Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #164100 > unrolled thread

The football supporters' derisory chant?

Started by"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
First post2016-05-29 11:31 +0100
Last post2016-05-29 11:50 -0400
Articles 19 on this page of 39 — 16 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  The football supporters' derisory chant? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-29 11:31 +0100
    Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-29 10:44 +0000
      Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-29 14:25 +0100
        Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-29 13:27 +0000
          Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-29 14:53 +0100
            Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-29 15:51 +0000
              Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-29 17:37 +0100
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-29 17:35 +0000
              Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-29 18:35 +0100
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-29 18:11 +0000
                  Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:10 -0500
                    Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:22 +0000
                      Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 09:13 +0100
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 20:34 +0200
                  Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-30 14:47 +0000
                    Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 13:32 -0400
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:33 +0000
                  Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-31 14:51 -0400
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-31 20:32 +0000
            Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-30 11:36 -0700
              Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-30 19:51 +0000
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-30 22:57 +0000
                  Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-31 07:06 +0100
                    Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-31 07:13 +0000
                      Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-31 09:02 +0100
                        Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-31 08:37 +0000
                        Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-31 12:25 +0100
                          Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-31 14:06 +0100
              Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 16:01 -0400
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-31 07:44 +0100
                Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-03 00:09 -0400
                  Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:34 +0000
                    Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
                      Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 14:47 +0000
                        Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
                      Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:36 +0000
                        Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
              Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-30 23:21 +0100
          Re: The football supporters' derisory chant? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 11:50 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#164139

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-05-30 19:51 +0000
Message-ID<dr3jtlFm19sU28@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#164138
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:36:19 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
> wrote:
> 
>> In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps learnt
>> Algol whereas we in the electronic engineering school did FORTRAN, but
>> don't remember whether is was IV or 68.
> 
> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
> 
> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.

I don't recall an Algol 59. I do recall an Algol 58.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164142

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-05-30 22:57 +0000
Message-ID<niigh702t0e@news6.newsguy.com>
In reply to#164139
On 2016-05-30, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:36:19 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps learnt
>>> Algol whereas we in the electronic engineering school did FORTRAN, but
>>> don't remember whether is was IV or 68.
>> 
>> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
>> 
>> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.
>
> I don't recall an Algol 59. I do recall an Algol 58.

There was an Algol W.  I think we know what (or who) the W stands for.

-- 
/~\  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]

#164146

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-05-31 07:06 +0100
Message-ID<20160531070648.6bb6f88e38ce7a7fede380a6@eircom.net>
In reply to#164142
On 30 May 2016 22:57:43 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-05-30, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:36:19 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps learnt
> >>> Algol whereas we in the electronic engineering school did FORTRAN, but
> >>> don't remember whether is was IV or 68.
> >> 
> >> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
> >> 
> >> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.
> >
> > I don't recall an Algol 59. I do recall an Algol 58.
> 
> There was an Algol W.  I think we know what (or who) the W stands for.

	Algol W was the default teaching language at Cambridge when I was
there, many thought the W stood for Wilkes.

-- 
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]

#164149

FromStan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org>
Date2016-05-31 07:13 +0000
Message-ID<slrnnkqedl.7k6.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>
In reply to#164146
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:06:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 30 May 2016 22:57:43 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-30, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:36:19 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps learnt
>> >>> Algol whereas we in the electronic engineering school did FORTRAN, but
>> >>> don't remember whether is was IV or 68.
>> >> 
>> >> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
>> >> 
>> >> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.
>> >
>> > I don't recall an Algol 59. I do recall an Algol 58.
>> 
>> There was an Algol W.  I think we know what (or who) the W stands for.
>
> 	Algol W was the default teaching language at Cambridge when I was
> there, many thought the W stood for Wilkes.
>

I think it stood for Wirth who devolped it before going down the
Pascal/Modula route.

-- 
Stan Barr     plan.b@bluesomatic.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164152

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-05-31 09:02 +0100
Message-ID<20160531090238.71b685466f2e6f0a50307e03@eircom.net>
In reply to#164149
On 31 May 2016 07:13:57 GMT
Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:06:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> > On 30 May 2016 22:57:43 GMT
> > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-05-30, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:36:19 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >>> In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps
> >> >>> learnt Algol whereas we in the electronic engineering school did
> >> >>> FORTRAN, but don't remember whether is was IV or 68.
> >> >> 
> >> >> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
> >> >> 
> >> >> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.
> >> >
> >> > I don't recall an Algol 59. I do recall an Algol 58.
> >> 
> >> There was an Algol W.  I think we know what (or who) the W stands for.
> >
> > 	Algol W was the default teaching language at Cambridge when I
> > was there, many thought the W stood for Wilkes.
> >
> 
> I think it stood for Wirth who devolped it before going down the
> Pascal/Modula route.

	AFAIK it does.

-- 
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]

#164153

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-05-31 08:37 +0000
Message-ID<dr50qtFm19sU29@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#164152
On Tue, 31 May 2016 09:02:38 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On 31 May 2016 07:13:57 GMT Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:06:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> > On 30 May 2016 22:57:43 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2016-05-30, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:36:19 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP
>> >> >> #3339 wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>> In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps
>> >> >>> learnt Algol whereas we in the electronic engineering school did
>> >> >>> FORTRAN, but don't remember whether is was IV or 68.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't recall an Algol 59. I do recall an Algol 58.
>> >> 
>> >> There was an Algol W.  I think we know what (or who) the W stands
>> >> for.
>> >
>> > 	Algol W was the default teaching language at Cambridge when I
>> > was there, many thought the W stood for Wilkes.
>> >
>> >
>> I think it stood for Wirth who devolped it before going down the
>> Pascal/Modula route.
> 
> 	AFAIK it does.

+1



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164154

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-05-31 12:25 +0100
Message-ID<nijsc4$in2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#164152
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:20160531090238.71b685466f2e6f0a50307e03@eircom.net...
> On 31 May 2016 07:13:57 GMT
> Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think it stood for Wirth who devolped it before going down the
>> Pascal/Modula route.
>
> AFAIK it does.

The urban legend is that when asked as to how to pronounce his name,
he replied, "Call me by name, 'Veert', or call me by value, 'Worth' "  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164155

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-05-31 14:06 +0100
Message-ID<20160531140653.ba3415543512651d6082415a@eircom.net>
In reply to#164154
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:25:47 +0100
"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
> news:20160531090238.71b685466f2e6f0a50307e03@eircom.net...
> > On 31 May 2016 07:13:57 GMT
> > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it stood for Wirth who devolped it before going down the
> >> Pascal/Modula route.
> >
> > AFAIK it does.
> 
> The urban legend is that when asked as to how to pronounce his name,
> he replied, "Call me by name, 'Veert', or call me by value, 'Worth' "  :-)

	An older and more complete version, goes that he said "Europeans
call me by name, 'Nicklaus Wirth' while Americans call me by value "Nickels
Worth".

-- 
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]

#164140

From"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date2016-05-30 16:01 -0400
Message-ID<MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#164138
In article <1aa232de-809b-45a8-a182-5b7e785d01ef@googlegroups.com>, 
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says...
> 
> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> 
> > In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps learnt Algol
> > whereas we in the electronic engineering school did FORTRAN, but don't
> > remember whether is was IV or 68.
> 
> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
> 
> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.
> 
> I know of no language that had both a IV and a 68 to create this ambiguity.
> 
> Fortran 77, unlike Fortran IV, had structured IF - THEN - ELSE clauses.
> 
> Algol 68, unlike Algol 60, delimited certain structured clauses by using their 
> keywords spelled backwards: if ... fi, case ... esac.

I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new 
"structured" branching when the language already has branching 
constructs.

In some cases it means learning both the native way and the 
"structured" way that kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in the code.
 
> These are sufficiently striking features that they might jog your memory.
> 
> John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164148

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-05-31 07:44 +0100
Message-ID<20160531074412.bb604c708499ec2249d8e0b4@eircom.net>
In reply to#164140
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:01:10 -0400
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1aa232de-809b-45a8-a182-5b7e785d01ef@googlegroups.com>, 
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says...
> > 
> > Fortran 77, unlike Fortran IV, had structured IF - THEN - ELSE clauses.
> > 
> > Algol 68, unlike Algol 60, delimited certain structured clauses by
> > using their keywords spelled backwards: if ... fi, case ... esac.
> 
> I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new 
> "structured" branching when the language already has branching 
> constructs.

	It has the downside of leaving the language cluttered with
deprecated mechanisms, but it is an effective (perhaps the only) way to
provide new constructs for new code without having to rewrite old code.

> In some cases it means learning both the native way and the 
> "structured" way that kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in the code.

	Yes it is ugly. It's a practical solution but not an elegant one.
C++ was a repeat run of the same idea - grafting OO on while still retaining
everything C did, the result is no less inelegant but in both cases it is
practical.

-- 
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]

#164380

Fromsidd@situ.com (sidd)
Date2016-06-03 00:09 -0400
Message-ID<niqvtk$fq1$1@Lazarus.situ.com>
In reply to#164140
In article <MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new 
>"structured" branching when the language already has branching 
>constructs.

surely JNZ is all we need ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164386

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-06-03 10:34 +0000
Message-ID<drd4puFmspuU8@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#164380
On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:09:24 -0400, sidd wrote:

> In article <MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new
>>"structured" branching when the language already has branching
>>constructs.
> 
> surely JNZ is all we need ?

Jumps are luxury.

Skips are all we need.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164410

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Message-ID<PM0005345EA12C7422@aca40481.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#164386
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:09:24 -0400, sidd wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new
>>>"structured" branching when the language already has branching
>>>constructs.
>>
>> surely JNZ is all we need ?
>
> Jumps are luxury.
>
> Skips are all we need.

<grin>  AOSE, AOSE, AOSE.

/bah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164419

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-06-03 14:47 +0000
Message-ID<RLg4z.90$G_1.43@fx15.iad>
In reply to#164410
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:09:24 -0400, sidd wrote:
>>
>>> In article <MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new
>>>>"structured" branching when the language already has branching
>>>>constructs.
>>>
>>> surely JNZ is all we need ?
>>
>> Jumps are luxury.
>>
>> Skips are all we need.
>
><grin>  AOSE, AOSE, AOSE.

Modern architectures have instructions intended to avoid
branches.  E.g. CSET in AARCH64 or CMOVcc on X86.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164484

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Message-ID<PM00053473F88D40AB@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#164419
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:09:24 -0400, sidd wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new
>>>>>"structured" branching when the language already has branching
>>>>>constructs.
>>>>
>>>> surely JNZ is all we need ?
>>>
>>> Jumps are luxury.
>>>
>>> Skips are all we need.
>>
>><grin>  AOSE, AOSE, AOSE.
>
> Modern architectures have instructions intended to avoid
> branches.  E.g. CSET in AARCH64 or CMOVcc on X86.

yea, and what's the fun in that?  ;-)

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164428

FromBob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date2016-06-03 17:36 +0000
Message-ID<drdtgtFmspuU13@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#164410
On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:16:20 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:

> Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:09:24 -0400, sidd wrote:
>>
>>> In article <MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new
>>>>"structured" branching when the language already has branching
>>>>constructs.
>>>
>>> surely JNZ is all we need ?
>>
>> Jumps are luxury.
>>
>> Skips are all we need.
> 
> <grin>  AOSE, AOSE, AOSE.

I was thinking of SNA, SZA, SPA, SMA...  PDP-8! It's all you have!

As opposed to the useful (?) SKIP on the PDP-10...

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164471

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Message-ID<PM00053473F5FC5CEF@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#164428
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:16:20 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:09:24 -0400, sidd wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <MPG.31b66610b06680dc98a1e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have been wondering for a while about the wisdom of including new
>>>>>"structured" branching when the language already has branching
>>>>>constructs.
>>>>
>>>> surely JNZ is all we need ?
>>>
>>> Jumps are luxury.
>>>
>>> Skips are all we need.
>>
>> <grin>  AOSE, AOSE, AOSE.
>
> I was thinking of SNA, SZA, SPA, SMA...  PDP-8! It's all you have!

<grin>
>
> As opposed to the useful (?) SKIP on the PDP-10...

Very useful.  You could load an AC with the skip.  Someone
came up with a series of skips which did something very,
very clever because the AC ended up with the correct
value in it.  But I can't recall anything else about it.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164141

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-05-30 23:21 +0100
Message-ID<niiee0$m5d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#164138
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:1aa232de-809b-45a8-a182-5b7e785d01ef@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 
> wrote:
>
>> In my first year at Uni, Esex 1969, the computer science chaps learnt 
>> Algol
>> whereas we in the electronic engineering school did FORTRAN, but don't
>> remember whether is was IV or 68.
>
> There was a FORTRAN IV, and a FORTRAN 77.
>
> There was an Algol 59, an Algol 60, and an Algol 68.
>
> I know of no language that had both a IV and a 68 to create this 
> ambiguity.
>
> Fortran 77, unlike Fortran IV, had structured IF - THEN - ELSE clauses.
>
> Algol 68, unlike Algol 60, delimited certain structured clauses by using 
> their
> keywords spelled backwards: if ... fi, case ... esac.
>
> These are sufficiently striking features that they might jog your memory.

I had meant 66 and not 68.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164118

FromPeter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date2016-05-29 11:50 -0400
Message-ID<9091093.486229450.685130.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#164113
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:25:45 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> 
>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>> news:dqvvgmFm19sU20@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:31:37 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> For aficionados of RTL/2, that is ...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> "Oh! Oh! What a REF ARRAY!"
>>> 
>>> And Algol 68....
>> 
>> Algol is one language of which I've no experience.
> 
> Most people (including me) are more familiar with Algol 60 if they know 
> it at all. Algol 68 is definitely 'niche'.
> 

I became acquainted with it from my Burroughs experience.  It had
limitations compared to PL/I, particularly with  string handling. 
Burroughs Algol had some  tensions to handle character strings ("stream 
procedures"), but this always looked like a kludge to me.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web