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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #164594 > unrolled thread

BLISS

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

Contents

  BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:10 +0100
    Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 15:25 +0000
    Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:25 -0400
      Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:41 +0100
    Re: BLISS Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2016-06-05 12:20 -0700
      Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:08 +0100
        Re: BLISS Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 07:38 +0200
          Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:33 +0100
            Re: BLISS Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:05 +0200
              Re: BLISS jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
              Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 14:54 +0100
                Re: BLISS Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2016-06-06 08:03 -0700
                  Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:07 +0100
                    Re: BLISS Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2016-06-06 08:11 -0700
                      Re: BLISS jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
                    Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 02:31 -0700
                      Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 10:26 +0000
                      Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 12:01 +0100
                  Re: BLISS scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 16:48 +0000
                  Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
        Re: BLISS JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 14:16 -0500
    Re: BLISS jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
    Re: BLISS usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 21:04 +0000
      Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:30 +0000
        Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 10:23 +0100
          Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 10:24 +0000
        Re: BLISS jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
          Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 12:27 +0000
          Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 07:48 -0700
            Re: BLISS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-08 15:21 +0000
            Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 11:50 -0400
              Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 09:32 -0700
              Re: BLISS - broken bar Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-08 15:35 -0400
                Re: BLISS - broken bar Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-09 10:52 -0400
                Re: BLISS - broken bar Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-09 20:11 +0000
                  Re: BLISS - broken bar Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 06:45 -0400
            Re: BLISS jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
              Re: BLISS Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-06-09 10:23 -0500
                Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-09 08:49 -0700
              Re: BLISS "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 20:07 -0400
                Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-09 19:11 -0700
                  Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-09 19:16 -0700
        Re: BLISS "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-11 10:09 -0500
          Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-11 16:05 +0000
            Re: BLISS Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-11 19:27 +0100
              Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-11 18:46 +0000
            Re: BLISS "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-12 09:45 -0500
      Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 10:21 +0100
      Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 07:26 -0400
        Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 11:33 +0000
          Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 13:30 +0100
            Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 14:07 +0000
              Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 15:39 +0100
                Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 07:56 -0700
                  Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 11:50 -0400
                Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 15:27 +0000
                Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 11:50 -0400
                  Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 17:13 +0100
                  Re: BLISS mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-09 09:37 +0000
                    Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-09 10:52 -0400
                Re: BLISS Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-06-28 18:53 -0400
                  Re: BLISS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 19:47 -0400
                    Re: BLISS "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 20:00 -0400
                      Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-29 09:19 +0100
                        Re: BLISS "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 04:43 -0400
                  Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-29 09:17 +0100
                    Re: BLISS Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-07-12 17:07 -0700
                      Re: BLISS mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-13 14:22 +0000
                        Re: BLISS mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-13 14:41 +0000
                          Re: BLISS Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-13 16:50 +0100
                            Re: BLISS mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-13 19:24 +0000
                              Re: BLISS Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-07-13 23:13 +0000
                            Re: BLISS Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-07-14 06:06 +0100
                              Re: BLISS Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-14 09:12 +0100
              Re: BLISS Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-08 15:42 +0100
                Re: BLISS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-08 15:21 +0000
                  Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 16:44 +0100
                  Re: BLISS "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-11 10:19 -0500
                    Re: BLISS Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-13 16:20 +0000
                Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 15:28 +0000
          Re: BLISS Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-08 14:40 +0100
            Re: BLISS Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 14:08 +0000
            Re: BLISS Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-07-12 19:15 -0400
              Re: BLISS David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 17:39 +0100
        Re: BLISS "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-08 13:29 +0100

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#164868

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 6:07:23 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Might have been an IBM thing.  Here's a decent shot of a 3270 keyboard 
> -- you can see it clearly.
> 
> <https://flic.kr/p/Fp9GnZ>

Here is a shot of a Texas Instruments ASCII terminal showing the broken vertical bar on the keyboard back when this was common:

http://www.pcmuseum.ca/images.asp?images=Silent700-1-750.jpg

That was a popup from the page

http://www.pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=38323

in case the popup refuses to display from a direct link. So it was found on 
ASCII terminals from many manufacturers for a time, even if today it only 
survives on EBCDIC equipment from IBM.

John Savard

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

#164869

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 8:11:33 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 6:07:23 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> > Might have been an IBM thing.  Here's a decent shot of a 3270 keyboard 
> > -- you can see it clearly.
> > 
> > <https://flic.kr/p/Fp9GnZ>
> 
> Here is a shot of a Texas Instruments ASCII terminal showing the broken vertical bar on the keyboard back when this was common:
> 
> http://www.pcmuseum.ca/images.asp?images=Silent700-1-750.jpg
> 
> That was a popup from the page
> 
> http://www.pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=38323
> 
> in case the popup refuses to display from a direct link. So it was found on 
> ASCII terminals from many manufacturers for a time, even if today it only 
> survives on EBCDIC equipment from IBM.

And here's an HP 2645 terminal:

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=80538.0

John Savard

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

#164911

"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
news:drp088Fc6elU21@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:04:03 +0000, Questor wrote:
>
>> The big problem with the dot operator is that a period does not have a
>> lot of "visual redundancy," if you will.  It is at the mercy of fading
>> ink ribbons, coffee stains, blurry CRT screens, etc.  I don't know what
>> the better choice would have been, but I wish someone had found it.
>
> C uses *, but I preferred the one used by its predecessor, BCPL. That was
> '!'.
>

Fortunately, most of the C code I have written and have read... uses the 
pointer to the structure, using the "->".

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#164916

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:09:14 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:

> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
> news:drp088Fc6elU21@mid.individual.net...
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:04:03 +0000, Questor wrote:
>>
>>> The big problem with the dot operator is that a period does not have a
>>> lot of "visual redundancy," if you will.  It is at the mercy of fading
>>> ink ribbons, coffee stains, blurry CRT screens, etc.  I don't know
>>> what the better choice would have been, but I wish someone had found
>>> it.
>>
>> C uses *, but I preferred the one used by its predecessor, BCPL. That
>> was '!'.
>>
>>
> Fortunately, most of the C code I have written and have read... uses the
> pointer to the structure, using the "->".

There was one of those in BCPL, too...



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

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

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

#164919

On 11 Jun 2016 16:05:46 GMT
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:09:14 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
> 
> > "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
> > news:drp088Fc6elU21@mid.individual.net...
> >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:04:03 +0000, Questor wrote:
> >>
> >>> The big problem with the dot operator is that a period does not have a
> >>> lot of "visual redundancy," if you will.  It is at the mercy of fading
> >>> ink ribbons, coffee stains, blurry CRT screens, etc.  I don't know
> >>> what the better choice would have been, but I wish someone had found
> >>> it.
> >>
> >> C uses *, but I preferred the one used by its predecessor, BCPL. That
> >> was '!'.
> >>
> >>
> > Fortunately, most of the C code I have written and have read... uses the
> > pointer to the structure, using the "->".
> 
> There was one of those in BCPL, too...

	Yes but it did something rather different ?:.

-- 
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]

#164920

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 19:27:25 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On 11 Jun 2016 16:05:46 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:09:14 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>> 
>> > "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>> > news:drp088Fc6elU21@mid.individual.net...
>> >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:04:03 +0000, Questor wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The big problem with the dot operator is that a period does not
>> >>> have a lot of "visual redundancy," if you will.  It is at the mercy
>> >>> of fading ink ribbons, coffee stains, blurry CRT screens, etc.  I
>> >>> don't know what the better choice would have been, but I wish
>> >>> someone had found it.
>> >>
>> >> C uses *, but I preferred the one used by its predecessor, BCPL.
>> >> That was '!'.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Fortunately, most of the C code I have written and have read... uses
>> > the pointer to the structure, using the "->".
>> 
>> There was one of those in BCPL, too...
> 
> 	Yes but it did something rather different ?:.

Sorry, didn't make myself clear.

In BCPL, ->  and , were equivalent to what C later did with ? and :

But BCPL had a 'selector' operator, which operated on structures. It was 
usually provided by   ::





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

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

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

#164946

"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
news:ds2r6qFc6elU55@mid.individual.net...
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:09:14 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>> news:drp088Fc6elU21@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:04:03 +0000, Questor wrote:
>>>
>>>> The big problem with the dot operator is that a period does not have a
>>>> lot of "visual redundancy," if you will.  It is at the mercy of fading
>>>> ink ribbons, coffee stains, blurry CRT screens, etc.  I don't know
>>>> what the better choice would have been, but I wish someone had found
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> C uses *, but I preferred the one used by its predecessor, BCPL. That
>>> was '!'.
>>>
>>>
>> Fortunately, most of the C code I have written and have read... uses the
>> pointer to the structure, using the "->".
>
> There was one of those in BCPL, too...
>

Additionally, PL/I used "." to indicate record membership.  Also, if at any 
level of a string of record memberships, the subscripts could be distributed 
any way the programmer wanted.  For example,  with the reference 
"basics.second.third.numberx"...  if the record "basics" was a 15 element 
array  and the record "third" was a 12 element array, one reference to a 
selected "numberx" might be:      basics(3).second.third(6).numberx.     You 
get the *same* "numberx" with:
 basics.second.third(3,6).numberx.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#164781

"Questor" <usenet@only.tnx> wrote in message 
news:575735ef.21428362@nntp2.rawbw.com...
> A program that had been working for years started failing one day with a 
> page
> fault, and I quickly determined that what had changed was the KL had 
> received a
> microcode update.  I scrambled to find another machine that hadn't yet 
> been
> upgraded to determine how it had worked previously.  I discovered there 
> was a
> missing dot operator, and consequently the pointer to a field specified a
> non-existant page.  Under the old microcode, the write operation triggered 
> the
> creation of a page, the page map was duly updated, and the value written 
> to an
> otherwise empty page.  When the program subsequently went to read said 
> value
> with the same pointer, there it was -- right where it had been written.
> I don't remember the reason for the microcode change, but now the same 
> write
> request caused a page fault.  Anyway, I added the missing dot to the 
> pointer
> construction and all was right with the world again.

That's a good illustration of how a bug can go unnoticed for years!

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

#164788

Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 16:10:31 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339"
> <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> Inspired by the PL/I thread, I've had a look at BLISS for the first time.
>> 
>> Interesting the dot notation to cause a variable name dereference in sharp
>> contrast to the C technique of using "&" to force a reference!
> 
> Except that C doesn't require "&" in an assignment statement, so there still is
> an l-value/r-value dichotomy.
> 
> 
>> I wonder how many bugs came about in BLISS programs because of
>> the unnatural need to use dot compared to other languages?
> 
> One gets used to it very quickly when working with the code all day.
> It did result in an interesting bug once.
> 
> A program that had been working for years started failing one day with a page
> fault, and I quickly determined that what had changed was the KL had received a
> microcode update.  I scrambled to find another machine that hadn't yet been
> upgraded to determine how it had worked previously.  I discovered there was a
> missing dot operator, and consequently the pointer to a field specified a
> non-existant page.  Under the old microcode, the write operation triggered the
> creation of a page, the page map was duly updated, and the value written to an
> otherwise empty page.  When the program subsequently went to read said value
> with the same pointer, there it was -- right where it had been written.
> I don't remember the reason for the microcode change, but now the same write
> request caused a page fault.  Anyway, I added the missing dot to the pointer
> construction and all was right with the world again.
> 
> The big problem with the dot operator is that a period does not have a lot of
> "visual redundancy," if you will.  It is at the mercy of fading ink ribbons,
> coffee stains, blurry CRT screens, etc.  I don't know what the better choice
> would have been, but I wish someone had found it.
> 
> Otherwise, I like the clear line that BLISS draws between l-values and r-values.
> 
> 

Where did the terms l-value and r-value originate?  The first place I saw
them was C, maybe K&R, were they original there or did they come earlier?

-- 
Pete

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

#164789

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 07:26:08 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:

> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 16:10:31 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339"
>> <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> Inspired by the PL/I thread, I've had a look at BLISS for the first
>>> time.
>>> 
>>> Interesting the dot notation to cause a variable name dereference in
>>> sharp contrast to the C technique of using "&" to force a reference!
>> 
>> Except that C doesn't require "&" in an assignment statement, so there
>> still is an l-value/r-value dichotomy.
>> 
>> 
>>> I wonder how many bugs came about in BLISS programs because of the
>>> unnatural need to use dot compared to other languages?
>> 
>> One gets used to it very quickly when working with the code all day.
>> It did result in an interesting bug once.
>> 
>> A program that had been working for years started failing one day with
>> a page fault, and I quickly determined that what had changed was the KL
>> had received a microcode update.  I scrambled to find another machine
>> that hadn't yet been upgraded to determine how it had worked
>> previously.  I discovered there was a missing dot operator, and
>> consequently the pointer to a field specified a non-existant page. 
>> Under the old microcode, the write operation triggered the creation of
>> a page, the page map was duly updated, and the value written to an
>> otherwise empty page.  When the program subsequently went to read said
>> value with the same pointer, there it was -- right where it had been
>> written.
>> I don't remember the reason for the microcode change, but now the same
>> write request caused a page fault.  Anyway, I added the missing dot to
>> the pointer construction and all was right with the world again.
>> 
>> The big problem with the dot operator is that a period does not have a
>> lot of "visual redundancy," if you will.  It is at the mercy of fading
>> ink ribbons, coffee stains, blurry CRT screens, etc.  I don't know what
>> the better choice would have been, but I wish someone had found it.
>> 
>> Otherwise, I like the clear line that BLISS draws between l-values and
>> r-values.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Where did the terms l-value and r-value originate?  The first place I
> saw them was C, maybe K&R, were they original there or did they come
> earlier?

They are there in the definition of BCPL, and I believe in the definition 
of CPL.

(I have just unearthed the CPL manual from the other side of the room, 
and I can't find lvalues and rvalues mentioned).

But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C, 
since BCPL begat B, which begat C.



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

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

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

#164799

"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>
> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.

"Begat" - something to do with th F word?

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

#164802

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
> 
> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?

Read your Bible!

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

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

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

#164804

"Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>
>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
>>
>> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?
>
> Read your Bible!

Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.

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

#164806

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
> news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
> > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> >> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
> >> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...

> >>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
> >>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.

> >> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?

> > Read your Bible!

> Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.

Genesis 4:25

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For 
God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Genesis 5:3

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own 
likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth

This tells us that Adam and Eve were both in agreement that their third son, 
after the tragic loss of Abel and their estrangement from Cain, would be named 
Seth. It also tells us that the word "begat" is the past tense of "beget"; and 
to beget a child is to engender that child, to father it. And, yes, that 
usually is done through intimate contact, barring advanced reproductive 
technology.

John Savard

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

#164817

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
>> news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>>>> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>>>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>>>>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
> 
>>>> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?
> 
>>> Read your Bible!
> 
>> Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.
> 
> Genesis 4:25
> 
> And Adam knew his wife again; 

So how many years did it take him to get around to it?

and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For 
> God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
> 
> Genesis 5:3
> 
> And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own 
> likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth
> 
> This tells us that Adam and Eve were both in agreement that their third son, 
> after the tragic loss of Abel and their estrangement from Cain, would be named 
> Seth. It also tells us that the word "begat" is the past tense of "beget"; and 
> to beget a child is to engender that child, to father it. And, yes, that 
> usually is done through intimate contact, barring advanced reproductive 
> technology.
> 
> John Savard
> 



-- 
Pete

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

#164811

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:39:27 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
> news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>>> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>>>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
>>>
>>> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?
>>
>> Read your Bible!
> 
> Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.

I rather agree, but one picks these things up!



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

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

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

#164816

gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
> news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>> 
>>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>>> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>>>> 
>>>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>>>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
>>> 
>>> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?
>> 
>> Read your Bible!
> 
> Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.
> 
> 
> 

Still worthwhile, at least in part.  If you don't know anything about the
bible (hard to do) then references to Noah or Adam would pass you by.  A
lot of literature and poetry would be hard to understand.

-- 
Pete

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

#164819

"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1642428758.487093451.130867.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>> news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>>>> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>>>>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
>>>> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?
>>> Read your Bible!
>> Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.
>
> Still worthwhile, at least in part.  If you don't know anything about the
> bible (hard to do) then references to Noah or Adam would pass you by.  A
> lot of literature and poetry would be hard to understand.

Worry ye not, for I was brought up in the Christian Tradition but have long
recognised that it is all make believe and that those who live their
lives in a state of such make-believe should be certified as loonies.

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

#164840

On 2016-06-08, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
>> news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>>>> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> 
>>>>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>>>>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
>>>> 
>>>> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?
>>> 
>>> Read your Bible!
>> 
>> Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
> Still worthwhile, at least in part.  If you don't know anything about the
> bible (hard to do) then references to Noah or Adam would pass you by.  A
> lot of literature and poetry would be hard to understand.
>

I notice that many younger people refer more to characters in 
the Simpsons, more than the Bible, classical litrature, or Shakespear.

Even worse, over the last few weeks, they refer to "Game of Thrones"


-- 
greymaus.eircom.ie
 .
  .
...

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

#164847

<mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-06-08, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message 
>>> news:drqn59Fc6elU32@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:30:49 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Bob Eager" <news0006@eager.cx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:drqe3gFc6elU30@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But certainly in BCPL, so I would guess mid 1960s. Clearly before C,
>>>>>> since BCPL begat B, which begat C.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Begat" - something to do with th F word?
>>>> 
>>>> Read your Bible!
>>> 
>>> Not a fit pursuit for a devout atheist like what am I.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Still worthwhile, at least in part.  If you don't know anything about the
>> bible (hard to do) then references to Noah or Adam would pass you by.  A
>> lot of literature and poetry would be hard to understand.
>> 
> 
> I notice that many younger people refer more to characters in 
> the Simpsons, more than the Bible, classical litrature, or Shakespear.
> 
> Even worse, over the last few weeks, they refer to "Game of Thrones"
> 
> 

So who is this "John Snow" guy?

-- 
Pete

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web