Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Roedy Green Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java processors Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:53:21 -0700 Organization: Canadian Mind Products Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <5f101d00-4bc9-4750-939c-cd53605bfa0e@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: Roedy Green NNTP-Posting-Host: K2Qzzs3EAqXk5RLzfhxcSw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:15844 On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 00:42:25 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Unfortunately I never got to play with that kit, but wish I had >known more about it because it was well ahead of its time I got to write code for the Burroughs 1900, a successor. The code density was about 10 times what I was used to. I loved the machine, but it was not that much fun to code since everything was done at a high level language level. It was just so straightforward. The thing I found most fun was NCP language. Even a salesman could write a custom program for polling a set of multi-drop terminals. The underlying hardware had only 24 bits addressing, but it was bit addressable. That let you address bytes with 21 bits, a mere 2 megabytes.Yet that little machine pumped out transactions like you would not believe. It used memory very cleverly dynamically balancing system, app, database, disk cache. I suppose they could have extended the architecture, leaving the per-process limits in place. Univac and Burroughs merged to form UniSys. I don't know what happened to their various architectures. Univac had the 1100 36 bit machines, and some mid range IBM compatibles inherited from RCA. Burroughs had the high end Algol machines (fiendishly complex), mid range decimal addressed (designed for easy assembler coding) and the 1900 series -- the interpreter per language design. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com Why do so many operating systems refuse to define a standard temporary file marking mechanism? It could be a reserved lead character such as the ~ or a reserved extension such as .tmp. It could be a file attribute bit. Because they refuse, there is no fool-proof way to scan a disk for orphaned temporary files and delete them. Further, you can't tell where the orhaned files ame from. This means the hard disks gradually fill up with garbage.