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 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 17:47 -0400 |
| Subject | high level language idea |
| Message-ID | <n06cl3$ve2$1@dont-email.me> |
Is it true that higher language ideas pretty much came from Adm. Grace Hopper? Of course Adminral Hopper wasn't an adminral back then. I've also heard that the term 'bug' was coined by her. Wow. Bill
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 01:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n06ojk11un7@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153134 |
On 2015-10-20, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote: > Is it true that higher language ideas pretty much came from Adm. Grace > Hopper? Of course Adminral Hopper wasn't an adminral back then. I've also > heard that the term 'bug' was coined by her. Wow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n08pqf$vbe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153136 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:n06ojk11un7@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 2015-10-20, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> 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.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
>
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_programming_languages#Early_history
John Mauchly's Short Code, proposed in 1949, was one of the first high-level
languages ever developed for an electronic computer.[3] Unlike machine code,
Short Code statements represented mathematical expressions in understandable
form. However, the program had to be translated into machine code every time
it ran, making the process much slower than running the equivalent machine
code.
--------------------------------------------
From the Grace Hopper webpage above:
In 1949, Hopper became an employee of the Eckert–Mauchly Computer
Corporation as a senior mathematician and joined the team developing the
UNIVAC I.[17] In the early 1950s, the company was taken over by the
Remington Rand corporation, and it was while she was working for them that
her original compiler work was done. The compiler was known as the A
compiler and its first version was A-0.[20]:11
In 1952 she had an operational compiler. "Nobody believed that," she said.
"I had a running compiler and nobody would touch it. They told me computers
could only do arithmetic."[21]
In 1954 Hopper was named the company's first director of automatic
programming, and her department released some of the first compiler-based
programming languages, including MATH-MATIC and FLOW-MATIC.
--------------------------------------
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler#History
The first high-level programming language (Plankalkül) was proposed by
Konrad Zuse in 1943. The first compiler was written by Grace Hopper, in
1952, for the A-0 programming language; the A-0 functioned more as a loader
or linker than the modern notion of a compiler. The first autocode and its
compiler were developed by Alick Glennie in 1952 for the Mark 1 computer at
the University of Manchester and is considered by some to be the first
compiled programming language. The FORTRAN team led by John Backus at IBM is
generally credited as having introduced the first complete compiler in 1957.
COBOL was an early language to be compiled on multiple architectures, in
1960.[2]
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d71e8b61-fcba-471a-9512-03b5c521d72f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153174 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:44:17 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > In 1954 Hopper was named the company's first director of automatic > programming, and her department released some of the first compiler-based > programming languages, including MATH-MATIC and FLOW-MATIC. FLOW-MATIC is officially recognized as a predecessor (among several) to COBOL and is duly credited in the IBM COBOL manual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 01:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n06p14$6u1$1@frotz.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153134 |
Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote: > Is it true that higher language ideas pretty much came from Adm. Grace > Hopper? Of course Adminral Hopper wasn't an adminral back then. I've also > heard that the term 'bug' was coined by her. Wow. "Bug" has been used to describe a problem in a machine for a long time before Hopper came along. Otherwise the story about finding a moth in a relay and declaring it the "first actual case of a bug being found" wouldn't have made sense. -- David Griffith davidmylastname@acm.org <--- Put my last name where it belongs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n08l81$com$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153137 |
"David Griffith" <davidmylastname@acm.org> wrote in message
news:n06p14$6u1$1@frotz.eternal-september.org...
> "Bug" has been used to describe a problem in a machine for a long time
> before Hopper came along. Otherwise the story about finding a moth in a
> relay and declaring it the "first actual case of a bug being found"
> wouldn't have made sense.
That I was not aware of. The moth incident I thought might have started
the term "bug' I guess not.
Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4bbf784a-e9e6-4414-a2d4-793a43e34538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153161 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote: > That I was not aware of. The moth incident I thought might have started > the term "bug' I guess not. Thomas Edison's letters include references to 'bugs' needing to be fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 15:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n08oiu$qcc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153165 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:4bbf784a-e9e6-4414-a2d4-793a43e34538@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:26:10 PM UTC-4, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> That I was not aware of. The moth incident I thought might have
>> started
>> the term "bug' I guess not.
>
> Thomas Edison's letters include references to 'bugs' needing to be fixed.
I did not know that. Hum. Never stop learning. Maybe even some before
him. Possibly Da Vinci or others.
Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 03:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97d664fb-5efe-4425-8b94-12bbd91f4907@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153134 |
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. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5627977a$0$1714$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #153140 |
bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote: +--------------- | On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 22:47:16 UTC+1, Bill Cunningham wrote: | > Is it true that higher language ideas | > pretty much came from Adm. Grace Hopper? | | The contents of the Wikipedia articles indicate that, while | John Backus's FORTRAN certainly pre-dated COBOL, Hopper's | ideas which were behind COBOL may have pre-dated Backus. +--------------- Also, the development of Lisp slightly predated COBOL. Lisp was invented by John McCarthy in 1958, and implementation started that Fall on an IBM 704 [in assembler]. Steve Russell hand-coded the "eval" function, which gave Lisp an interpreter. The first Lisp compiler [written in Lisp] was running by 1960. -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n085ht$ahs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153143 |
"Rob Warnock" <rpw3@rpw3.org> wrote in message news:5627977a$0$1714$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote: > +--------------- > | On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 22:47:16 UTC+1, Bill Cunningham wrote: > | > Is it true that higher language ideas > | > pretty much came from Adm. Grace Hopper? > | > | The contents of the Wikipedia articles indicate that, while > | John Backus's FORTRAN certainly pre-dated COBOL, Hopper's > | ideas which were behind COBOL may have pre-dated Backus. > +--------------- > > Also, the development of Lisp slightly predated COBOL. > Lisp was invented by John McCarthy in 1958, and implementation > started that Fall on an IBM 704 [in assembler]. Steve Russell > hand-coded the "eval" function, which gave Lisp an interpreter. > The first Lisp compiler [written in Lisp] was running by 1960. "Lots of Infernal Stupid Parentheses", but predated the idea of Read-Only Memory by several years by being a Read-Only Language, although surpassed in later years by Brainfuck?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 10:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n087p9$tgq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #153144 |
On 21/10/2015 9:58 AM, gareth wrote: > "Rob Warnock" <rpw3@rpw3.org> wrote in message > news:5627977a$0$1714$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Also, the development of Lisp slightly predated COBOL. Lisp was >> invented by John McCarthy in 1958, and implementation started that >> Fall on an IBM 704 [in assembler]. Steve Russell hand-coded the >> "eval" function, which gave Lisp an interpreter. The first Lisp >> compiler [written in Lisp] was running by 1960. > > "Lots of Infernal Stupid Parentheses", but predated the idea of > Read-Only Memory by several years by being a Read-Only Language, > although surpassed in later years by Brainfuck? Not to be confused with Signetics 25120 write only ram. http://repeater-builder.com/molotora/gontor/25120-bw.pdf :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d8ptmfFeq5aU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153144 |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:58:19 +0100, gareth wrote: > "Rob Warnock" <rpw3@rpw3.org> wrote in message > news:5627977a$0$1714$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> 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. +--------------- >> >> Also, the development of Lisp slightly predated COBOL. >> Lisp was invented by John McCarthy in 1958, and implementation started >> that Fall on an IBM 704 [in assembler]. Steve Russell hand-coded the >> "eval" function, which gave Lisp an interpreter. >> The first Lisp compiler [written in Lisp] was running by 1960. > > "Lots of Infernal Stupid Parentheses", but predated the idea of > Read-Only Memory by several years by being a Read-Only Language, > although surpassed in later years by Brainfuck? And even more so by Whitespace. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5627a54a$0$1643$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #153143 |
I just wrote:
+---------------
| Also, the development of Lisp slightly predated COBOL.
| Lisp was invented by John McCarthy in 1958, and implementation
| started that Fall on an IBM 704 [in assembler]. Steve Russell
| hand-coded the "eval" function, which gave Lisp an interpreter.
+---------------
Algol-58 also predates COBOL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_58
...
By the end of 1958 the ZMMD-group had built a working
ALGOL 58 compiler for the Z22 computer.
The first NELIAC [a variant of Algol-58] compiler
was also done in 1958.
So Fortran, Algol-58/NELIAC, and Lisp all predated COBOL...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n08led$ddt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153140 |
"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.
Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2p-dnUImsuFZebrLnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153162 |
Bill Cunningham 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. A lot of major applications were written in assembly. You could get the best possible performance, if you knew the instruction set well. Some compilers were quite good, some quite awful. The number of well-hidden bugs that were only discovered YEARS later were large. OS/360 was all written in assembler, although possibly a few utility programs might have been in an HLL. The number of bugs in OS/360 were legendary, and they NEVER stamped them all out. That led to a lot of system crashes. Maintenance was a HUGE headache, and kept teams of analysts busy trying to make it run more reliably. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 15:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v9pf2b5qu755k8vcm2493bmismc2jj2320@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #153166 |
Jon Elson wrote: >... The number of bugs in OS/360 were legendary, and they NEVER stamped >them all out. I recall reading somewhere that the number of bugs was more or less a constant, with each new OS release introducing as many new bugs as fixes for old ones. R.W.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 14:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6uudnWwjqLB1qbTLnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153169 |
Roberto Waltman wrote: > Jon Elson wrote: > >>... The number of bugs in OS/360 were legendary, and they NEVER stamped >>them all out. > > I recall reading somewhere that the number of bugs was more or less a > constant, with each new OS release introducing as many new bugs as > fixes for old ones. Yes, trying to maintain a huge piece of software, with thousands of separately assembled routines, some linked to the "kernel" and a bunch called in as needed, after it has been in use for MANY years, and hacked on by hundreds or thousands of programmers, seems REALLY daunting. The number of unintended interactions seems vast. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d8v03hFcoufU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153229 |
"Jon Elson" wrote: > Roberto Waltman wrote: > >> Jon Elson wrote: >> >>>... The number of bugs in OS/360 were legendary, and they NEVER stamped >>>them all out. >> >> I recall reading somewhere that the number of bugs was more or less a >> constant, with each new OS release introducing as many new bugs as >> fixes for old ones. > Yes, trying to maintain a huge piece of software, with thousands of > separately assembled routines, some linked to the "kernel" and a bunch > called in as needed, after it has been in use for MANY years, and hacked > on > by hundreds or thousands of programmers, seems REALLY daunting. The > number > of unintended interactions seems vast. If they did, in fact, accommodate the hackers, it was a failure of management. They should have provided a written interface when they released the OS to the wild and made it clear that *this* *is* the interface. Not some fascinating stuff that multiple someones had gleaned by reverse engineering or whatever. IBM was big enough that they could have enforced such a rule.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 11:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1962268566.467307460.451955.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153248 |
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > "Jon Elson" wrote: > >> Roberto Waltman wrote: >> >>> Jon Elson wrote: >>> >>>> ... The number of bugs in OS/360 were legendary, and they NEVER stamped >>>> them all out. >>> >>> I recall reading somewhere that the number of bugs was more or less a >>> constant, with each new OS release introducing as many new bugs as >>> fixes for old ones. >> Yes, trying to maintain a huge piece of software, with thousands of >> separately assembled routines, some linked to the "kernel" and a bunch >> called in as needed, after it has been in use for MANY years, and hacked >> on >> by hundreds or thousands of programmers, seems REALLY daunting. The >> number >> of unintended interactions seems vast. > > If they did, in fact, accommodate the hackers, it was a failure of > management. They should have provided a written interface when they > released the OS to the wild and made it clear that *this* *is* the > interface. Not some fascinating stuff that multiple someones had gleaned by > reverse engineering or whatever. > > IBM was big enough that they could have enforced such a rule. > > it was all open-source. No need to reverse-engineer anything. As late as MVS/XA I had a VSAM open exit where the call location had to be gleaned by looking at the fiche and disassembling the PL/S module, although it started out as a straightforward source update in MVS/370. I think JES2, or most of it, is still distributed as source, because so many users had so many different mods. Out JES guy had tons and knew the jes code i side and out. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web