONTROL RETURNS TO EXIT POINT */ 00100000
*
Is it possible that this assembly source is, in fact, the output of a
compiler?
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0aeb5c4f-7407-4f56-9250-4b1a860369b2@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3823 |
On Jul 5, 10:28 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote: > > A shit-eating, argumentative, know-nothing Linux clown named Andrew Haley > > <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > >> Attempt at evasion noted. > > >> I was merely responding to > > >> > If you look at the IBM mainframe the operating system is written in > >> > assembler. > > >> which seems not to have been true. > > > Ok asshole, look here: > > >http://www.mainframe.eu/mvs38/asm/ > > > All the source for the only version of MVS released to the public is > > available for browsing online. A quick review indicates the majority of the > > code is pure assembler. > > Well, if I look athttp://www.mainframe.eu/mvs38/asm/TSO%20%28IKJ%29/IKJCT431 > > I see stuff like > > * /*****************************************************************/ 00079000 > * /* */ 00080000 > * /* CHECK GETMAIN RETURN CODE */ 00081000 > * /* */ 00082000 > * /*****************************************************************/ 00083000 > * 0112 00084000 > * IF R15^=CON0 THEN /* CONTROL BLOCKS */ 00085000 > LTR R15,R15 0112 00086000 > BZ @RF00112 0112 00087000 > * DO; /* IF STORAGE COULD NOT BE */ 00088000 > * RFY 0114 00089000 > * R15 UNRSTD; /* OBTAINED THEN NOTIFY USER AND */ 00090000 > * EXMSGID=M511; /* RETURN RC=16 */ 00091000 > MVC EXMSGID(4),@CC01271 0115 00092000 > * CALL MSGRTN; /* ISSUE MESSAGE */ 00093000 > BAL @14,MSGRTN 0116 00094000 > * NOTEXEC=YES; /* COMMAND PROCEDURE NOT 0117 00095000 > * EXECUTABLE */ 00096000 > OI NOTEXEC(ECDAPTR),B'01000000' 0117 00097000 > * CT431RET=CON16; 0118 00098000 > MVC CT431RET(4),@CF01028 0118 00099000 > * END; /* CONTROL RETURNS TO EXIT POINT */ 00100000 > * > > Is it possible that this assembly source is, in fact, the output of a > compiler? > > Andrew. Yes, it's PL/S. The 4 digit line number in the comment field is characteristic of the output of PL/S; it allowed you to xref the raw source to the assembler output listing. It's 30 years since I last saw this :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web