Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Bob Eager Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PL/I advertising Date: 2 Jun 2016 20:53:57 GMT Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <873a27e2-6baf-4772-9dc8-45a8f1bc466e@googlegroups.com> <574dc93b.9587566@nntp2.rawbw.com> <5750739e.11401875@nntp2.rawbw.com> <548e7f36-4563-4550-ba93-c897632e4669@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 1vo+nloUsUSmyNA3ityIrgZH/bIOTSKkbZ23d+tVr369dwdHKF Cancel-Lock: sha1:IrUnOMVX9Y6SwALl9Xkpn8Y8UFU= User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:164360 On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:48:42 -0700, Quadibloc wrote: > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 2:24:11 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >> >On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:19:30 -0400, "J. Clarke" >> > > >> >What languages would you suggest for writing an operating system and >> >associated utilities? Fortran? COBOL? > >> Why ALGOL, of course :-). > >> The Burroughs Large Systems (B5x00/6x00/7x00) did not even have an >> assembler - even the MCP was written in a dialect of ALGOL. > > Yes, but these computers had special architectural features - they were > stack- > based, they had tagged storage - that made them unconventional. Algol, > as opposed to C, might not be as well-suited to writing an operating > system for a conventional computer. True, but you don't need to add a lot to the language, and it was a 'dialect'. An example of a rather Algol-like language is Edinburgh IMP - pretty standard Algol-like language, but just the addition of bit manipulation and 'maps' made it suitable for writing operating systems. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org