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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92db3026-e09b-4a3b-aac2-8e98424efff2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153381 |
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. Univac support simply was not of the same caliber as IBM support. Its people were not as well trained. As mentioned before, in IBM training classes, everything was set up properly in advance--film projects ready to roll, computer service (if needed) ready, etc. In contrast, other vendors often had to thread the projector, arrange for computer time and other support needed for the class at the last minute, etc. > But a vendor with a sense of humor. > > "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't sit there with your reference card. > Hope it came with VER and REP cards so at least the patch location > could be verified. I don't think there were even check digits. It would've made sense to mail out punched cards with small changes, but I think some of the 90/30's out there didn't have card readers. It was nice in our S/360-40 shop using DOS rel 26. That was "functionally stabilized", so there was no maintenance for it. We did have to make some changes when we introduced the POWER spooler and increased our core memory. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 14:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0ofom$tud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153385 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > 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 ... >> But a vendor with a sense of humor. >> >> "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". > > I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't sit > there with your reference card. Sure I have a translator. I'm expecting to retire next spring. I imagine I'll go to my grave still being able to decode EBCDIC in my head. ASCII, not so much. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 19:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9a1lmFeq5aU24@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153389 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:30:48 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> 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 > ... >>> But a vendor with a sense of humor. >>> >>> "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". >> >> I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't sit >> there with your reference card. > > Sure I have a translator. > I'm expecting to retire next spring. > I imagine I'll go to my grave still being able to decode EBCDIC in my > head. > > ASCII, not so much. It's being able to disassemble in my head that worries me! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 16:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0ooch$t8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153391 |
Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:30:48 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >>> 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 >> ... >>>> But a vendor with a sense of humor. >>>> >>>> "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". >>> >>> I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't sit >>> there with your reference card. >> >> Sure I have a translator. >> I'm expecting to retire next spring. >> I imagine I'll go to my grave still being able to decode EBCDIC in my >> head. >> >> ASCII, not so much. > > It's being able to disassemble in my head that worries me! I'm pretty good at that but the new 1.5 and 2.0 byte opcodes are just too much. They're not even adjacent bits any more. 47 - BC D2 - MVC D5 - CLC 90 - STM A7xx - Give me a break! -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9a9thFeq5aU26@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153411 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:57:56 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes: > >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:30:48 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >> >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>> >>>> 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 >>> ... >>>>> But a vendor with a sense of humor. >>>>> >>>>> "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". >>>> >>>> I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't >>>> sit there with your reference card. >>> >>> Sure I have a translator. >>> I'm expecting to retire next spring. >>> I imagine I'll go to my grave still being able to decode EBCDIC in my >>> head. >>> >>> ASCII, not so much. >> >> It's being able to disassemble in my head that worries me! > > I'm pretty good at that but the new 1.5 and 2.0 byte opcodes are just > too much. They're not even adjacent bits any more. > > 47 - BC D2 - MVC D5 - CLC 90 - STM A7xx - Give me a break! I was actually thinking of another architecture where I wrote compilers. I doubt you'd have heard of it...ICL 2900/3900. That was nice and orthogonal (but not as much as the PDP-10!). 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. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 17:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0orun$f8m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153413 |
Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:57:56 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes: >> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:30:48 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> ... >>>>>> But a vendor with a sense of humor. >>>>>> >>>>>> "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". >>>>> >>>>> I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't >>>>> sit there with your reference card. >>>> >>>> Sure I have a translator. >>>> I'm expecting to retire next spring. >>>> I imagine I'll go to my grave still being able to decode EBCDIC in my >>>> head. >>>> >>>> ASCII, not so much. >>> >>> It's being able to disassemble in my head that worries me! >> >> I'm pretty good at that but the new 1.5 and 2.0 byte opcodes are just >> too much. They're not even adjacent bits any more. >> >> 47 - BC D2 - MVC D5 - CLC 90 - STM A7xx - Give me a break! > > I was actually thinking of another architecture where I wrote compilers. > I doubt you'd have heard of it...ICL 2900/3900. That was nice and > orthogonal (but not as much as the PDP-10!). > > 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'm sure. I had to do simulation of all the recent additions to system Z instructions. I found in many cases individual bits in different instructions had the same function. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 09:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20151028090411.fe8cf263ad20a228114f2099@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153413 |
On 27 Oct 2015 21:50:42 GMT Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> 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. Seems likely the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple piece of logic. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0q55t$cku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153429 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20151028090411.fe8cf263ad20a228114f2099@eircom.net... > On 27 Oct 2015 21:50:42 GMT > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> 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. > > Seems likely the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto > opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a > disassembly. As for the 8080, so for the PDP-11!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 14:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n8623bdjg7fqcvgg7ithlb9em495gsgi9p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #153429 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > ... the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto >opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a >disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple piece of >logic. Right - I always thought that students who learned about the 8080/8085 seeming only the hexadecimal representation of the code, missed a valuable lesson in computer design. R.W.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jr623b9365qumne7r1vmsom08qcl0ivsv1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #153456 |
Roberto Waltman wrote: >Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> ... the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto >>opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a >>disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple piece of >>logic. > >Right - I always thought that students who learned about the 8080/8085 >seeming only the hexadecimal representation of the code, missed a >valuable lesson in computer design. > >R.W. seeing only ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9cl69FomsrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153456 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:55:56 -0400, Roberto Waltman wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> ... the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto >>opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a >>disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple piece >>of logic. > > Right - I always thought that students who learned about the 8080/8085 > seeming only the hexadecimal representation of the code, missed a > valuable lesson in computer design. Here we are: http://www.righto.com/2013/03/register-file-8085.html -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 13:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87twpa4wz3.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153456 |
Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> writes: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> ... the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto >>opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a >>disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple piece of >>logic. > > Right - I always thought that students who learned about the 8080/8085 > seeming only the hexadecimal representation of the code, missed a > valuable lesson in computer design. > > R.W. Many, many years ago, I was working on a "fantasy" project related to the 6502 -- if you took the 8-bit instruction and looked at it as 3-bits, 2-bits, 3-bits ( imagine writing in octal where 0xFF was 0737 instead of 0377 ) then the instruction set became nearly as easy to memorize as the 808[05] Some of the Z80 instructions were pretty torturously stuck into empty holes in the 8080s' set, but others were equally beautiful in their symmetry (DDxx and FDxx for the instructions that worked with the IX and IY registers, for example -- LD HL,1234 was 21 hex ... LD IX,1234 was opcode DD21) The entire set-reset-test bit instructions (stuck in CBxx) were beautifully orthogonal. The misc instructions in EDxx were chaotic and made my eyes bleed. That I still have so much of the instruction set committed to memory makes me simultaneously sad and happy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 17:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510281749420.31930@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153463 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Lawrence Statton wrote: > Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> writes: > >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> >>> ... the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto >>> opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a >>> disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple piece of >>> logic. >> >> Right - I always thought that students who learned about the 8080/8085 >> seeming only the hexadecimal representation of the code, missed a >> valuable lesson in computer design. >> >> R.W. > > Many, many years ago, I was working on a "fantasy" project related to > the 6502 -- if you took the 8-bit instruction and looked at it as > 3-bits, 2-bits, 3-bits ( imagine writing in octal where 0xFF was 0737 > instead of 0377 ) then the instruction set became nearly as easy to > memorize as the 808[05] > I remember various articles about that. Steve Wozniak had his 6502 disassembler in Dr. Dobbs early on, and it seemed to rely on that. The same scheme was used in his Apple II mini-assembler. I remember other articles in Dr. Dobbs where someone tried to streamline the code even more. > Some of the Z80 instructions were pretty torturously stuck into empty > holes in the 8080s' set, but others were equally beautiful in their > symmetry (DDxx and FDxx for the instructions that worked with the IX > and IY registers, for example -- LD HL,1234 was 21 hex ... LD IX,1234 > was opcode DD21) > > The entire set-reset-test bit instructions (stuck in CBxx) were > beautifully orthogonal. > > The misc instructions in EDxx were chaotic and made my eyes bleed. > > That I still have so much of the instruction set committed to memory > makes me simultaneously sad and happy. > > WIth the 6502, a relative handful of op-codes were used for most of the work, making it easy for hand assemblying. I don't remember off hand, but I'm sure if I started doing that stuff again, the hex values of those common opcodes would come back immediately. Someone actually ran a program back then to see which were the common op-codes, I think this was specifically for the 6502. He ran Microsoft BASIC through it, and there too only a handful of op-codes were used. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20151028191959.10ae347e85087a135a925bc2@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153456 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:55:56 -0400 Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > > ... the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto > >opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a > >disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple piece > >of logic. > > Right - I always thought that students who learned about the 8080/8085 > seeming only the hexadecimal representation of the code, missed a > valuable lesson in computer design. Most certainly, hex would conceal the pattern quite well. OTOH the Z80 was a mess in octal, hex or any other base, but a practical mess for the assembler programmer. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0rdj22174g@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153456 |
On 2015-10-28, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> ... the 8080 instruction set was very cleanly mapped onto
>> opcode bits, reading an octal dump was almost as easy as reading a
>> disassembly. The instruction decoder must have been a very simple
>> piece of logic.
>
> Right - I always thought that students who learned about the 8080/8085
> seeming only the hexadecimal representation of the code, missed a
> valuable lesson in computer design.
I was always conflicted when it came to the 8080 - as you said, the
instructions map quite nicely in octal, but I'm a hexadecimal fan,
especially on machines whose byte or word length isn't a multiple
of 3. How should you represent a 16-bit integer, 377377 or 177777?
Meanwhile I twist the knobs on my transponder, serene in the
knowledge that I'm one of the few pilots who knows exactly why
there are no 8 and 9 there.
ObThreadDrift:
I saw a close friend of mine the other day. He said,
"Stephen, why haven't you called me?" I said, "I can't
call everyone I want - my new phone has no 'five' on it."
He said, "How long have you had it?" I said, "I don't
know - my calendar has no 'seven's on it."
-- Stephen Wright
--
/~\ 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 | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 13:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wb4Yx.15256$nT2.15091@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #153413 |
Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:57:56 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes: >> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:30:48 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> ... >>>>>> But a vendor with a sense of humor. >>>>>> >>>>>> "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". >>>>> >>>>> I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't >>>>> sit there with your reference card. >>>> >>>> Sure I have a translator. >>>> I'm expecting to retire next spring. >>>> I imagine I'll go to my grave still being able to decode EBCDIC in my >>>> head. >>>> >>>> ASCII, not so much. >>> >>> It's being able to disassemble in my head that worries me! >> >> I'm pretty good at that but the new 1.5 and 2.0 byte opcodes are just >> too much. They're not even adjacent bits any more. >> >> 47 - BC D2 - MVC D5 - CLC 90 - STM A7xx - Give me a break! > >I was actually thinking of another architecture where I wrote compilers. >I doubt you'd have heard of it...ICL 2900/3900. That was nice and >orthogonal (but not as much as the PDP-10!). > >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. The worse ISA I've worked with, from a disassembling standpoint, is the ARM 64-bit AArch64 ISA. http://kitoslab-eng.blogspot.com/2012/10/armv8-aarch64-instruction-encoding.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Oq-dnQ6VrIgZlqzLnZ2dnUU78V2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153413 |
On 27/10/2015 21:50, Bob Eager wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:57:56 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes: >> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:30:48 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> ... >>>>>> But a vendor with a sense of humor. >>>>>> >>>>>> "SOCK IT TO ME SOCK IT TO ME". >>>>> >>>>> I just made it up. Hopefully you had a translator and didn't >>>>> sit there with your reference card. >>>> >>>> Sure I have a translator. >>>> I'm expecting to retire next spring. >>>> I imagine I'll go to my grave still being able to decode EBCDIC in my >>>> head. >>>> >>>> ASCII, not so much. >>> >>> It's being able to disassemble in my head that worries me! >> >> I'm pretty good at that but the new 1.5 and 2.0 byte opcodes are just >> too much. They're not even adjacent bits any more. >> >> 47 - BC D2 - MVC D5 - CLC 90 - STM A7xx - Give me a break! > > I was actually thinking of another architecture where I wrote compilers. > I doubt you'd have heard of it...ICL 2900/3900. That was nice and > orthogonal (but not as much as the PDP-10!). > > 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 suspect they also ran out of gates. At the time the 8080 was pushing the limits on the maximum number of gates on a chip.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0ra04129m5@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153449 |
On 2015-10-28, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 27/10/2015 21:50, 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. Yes, the 8080 was as clean as the Z80 was ugly. And then Zilog tried to paper it over with their own assembler mnemonics, which led to all that LD nonsense. I asked myself at the time why they didn't go all the way and replace INP with LD A,@<portnum>, or JMP with LD PC,<addr>. Once everything became LD you could do away with it entirely, and wind up with an assembly language with no opcodes at all. > I suspect they also ran out of gates. At the time the 8080 was pushing > the limits on the maximum number of gates on a chip. Too bad we didn't run out of Gates before Windows came along... -- /~\ 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 | 2015-10-28 17:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0rjjl$6gd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153473 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:n0ra04129m5@news6.newsguy.com... > On 2015-10-28, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > >> I suspect they also ran out of gates. At the time the 8080 was pushing >> the limits on the maximum number of gates on a chip. > > Too bad we didn't run out of Gates before Windows came along... > But we *did* run out of Gates before Windows came along! *Not* a single line of code in Windows was written by Bill Gates. It's like this: Q: Did Ronald Reagan dye his hair??? A: No, he had someone else do it for him. So... Q: Did Bill Gates create Microsoft Windows??? A: No, he had someone else do it for him. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 16:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n25j68$lgb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153413 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web