Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-20 17:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-12-22 11:43 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-20 17:47 -0400
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-21 01:09 +0000
Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-21 14:44 -0500
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:15 -0700
Re: high level language idea davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) - 2015-10-21 01:16 +0000
Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:26 -0400
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 12:13 -0700
Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 15:23 -0400
Re: high level language idea bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-21 03:53 -0700
Re: high level language idea rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-10-21 13:47 +0000
Re: high level language idea "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:58 +0100
Re: high level language idea Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-21 10:34 -0400
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-21 16:43 +0000
Re: high level language idea rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-10-21 14:46 +0000
Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:29 -0400
Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-21 14:19 -0500
Re: high level language idea Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-21 15:24 -0400
Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-22 14:13 -0500
Re: high level language idea "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-23 09:55 -0500
Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 11:42 -0400
Re: high level language idea "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-23 11:48 -0500
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 10:47 -0700
Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-24 21:24 -0500
Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-24 21:14 -0500
Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-25 11:31 -0500
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-25 18:13 +0000
Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-23 11:20 -0700
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 11:45 -0700
Re: high level language idea Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-10-24 21:11 -0500
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 07:40 -0700
Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-27 08:30 -0700
Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-27 09:11 -0700
Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 12:52 -0400
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:22 -0700
Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 14:37 -0400
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 17:46 -0700
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
Re: high level language idea jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: high level language idea "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 13:59 +0000
Re: high level language idea jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-29 14:28 +0000
Re: high level language idea "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:06 +1100
Re: high level language idea pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:55 +0000
Re: high level language idea Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:21 -0600
Re: high level language idea pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 07:33 -0700
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 16:58 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 10:10 -0700
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 20:08 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 13:58 -0700
Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:53 -0500
Re: high level language idea - TTF Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 17:11 -0400
Re: high level language idea - TTF scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:24 +0000
Re: high level language idea - TTF hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-28 07:37 -0700
Re: high level language idea - TTF Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 16:58 +0000
Re: high level language idea - TTF Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-28 15:10 -0400
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 01:22 +0000
Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-28 08:04 -0700
Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 11:34 -0400
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:14 -0700
Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 14:30 -0400
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-27 19:29 +0000
Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 16:57 -0400
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-27 21:50 +0000
Re: high level language idea Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-27 17:58 -0400
Re: high level language idea Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 09:04 +0000
Re: high level language idea "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:42 +0000
Re: high level language idea Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-28 14:55 -0400
Re: high level language idea Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-28 15:02 -0400
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-28 19:15 +0000
Re: high level language idea Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 13:25 -0600
Re: high level language idea Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 17:54 -0400
Re: high level language idea Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-28 19:19 +0000
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000
Re: high level language idea scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:36 +0000
Re: high level language idea Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-28 17:54 +0000
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-28 20:08 +0000
Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 17:54 -0500
Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-13 16:05 -0500
Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 17:20 -0500
Re: high level language idea Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-15 08:14 -0500
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 18:00 -0700
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 12:21 -0700
Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 15:25 -0400
Re: high level language idea "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-21 17:14 -0400
Re: high level language idea jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-22 12:51 +0000
Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-21 19:43 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:09 -0700
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-22 02:52 +0000
Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-23 16:04 -0500
Re: high level language idea Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-28 20:19 -0400
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 07:35 -0700
Re: high level language idea Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-21 19:43 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:00 -0700
Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-21 13:35 -0700
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:50 -0700
Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-22 07:22 -0700
Re: high level language idea John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-24 00:42 +0000
Re: high level language idea hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-24 20:26 -0700
Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-25 18:36 -0500
Re: high level language idea Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-21 15:31 -0700
Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-20 17:17 -0500
Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-20 17:00 -0500
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-20 22:20 +0000
Re: high level language idea Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 08:35 -0500
Re: high level language idea "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-23 16:00 -0500
Re: high level language idea Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-23 21:07 +0000
Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-11-20 17:31 -0500
Re: high level language idea Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-11-25 11:28 -0800
Re: high level language idea Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-12-22 14:00 -0500
Re: high level language idea Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-12-22 11:43 -0800
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 17:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <647683328.469145884.986176.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #154468 |
Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> wrote: > On 2015-10-27 5:50 PM, Bob Eager wrote:> >> For a nightmare, try the Z80 (I also did a compiler for that). Opcodes >> scattered all over the place, fitting in the gaps between the basic >> 8080/8085 set. I believe the reason for the 'sparse' opcode assignment in >> the 8080 was to optimise the chip design/cost. > > I did the port of the Zed compiler to the Z8001 (the 16 bit z8000). > It actually was quite a nice 16-bit architecture. > The problem was the documention for it and the manufacturer's assembler, > which tried its damnedest to pretent it looked like a Z80. The manual would > refer to one LD instruction, but after looking carefully at the opcode > values I found that there actually were several different instructions. > There opcodes for load register, store register, move memory to memory > etc with various addressing modes. There were some cases of the > manual having different mnemonics for the same opcode just different > addressing modes etc. > > We made up our own mnemonic names for the actual numeric opcode values > and used those for our assembler, and the compiler manifests. > Obviously the brain-dead intel documentation tells the same story today. One MOV opcode does it all. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-15 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n2a0fr$vhv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #154468 |
On 13/11/2015 4:05 PM, Alan Bowler wrote: > On 2015-10-27 5:50 PM, Bob Eager wrote:> >> For a nightmare, try the Z80 (I also did a compiler for that). >> Opcodes scattered all over the place, fitting in the gaps between >> the basic 8080/8085 set. I believe the reason for the 'sparse' >> opcode assignment in the 8080 was to optimise the chip >> design/cost. > > I did the port of the Zed compiler to the Z8001 (the 16 bit z8000). > refer to one LD instruction, but after looking carefully at the > opcode values I found that there actually were several different > instructions. There opcodes for load register, store register, move > memory to memory etc with various addressing modes. There were some > cases of the manual having different mnemonics for the same opcode > just different addressing modes etc. > This was one of the reasons that when we started writing compilers for embedded systems that we generate machine code and not assembler. By going back to the fundamental operations of the processor we often find sequences that that assembler overlooks. The other reasons are greatly improved execution speed, shared compiler assembler symbol tables for embedded assembler and significantly cleaner source level debugging information. It removes all the compiler code designed to support how it expects the assembler will generate code (especially an issue in how branch jump issues are handled). w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0oksc27sl@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153385 |
On 2015-10-27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 11:34:46 AM UTC-4, D_J_E wrote: > >>> When I worked with a Univac 90/30, they would send us PTF's on >>> _paper_. That is, we had to keypunch a bunch of hex characters from >>> the document, and naturally it had to be 100% accurate. Imagine >>> keypunching several rows of the following: >>> >>> E2D6C3D240C9E340E3D640D4C540E2D6C3D240C9E340E3D640D4C540 >> >> Sounds like horrible service. I think a lot of people at Blue Bell still had that "computer time is too valuable to waste on programming support" attitude that was mentioned earlier. My favourite gripe was about the disk prep program. It did a lengthy surface analysis to determine bad tracks, but you could also specify additional tracks, since the factory provided such a list based on its own testing. The kicker was that the list that came with the disk was in decimal, and DSKPRP only accepted hexadecimal. I could almost hear malicious laughter while reading the part in the reference manual where it explicity stated that you must convert the track addresses yourself. It would have been so easy to enable DSKPRP to accept decimal - or, better still, have an option to specify it either way. And if you made an error in conversion, you had no way of knowing until the prep operation (a 45-minute job) was complete, because the program did no verification of your parameters and didn't even print anything until the very end. Then you got to do it all over again. > Also, when we upgraded our printer chain from 48 to 64 characters. > As mentioned before, our director had 'heard' that such an upgrade > would be extremely costly and was very resistant to the idea. It > turned out to be free, even though we were a third-party lease customer. We had a shop that went the other way - they figured that going to a 48-character band would save time because of the higher speed the printer would attain. What they failed to take into account was when they ran the jobs that did require the 63-character band, the printer would stop and wait for the operator to change the band. This more than ate up any time saving that they might have had - especially if the operator had just gone for coffee when the band change request came up. They eventually did just put the 63-character band back in and leave it there, but they lost a lot of productivity first. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bc54545-388f-477d-b05b-b398eaa9eedc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153397 |
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 3:56:25 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > I think a lot of people at Blue Bell still had that "computer time > is too valuable to waste on programming support" attitude that was > mentioned earlier. My favourite gripe ... [disk prep program] My guess--having been to Blue Bell several times--was that Univac didn't have the economies of scale that IBM had, plus had to compete on price, so it simply didn't have anywhere near the kind of money IBM had to develop sophisticated and refined software. Once something was adequately functional, they had to get it out the door, even if more polishing would be desirable. I saw that vividly with our Univac C/E--his territory was the entire region, where our IBM C/E's territory was only a single _neighborhood_ in the city. A similar situation existed in the telephone industry--Western Electric had massive economies of scale. The Independent (non Bell) companies were far fewer, and the principal company serving them--Automatic Electric--was much smaller. One can see that AE telephone sets are a little more austere than WE's. AE didn't have the innovation WE had.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a43278db-0f9f-41e1-b3c9-0feb78fa6fe0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153162 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:29:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote: > Hum. So people were wanting only assembly then? Or the punch cards? This > bit of computer history I'm fuzzy on. When you say "punch cards", you need to qualify your statement. For computers, punched cards generally were used as an input/output medium only, while the computer did the work and had its own storage. External files were often stored on magnetic tape, and later disk. In contrast, there were EAM tabulating machines, in which punched cards, in addition to I/O, also served as intermediate storage during processing. EAM machines were usually programmed by wiring a plugboard. As to early programming, remember that assembler language was an invention too, and not available at the very beginning. Assemblers allowed the computer to track field names and storage locations, do a lot of the clerical work, and substitute mnenomic op codes for commands and operands. As time went on, assemblers became more sophisticated, and added such services as sub-routines and macros. Assembler coding was still tedious and programmers began looking for a higher level translator to make the job easier. there were many efforts, one of the most notable was the invention of Fortran at IBM. However, computers of the 1950s were usually too small and slow to accomodate a compiler, so assembler remained popular.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 15:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n08omd$qqn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153167 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:a43278db-0f9f-41e1-b3c9-0feb78fa6fe0@googlegroups.com...
...
However, computers of the 1950s were usually too small and slow to
accomodate a compiler, so assembler remained popular.
An a different instruction set for each processor. That's probably
before DEC machines. So I have no idea what they were using.
Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 17:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n08v30$kdt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153167 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:a43278db-0f9f-41e1-b3c9-0feb78fa6fe0@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:29:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote: > Hum. So people were wanting only assembly then? Or the punch cards? > This > bit of computer history I'm fuzzy on. When you say "punch cards", you need to qualify your statement. For computers, punched cards generally were used as an input/output medium only, while the computer did the work and had its own storage. External files were often stored on magnetic tape, and later disk. ... I had in mind machine language at this time. With Adm. Hopper. Of course there were Fortran punch cards. I do know of. At some point. Then idk. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 12:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000522B13AB98640@aca409c7.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153190 |
Bill Cunningham wrote: > > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:a43278db-0f9f-41e1-b3c9-0feb78fa6fe0@googlegroups.com... > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:29:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote: > >> Hum. So people were wanting only assembly then? Or the punch cards? >> This >> bit of computer history I'm fuzzy on. > > When you say "punch cards", you need to qualify your statement. For > computers, punched cards generally were used as an input/output medium only, > while the computer did the work and had its own storage. External files > were often stored on magnetic tape, and later disk. > > ... > > I had in mind machine language at this time. With Adm. Hopper. Of course > there were Fortran punch cards. I do know of. At some point. Then idk. When I worked on the 1620, I could code in machine language, assembly or FORTRAN. Since it was a university computer, there were also other compilers written by grad students for a class but I never saw one which was "useful". Data was also put on cards. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <735547945.467156466.790090.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153167 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:29:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote: > >> Hum. So people were wanting only assembly then? Or the punch cards? This >> bit of computer history I'm fuzzy on. > > When you say "punch cards", you need to qualify your statement. For > computers, punched cards generally were used as an input/output medium > only, while the computer did the work and had its own storage. External > files were often stored on magnetic tape, and later disk. > > In contrast, there were EAM tabulating machines, in which punched cards, > in addition to I/O, also served as intermediate storage during > processing. EAM machines were usually programmed by wiring a plugboard. > > > As to early programming, remember that assembler language was an > invention too, and not available at the very beginning. Assemblers > allowed the computer to track field names and storage locations, do a lot > of the clerical work, and substitute mnenomic op codes for commands and > operands. As time went on, assemblers became more sophisticated, and > added such services as sub-routines and macros. > > Assembler coding was still tedious I used go be able to code reasonable assembler at the speed I could type (earlier write on coding forms). This type of coding was easily 80% or more of the program, the tricky routines took a bit of thought. Designing the program, unless it was pretty straightforward, took more time, and HLLs haven't helped that much. and programmers began looking for a higher level translator to make the job easier. there were many efforts, one of the most notable was the invention of Fortran at IBM. > > However, computers of the 1950s were usually too small and slow to > accomodate a compiler, so assembler remained popular. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n08psj31oc8@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153162 |
On 2015-10-21, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote: > "bert" <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:97d664fb-5efe-4425-8b94-12bbd91f4907@googlegroups.com... > >> On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 22:47:16 UTC+1, Bill Cunningham wrote: >> >>> Is it true that higher language ideas >>> pretty much came from Adm. Grace Hopper? >> >> The contents of the Wikipedia articles indicate that, while >> John Backus's FORTRAN certainly pre-dated COBOL, Hopper's >> ideas which were behind COBOL may have pre-dated Backus. >> >> Both of them were fighting against a strong body of "expert" >> opinion at the time which held that the computer was too >> valuable a resource to waste on generating code; that was >> something which humans could - and should - do, leaving >> the computer time free to actually run the programs. > > Hum. So people were wanting only assembly then? Or the punch cards? > This bit of computer history I'm fuzzy on. Actually, this "too valuable to waste generating code" mindset, when taken to extremes, had some people objecting even to assemblers - they believed that programmers should code directly in machine language. Punch cards themselves weren't the issue - they could hold machine code, assembly language source, or programs written in any high-level language. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aebf3918-d4b2-433c-8726-6a07ed7f46f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153173 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:42:45 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Actually, this "too valuable to waste generating code" mindset, when > taken to extremes, had some people objecting even to assemblers - they > believed that programmers should code directly in machine language. From the histories, I get the impression people who felt so extreme were rare. Assemblers seemed to be accepted early on. But in the earliest days, assemblers were home-grown. Early on, societies were set up to encourage software sharing between computer owners (e.g. all the purchasers of IBM's 701), but the 'not invented here' attitude was in effect. I think most managements did recognize the time saving from _coding_ in a higher level language rather than assembler. Early Fortran users reported significant time savings. Rather, I think concern was for computer time spent compiling, which could be a while, and the quality of the resultant code. Fortran did allow lay users to write their programs. For instance, a simple DO LOOP and an arithmetic statement could do some very serious number crunching. But in the early days, computer time was so expensive and thus scarce that they didn't want every professor coming in with a pet project. Computer time had to be carefully rationaed. Indeed, a big reason for the popularity of PDP mini-computers was that they were cheap enough to be purchased by an individual college department and opened up computing to a lot more people, as compared to the closely guarded mainframe. Would anyone know when Fortran became popular on the PDP?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n09j0u02618@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153182 |
On 2015-10-21, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:42:45 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Actually, this "too valuable to waste generating code" mindset, when >> taken to extremes, had some people objecting even to assemblers - they >> believed that programmers should code directly in machine language. > > From the histories, I get the impression people who felt so extreme were > rare. Assemblers seemed to be accepted early on. > > But in the earliest days, assemblers were home-grown. Early on, societies > were set up to encourage software sharing between computer owners (e.g. > all the purchasers of IBM's 701), but the 'not invented here' attitude > was in effect. It wasn't all NIH. I wrote a couple of assemblers of my own because I was dissatisfied with the vendor-supplied ones; I was more productive with my own. > I think most managements did recognize the time saving from _coding_ in a > higher level language rather than assembler. Early Fortran users reported > significant time savings. Rather, I think concern was for computer time > spent compiling, which could be a while, and the quality of the resultant > code. One of the advantages of my assemblers was that they were twice as fast as the vendor-supplied ones. Turning a 40-minute assembly into a 20-minute one meant more test slots for me when machine time was scarce. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0e794$nr4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153182 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:aebf3918-d4b2-433c-8726-6a07ed7f46f9@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:42:45 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > >Fortran did allow lay users to write their programs. For instance, a >simple DO LOOP and an arithmetic >statement could do some very serious >number crunching. But in the early days, computer time was so >expensive >and thus scarce that they didn't want every professor coming in with a pet >project. Computer time >had to be carefully rationaed. Indeed, a big >reason for the popularity of PDP mini-computers was that they >were cheap >enough to be purchased by an individual college department and opened up >computing to a lot >more people, as compared to the closely guarded >mainframe. > And as BAH pointed out long ago, the "interactive time sharing" environment of the PDP-10 allowed a professor to have a terminal in his/her office. That way the professor could make *stupid* mistakes without any of his colleages being aware of it. This encouraged the professors to try their hand at programming. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 20:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-9EA38C.20191128102015@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153140 |
In article <97d664fb-5efe-4425-8b94-12bbd91f4907@googlegroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 22:47:16 UTC+1, Bill Cunningham wrote: > > Is it true that higher language ideas > > pretty much came from Adm. Grace Hopper? > > The contents of the Wikipedia articles indicate that, while > John Backus's FORTRAN certainly pre-dated COBOL, Hopper's > ideas which were behind COBOL may have pre-dated Backus. > > Both of them were fighting against a strong body of "expert" > opinion at the time which held that the computer was too > valuable a resource to waste on generating code; that was > something which humans could - and should - do, leaving > the computer time free to actually run the programs. > -- Perhaps true for production programs at the time, but a lot of programming I did was exploratory. Been a long time since it made sense to do coding by hand, except in the most extreme cases, these days of multiple threads, virtual processors, speculative execution et cetera, it's rare. Toaster chips are more powerful than the most powerful computers then. -- Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e86195f-8df6-4d99-b0b6-e38c2679168b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153134 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 5:47:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote: > Is it true that higher language ideas pretty much came from Adm. Grace > Hopper? Of course Adminral Hopper wasn't an adminral back then. I've also > heard that the term 'bug' was coined by her. Wow. A number of researchers at multiple locations early on were exploring ways to ease the burden of low level coding. Progress was slow and not-standardized. IBM refused to adopt COBOL until it was standardized and frozen; IBM was afraid--correctly--that COBOL would keep morphing and need constant rewrites. In the earliest days, part of the challenge was that machine memories were so small there wasn't room to have both the compiler and source code in memory (a problem that plagued 1401 users who attempted COBOL and FORTRAN). Later on, there was concern that a compiler wouldn't generate code that was very inefficient compared to what a human could do; this was critical in the days of small slow machines. As I understand, many early S/360 users continued programming with Assembler, especially on the smaller low-end machines. Fortran and COBOL took a few years to become popular; plus they were improved and made more effective and efficient. There's a good biography of Hopper out there (I forgot the name). She was briefly married, but apparently didn't have much of a family life. She had some personal problems that concerned her co-workers. Thomas Edison used the term 'bug' when describing glitches in his lab work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n08psh01oc8@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153147 |
On 2015-10-21, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 5:47:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote: > >> Is it true that higher language ideas pretty much came from Adm. Grace >> Hopper? Of course Adminral Hopper wasn't an adminral back then. I've also >> heard that the term 'bug' was coined by her. Wow. > > A number of researchers at multiple locations early on were exploring > ways to ease the burden of low level coding. Progress was slow and > not-standardized. IBM refused to adopt COBOL until it was standardized > and frozen; IBM was afraid--correctly--that COBOL would keep morphing > and need constant rewrites. It's ironic that IBM themselves later introduced proprietary extensions to COBOL in an attempt to lock in customer. > In the earliest days, part of the challenge was that machine memories > were so small there wasn't room to have both the compiler and source > code in memory (a problem that plagued 1401 users who attempted COBOL > and FORTRAN). Strictly speaking, you didn't need room for all of both the compiler and the source code; the compiler would work on statements one at a time, and build internal tables that were much smaller than the source code. And not even the entire compiler had to be held in memory - sophisticated overlay trees were developed so that only the portions of the compiler in use at the moment had to be in memory. > Later on, there was concern that a compiler wouldn't generate code that > was very inefficient compared to what a human could do; this was critical > in the days of small slow machines. Indeed. Later, though, compilers got smarter, and this became less of a factor. > As I understand, many early S/360 users continued programming with Assembler, > especially on the smaller low-end machines. Fortran and COBOL took a few > years to become popular; plus they were improved and made more effective > and efficient. It wasn't so much a matter of popularity as the fact that the compilers were too big to run on small machines. That left assembly language - plus RPG, which could compile and run on an 8K machine. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <758d756e-f015-4de9-99c8-9fe5cf1eab2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153171 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:42:45 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > In the earliest days, part of the challenge was that machine memories > > were so small there wasn't room to have both the compiler and source > > code in memory (a problem that plagued 1401 users who attempted COBOL > > and FORTRAN). > > Strictly speaking, you didn't need room for all of both the compiler and > the source code; the compiler would work on statements one at a time, and > build internal tables that were much smaller than the source code. And > not even the entire compiler had to be held in memory - sophisticated > overlay trees were developed so that only the portions of the compiler > in use at the moment had to be in memory. What early programmers told me was that trying to compile on modest-sized machines was tough. Intermediate results had to be stored on tape, and a compilation would generate tremendous tape activity, reels going back and forth. A compile took a long time. (Indeed, even in S/360-370 era, certain key application program subroutines were written in assembler to maximize performance). > > Later on, there was concern that a compiler wouldn't generate code that > > was very inefficient compared to what a human could do; this was critical > > in the days of small slow machines. > > Indeed. Later, though, compilers got smarter, and this became less of > a factor. I think better compilers didn't become widely available until the later 1960s. I don't know the quality of IBM's first S/360 COBOL and FORTRAN compilers. But I speculate it may have been poor since IBM was under tremendous pressure to get that stuff out the door, and, early machines tended to be small. At our 360-40 site, the free D COBOL was poor; we used purchased F COBOL. I don't know about Fortran, but in college they used the WATFIV product, supposedly for better diagnostics. I don't know what Fortran a researcher would use who had serious number crunching to do and machine time was a consideration. > It wasn't so much a matter of popularity as the fact that the compilers > were too big to run on small machines. That left assembly language - > plus RPG, which could compile and run on an 8K machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87wpugarjv.fsf@lhwserver.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #153179 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > I think better compilers didn't become widely available until the later 1960s. > > I don't know the quality of IBM's first S/360 COBOL and FORTRAN > compilers. But I speculate it may have been poor since IBM was under > tremendous pressure to get that stuff out the door, and, early > machines tended to be small. At our 360-40 site, the free D COBOL was > poor; we used purchased F COBOL. > > I don't know about Fortran, but in college they used the WATFIV > product, supposedly for better diagnostics. I don't know what Fortran > a researcher would use who had serious number crunching to do and > machine time was a consideration. lots of referernces http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/ other reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran watfor/watfiv referrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WATFIV IBM 360 Fortran G ... was the regular compiler, IBM 360 Fortran H was much larger and high performance/optimizing compiler. 360 Fortran G & H (& HX) documents http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/ibm/360/fortran/ The person that did the 370/145 APL microcode assist at the Palo Alto Science Center also did internal FortranQ ... which then released as enhancement to Fortran HX. This has section that discusses some differences between FORT-H (extended) and FORT-H (aka fortran q, enhanced) .... also example application count for Fort-G, Fort-H (extended), and Fort-H (enhnaced) http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/512/2011/Lectures/L02FortranH-1up.pdf some past posts mention fortran q http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#1 WATFOR's Silver Anniversary http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004m.html#6 a history question http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#22 Why these original FORTRAN quirks? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010f.html#28 floating point, was history of RPG, Fortran http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#71 Fifty Years of nitpicking definitions, was BASIC,theProgrammingLanguageT http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#85 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#52 The Stack Depth -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29b0bf67-61af-4a55-87bc-633256eb67d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153187 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:35:20 PM UTC-4, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > IBM 360 Fortran G ... was the regular compiler, IBM 360 Fortran H was > much larger and high performance/optimizing compiler. 360 Fortran G & H > (& HX) documents > http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/ibm/360/fortran/ I pulled up the programmer's guide for H Fortran http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/ibm/360/fortran/SC28-6852-1_OS_FORTRAN_H_Pgmr_Jun72.pdf but I didn't see any narrative explaining the difference between G and H. Were there significant differences? Did H level cost more to lease? Was it commonly used? (I wish I saved my college printouts, so I could look to see what they used.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1105673472.467156925.434786.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153188 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 4:35:20 PM UTC-4, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > >> IBM 360 Fortran G ... was the regular compiler, IBM 360 Fortran H was >> much larger and high performance/optimizing compiler. 360 Fortran G & H >> (& HX) documents >> http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/ibm/360/fortran/ > > I pulled up the programmer's guide for H Fortran > http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/ibm/360/fortran/SC28-6852-1_OS_FORTRAN_H_Pgmr_Jun72.pdf > but I didn't see any narrative explaining the difference between G and H. > Were there significant differences? > I can't speak to the specific case, but lots of times the differences were simply core usage vs. compile time. I assume you know that the letter "G" or "H", etc. was the design point for minimum memory size of the machine required to run the compiler. A compiler for a larger-memory system might overlay less, keep tables in core instead of on disk, etc. for faster compiles. "D" compilers were used on DOS and had a lot fewer features than the OS compilers. > Did H level cost more to lease? Was it commonly used? Software was "free" back then. The only thing I remember about FORTRAN H was that in the 1963-4 timeframe it was so buggy the university told people not to use it "until further notice." > > (I wish I saved my college printouts, so I could look to see what they used.) > > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web