Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218117 > unrolled thread
| Started by | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 16:08 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:14 -0600
Re: s/3, s/34, s/36, and so forth not iBM System/3 FORTRAN John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-27 01:27 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-29 22:47 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 12:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 13:04 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-06-29 21:33 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-30 15:56 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-06-30 22:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-01 05:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 06:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-01 13:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-03 01:19 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-03 10:14 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 10:43 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@situ.com - 2021-11-02 07:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-02 09:26 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-02 05:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2021-11-02 15:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@hugin.membrane.com - 2021-11-16 01:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 11:25 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:34 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 15:56 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 20:57 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-02 18:26 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-05 13:39 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 14:51 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:06 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 17:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:41 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 13:30 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-10 13:29 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 17:13 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-11 13:58 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:03 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:19 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:50 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 22:40 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 23:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-17 19:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 21:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-18 15:20 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:05 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-21 05:29 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-21 11:08 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:16 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:09 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:49 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 14:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-14 10:03 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:42 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-14 00:39 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:20 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-30 07:57 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 02:23 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 21:23 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 18:46 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 20:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-07-01 19:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-11-02 08:54 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-10-05 22:56 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-05 23:13 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 03:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 12:32 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-10-06 14:11 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:00 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:49 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 17:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-07 06:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 13:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:18 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:45 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:23 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:10 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:36 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 10:32 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-04 09:13 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-07 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-07 21:19 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 17:06 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-08 05:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 19:39 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2021-06-30 17:58 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-18 14:31 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-18 16:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:47 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:40 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:20 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-06-27 11:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-06-27 13:40 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-06-27 16:00 -0500
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-17 09:47 -0800
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-17 18:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-11-17 22:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-18 01:00 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-18 01:51 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-18 06:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700 |
| Subject | iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? |
| Message-ID | <257298b0-715f-465d-94b0-a8b98a4bf8f9n@googlegroups.com> |
Even the low-end models of IBM's System/360 proved too expensive for small business, so in 1969 IBM introduced the budget priced System/3. Notable was the tiny 96 column punched card. According to the manual (on Bitsavers), the IBM System/3 did support a Fortran compiler. However, I think the hardware did not have floating point and was only oriented toward business processing. My _guess_ is that the System/3 would run Fortran programs rather slowly and Fortran or sci/eng work was rarely done. Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortran? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. I'm pretty sure the System/3 supported BASIC. While BASIC wasn't as good as Fortran, it could handle some number crunching work. That was certainly adequate for some users. My guess is that extremely few customers bought a System/3 to do sci/eng work--there were too many other better choices available at the time. But it's certainly possible that some sites, while doing primarily business work, might have a eng/sci application here and there and may have run them, albeit slowly. Heck, they have the machine on site already, so use it. IBM ads 1970-71 (Hard to believe this was 50 years ago): https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1970-01/page/n17/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-01/page/n29/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-02/page/n5/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-03/page/n13/mode/2up (I don't know about the later S/34, S/36, and S/38 running Fortran or sci/eng applications. As more powerful machines, they may have had more capability, so it may not have been an issue.)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-16 16:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qcmkcgh6ghg04qqk2i6d3lf11ideu3726o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #218117 |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:59:12 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >Even the low-end models of IBM's System/360 proved too expensive for small business, so in 1969 IBM introduced the budget priced System/3. Notable was the tiny 96 column punched card. > >According to the manual (on Bitsavers), the IBM System/3 did support a Fortran compiler. However, I think the hardware did not have floating point and was only oriented toward business processing. My _guess_ is that the System/3 would run Fortran programs rather slowly and Fortran or sci/eng work was rarely done. > >Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortran? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. > >I'm pretty sure the System/3 supported BASIC. While BASIC wasn't as good as Fortran, it could handle some number crunching work. That was certainly adequate for some users. > >My guess is that extremely few customers bought a System/3 to do sci/eng work--there were too many other better choices available at the time. But it's certainly possible that some sites, while doing primarily business work, might have a eng/sci application here and there and may have run them, albeit slowly. Heck, they have the machine on site already, so use it. > >IBM ads 1970-71 (Hard to believe this was 50 years ago): >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1970-01/page/n17/mode/2up > >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-01/page/n29/mode/2up > >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-02/page/n5/mode/2up > >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-03/page/n13/mode/2up > > >(I don't know about the later S/34, S/36, and S/38 running Fortran or sci/eng applications. As more powerful machines, they may have had more capability, so it may not have been an issue.) I don't know if it was true for System/3, but at least some AS/400 sites just used packaged applications. I have a working AS/400 downstairs (or at least it was working 20 years ago--I haven't tried to run it in a long time--something about lugging the terminal down a flight of narrow stairs) and to my annoyance it did not have RPG or BASIC or any other programming language installed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61a2844e-6902-436a-ac3d-1276db6bdea3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218126 |
On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 4:08:19 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:59:12 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 > <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > >Even the low-end models of IBM's System/360 proved too expensive for small business, so in 1969 IBM introduced the budget priced System/3. Notable was the tiny 96 column punched card. > > > >According to the manual (on Bitsavers), the IBM System/3 did support a Fortran compiler. However, I think the hardware did not have floating point and was only oriented toward business processing. My _guess_ is that the System/3 would run Fortran programs rather slowly and Fortran or sci/eng work was rarely done. > > > >Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortran? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. > > > >I'm pretty sure the System/3 supported BASIC. While BASIC wasn't as good as Fortran, it could handle some number crunching work. That was certainly adequate for some users. > > > >My guess is that extremely few customers bought a System/3 to do sci/eng work--there were too many other better choices available at the time. But it's certainly possible that some sites, while doing primarily business work, might have a eng/sci application here and there and may have run them, albeit slowly. Heck, they have the machine on site already, so use it. > > > >IBM ads 1970-71 (Hard to believe this was 50 years ago): > >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1970-01/page/n17/mode/2up > > > >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-01/page/n29/mode/2up > > > >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-02/page/n5/mode/2up > > > >https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-03/page/n13/mode/2up > > > > > >(I don't know about the later S/34, S/36, and S/38 running Fortran or sci/eng applications. As more powerful machines, they may have had more capability, so it may not have been an issue.) > I don't know if it was true for System/3, but at least some AS/400 > sites just used packaged applications. I have a working AS/400 > downstairs (or at least it was working 20 years ago--I haven't tried > to run it in a long time--something about lugging the terminal down a > flight of narrow stairs) and to my annoyance it did not have RPG or > BASIC or any other programming language installed. While the AS/400 evolved from the S/3 midrange product line, it was a very different machine. There were other machines in between like the S/36 series. Note, unlike the original S/3 and the S/360 et al, which had a defined architecture and instruction set (to this day), the AS/400 used something vague called Licensed Internal Code. One model could vary from the next. The instruction set of the original System/3 is available on bitsavers. Not sure how many people bothered to program that machine in assembler since it was intended for smaller shops and easy to use. My impression was that most S/3 sites used RPG II or even canned routines. But the IBM literature said Fortran was available. How much it was used or how well it ran I don't know. Sometimes IBM would offer something that in reality didn't run very well on a given machine and got little use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 15:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sb85dj$mjk$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #218176 |
On 6/26/21 1:40 PM, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: > Note, unlike the original S/3 and the S/360 et al, which had a > defined architecture and instruction set (to this day), the AS/400 > used something vague called Licensed Internal Code. One model could > vary from the next. I'm quite sure that the same concept, if not the same thing, was used on many different IBM systems. I've heard tell of some S/360s implementing instructions via microcode, a.k.a. Licensed Internal Code ~> LIC, that other S/360s had in hardware. I know that my P/390-E requires LIC to run. I've heard tell that ES/9000s (a line of mainframes) required LIC to run. I hear discussion of LIC on modern z/Series systems. The LIC functions as a line / family specific abstraction layer that allows the underlying hardware to fulfil the API (if you will allow me the analogy) that the LIC provided to OS & other software running on the system. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-27 01:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: s/3, s/34, s/36, and so forth not iBM System/3 FORTRAN |
| Message-ID | <sb8k58$11uv$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #218184 |
According to Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>: >On 6/26/21 1:40 PM, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: >> Note, unlike the original S/3 and the S/360 et al, which had a >> defined architecture and instruction set (to this day), the AS/400 >> used something vague called Licensed Internal Code. One model could >> vary from the next. > >I'm quite sure that the same concept, if not the same thing, was used on >many different IBM systems. I've heard tell of some S/360s implementing >instructions via microcode, a.k.a. Licensed Internal Code ~> LIC, that >other S/360s had in hardware. Sort of. The s/3, s/34, and s/36 were small commercial machines with conventional architectures. The s/38 had a virtual instruction set which was translated to machine code the first time a progrm ran. The as/400 and later i series were upward compatible with that virtual instruction set, despite having very different underlying hardware. The various models of s/360 all had the same instruction set visible to the programmer (give or take the decimal and floating point features which were optional on small models), again with very different hardware. The 360/30 was a heavily microcoded 8 bit machine, the /65 was a microcoded 32 bit machine, the /75 was hard wired. On the microcoded models there were options to emulate 1400 and 709x machines. Other than the emulators I don't think there was any licensed microcode. In later years they did have licensed microcode accelerators and a variety of licensing games like a Linux applcation processor which was a regular processor minus an instruction or two but didn't count as a CPU for software licenses. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <929624087.646618932.252647.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218184 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: > On 6/26/21 1:40 PM, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: >> Note, unlike the original S/3 and the S/360 et al, which had a >> defined architecture and instruction set (to this day), the AS/400 >> used something vague called Licensed Internal Code. One model could >> vary from the next. > > I'm quite sure that the same concept, if not the same thing, was used on > many different IBM systems. I've heard tell of some S/360s implementing > instructions via microcode, a.k.a. Licensed Internal Code ~> LIC, that > other S/360s had in hardware. > > I know that my P/390-E requires LIC to run. I've heard tell that > ES/9000s (a line of mainframes) required LIC to run. > > I hear discussion of LIC on modern z/Series systems. > > The LIC functions as a line / family specific abstraction layer that > allows the underlying hardware to fulfil the API (if you will allow me > the analogy) that the LIC provided to OS & other software running on the > system. > But, if I remember correctly, the “architecture specification” for System i is about the level of P-code, and is completely interpreted on every model. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-29 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbg7tr$ad3$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #218206 |
According to Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>: >> The LIC functions as a line / family specific abstraction layer that >> allows the underlying hardware to fulfil the API (if you will allow me >> the analogy) that the LIC provided to OS & other software running on the >> system. > >But, if I remember correctly, the “architecture specification” for System i >is about the level of P-code, and is completely interpreted on every model. It's not interpreted, it's compiled to machine code the first time a program is run, but they go to great effort to make that invisible to the programmer. I gather you can debug at the architecture instruction level. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-29 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24400a45-c820-41b3-984f-9b29df443722n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218184 |
On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 5:14:50 PM UTC-4, Grant Taylor wrote: > I'm quite sure that the same concept, if not the same thing, was used on > many different IBM systems. I've heard tell of some S/360s implementing > instructions via microcode, a.k.a. Licensed Internal Code ~> LIC, that > other S/360s had in hardware. From what I saw on the AS/400, I don't think "LIC" was comparable to microcode. I think microcode was at a very low level. As far as I know, an application programmer never touched it, if it was even accessible. Application programmers stuck with assembler. I don't think even specialty developers touched it since each microcode was different for each model, which would create incompatibilities. In contrast, I remember fiddling with settings on the AS/400 and getting to see the LIC that was generated from my compilation. Accordingly, while LIC was still low level, I think it was at a higher level than S/360 microcode and not comparable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1260624561.646618562.491585.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218176 |
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 4:08:19 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:59:12 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 >> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >>> Even the low-end models of IBM's System/360 proved too expensive for >>> small business, so in 1969 IBM introduced the budget priced System/3. >>> Notable was the tiny 96 column punched card. >>> >>> According to the manual (on Bitsavers), the IBM System/3 did support a >>> Fortran compiler. However, I think the hardware did not have floating >>> point and was only oriented toward business processing. My _guess_ is >>> that the System/3 would run Fortran programs rather slowly and Fortran >>> or sci/eng work was rarely done. >>> >>> Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used >>> Fortran? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was >>> the vast majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. >>> >>> I'm pretty sure the System/3 supported BASIC. While BASIC wasn't as >>> good as Fortran, it could handle some number crunching work. That was >>> certainly adequate for some users. >>> >>> My guess is that extremely few customers bought a System/3 to do >>> sci/eng work--there were too many other better choices available at the >>> time. But it's certainly possible that some sites, while doing >>> primarily business work, might have a eng/sci application here and >>> there and may have run them, albeit slowly. Heck, they have the machine >>> on site already, so use it. >>> >>> IBM ads 1970-71 (Hard to believe this was 50 years ago): >>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1970-01/page/n17/mode/2up >>> >>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-01/page/n29/mode/2up >>> >>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-02/page/n5/mode/2up >>> >>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-03/page/n13/mode/2up >>> >>> >>> (I don't know about the later S/34, S/36, and S/38 running Fortran or >>> sci/eng applications. As more powerful machines, they may have had more >>> capability, so it may not have been an issue.) >> I don't know if it was true for System/3, but at least some AS/400 >> sites just used packaged applications. I have a working AS/400 >> downstairs (or at least it was working 20 years ago--I haven't tried >> to run it in a long time--something about lugging the terminal down a >> flight of narrow stairs) and to my annoyance it did not have RPG or >> BASIC or any other programming language installed. > > While the AS/400 evolved from the S/3 midrange product line, it was a > very different machine. There were other machines in between like the S/36 series. > > Note, unlike the original S/3 and the S/360 et al, which had a defined > architecture and instruction set (to this day), the AS/400 used something > vague called Licensed Internal Code. One model could vary from the next. > > The instruction set of the original System/3 is available on bitsavers. > Not sure how many people bothered to program that machine in assembler > since it was intended for smaller shops and easy to use. My impression > was that most S/3 sites used RPG II or even canned routines. But the IBM > literature said Fortran was available. How much it was used or how well > it ran I don't know. Sometimes IBM would offer something that in reality > didn't run very well on a given machine and got little use. > A lot of times to meet a customer (government) specification that required, e.g. FORTRAN, even though the customer probably never used it. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-29 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1faf3699-bbb8-4829-b1e4-deb75fe6c237n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218204 |
On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > The instruction set of the original System/3 is available on bitsavers. > > Not sure how many people bothered to program that machine in assembler > > since it was intended for smaller shops and easy to use. My impression > > was that most S/3 sites used RPG II or even canned routines. But the IBM > > literature said Fortran was available. How much it was used or how well > > it ran I don't know. Sometimes IBM would offer something that in reality > > didn't run very well on a given machine and got little use. > > > A lot of times to meet a customer (government) specification that > required, e.g. FORTRAN, even though the customer probably never used it. Yes, govt specs mandated a lot of unnecessary stuff*. Sometimes a customer, or perhaps a consultant, would get the 'bright idea' of using a non standard language to do some funky task. For example, Fortran in an otherwise business environment (or COBOL in an eng/sci site). I've seen lots of people try to run Fortran on their S/360 only to discover it didn't have the universal instruction set and they had to find a machine that did (often that turned out to be our site). Anyway, people would have these exotic funky programs that usually proved to be far too abstract and poorly written to be practical and accomplish anything. For whatever reason, high management would be enamored with these funky proposals and insist on trying them out, even if their IT staff studied it and advised against it. My guess is that that S/3 got Fortran for that reason in addition to govt specs. * One frustration was COBOL on the IBM mainframe. IBM had a lot of extensions that while officially non standard, were basically standard since everyone used them (like COMP-3). But some govt specs required 'standard' ANSI COBOL and no IBM extensions. That meant programmers had to get up to speed on unfamiliar stuff and often the code ran slower. I know of one site that for years stuck with 'standard' COBOL and finally bit the bullet and used the IBM extensions that everyone else used. Productivity was substantially improved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-29 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbg3j40161u@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #218214 |
On 2021-06-29, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> A lot of times to meet a customer (government) specification that >> required, e.g. FORTRAN, even though the customer probably never used it. > > Yes, govt specs mandated a lot of unnecessary stuff*. The Univac 9300 had a totally useless COBOL compiler for that reason. Politics made for strange hardware situations too. At one government office, someone was taking visitors on a tour and proudly proclaimed, "...and here is our computer room," and threw the door open on a room that was totally empty. So they got a computer to fill the room, where it sat unused until the shop I was working at picked it up for a song. > * One frustration was COBOL on the IBM mainframe. IBM had a lot of > extensions that while officially non standard, were basically standard > since everyone used them (like COMP-3). But some govt specs required > 'standard' ANSI COBOL and no IBM extensions. That meant programmers > had to get up to speed on unfamiliar stuff and often the code ran > slower. > > I know of one site that for years stuck with 'standard' COBOL and > finally bit the bullet and used the IBM extensions that everyone > else used. Productivity was substantially improved. Mind you, you had to know when to use the extensions. I was once called in to figure out why a COBOL program was running so slowly. It did a lot of subscripting, and the genius who wrote it declared all subscripts as COMP-3. Almost wore out the CVB instruction. :-) Changing all subscripts to COMP-4 knocked 30% off the execution time. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <952411953.646771349.279009.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218216 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2021-06-29, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> A lot of times to meet a customer (government) specification that >>> required, e.g. FORTRAN, even though the customer probably never used it. >> >> Yes, govt specs mandated a lot of unnecessary stuff*. > > The Univac 9300 had a totally useless COBOL compiler for that reason. > > Politics made for strange hardware situations too. At one government > office, someone was taking visitors on a tour and proudly proclaimed, > "...and here is our computer room," and threw the door open on a room > that was totally empty. So they got a computer to fill the room, > where it sat unused until the shop I was working at picked it up > for a song. > >> * One frustration was COBOL on the IBM mainframe. IBM had a lot of >> extensions that while officially non standard, were basically standard >> since everyone used them (like COMP-3). But some govt specs required >> 'standard' ANSI COBOL and no IBM extensions. That meant programmers >> had to get up to speed on unfamiliar stuff and often the code ran >> slower. >> >> I know of one site that for years stuck with 'standard' COBOL and >> finally bit the bullet and used the IBM extensions that everyone >> else used. Productivity was substantially improved. > > Mind you, you had to know when to use the extensions. I was once > called in to figure out why a COBOL program was running so slowly. > It did a lot of subscripting, and the genius who wrote it declared > all subscripts as COMP-3. At least they didn’t code (or default) them USAGE IS DISPLAY, which I saw from rime romtime. Almost wore out the CVB instruction. :-) > Changing all subscripts to COMP-4 knocked 30% off the execution time. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <090b3153-e2d1-4a29-adad-07041a069f96n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218216 |
On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 5:34:28 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Mind you, you had to know when to use the extensions. I was once > called in to figure out why a COBOL program was running so slowly. > It did a lot of subscripting, and the genius who wrote it declared > all subscripts as COMP-3. Almost wore out the CVB instruction. :-) > Changing all subscripts to COMP-4 knocked 30% off the execution time. OMG, that CVB (and the inverse) were killers. I had exclusive use of the machine over the weekend and experimented with a program. COMP-3 was terrible as a subscript. (As someone noted, DISPLAY was even worse). The opposite was true, too. Binary was not good for business processing since that slow conversion was necessary for all I/O.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <987158719.646770905.339072.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218214 |
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >>> The instruction set of the original System/3 is available on bitsavers. >>> Not sure how many people bothered to program that machine in assembler >>> since it was intended for smaller shops and easy to use. My impression >>> was that most S/3 sites used RPG II or even canned routines. But the IBM >>> literature said Fortran was available. How much it was used or how well >>> it ran I don't know. Sometimes IBM would offer something that in reality >>> didn't run very well on a given machine and got little use. >>> >> A lot of times to meet a customer (government) specification that >> required, e.g. FORTRAN, even though the customer probably never used it. > > Yes, govt specs mandated a lot of unnecessary stuff*. > > Sometimes a customer, or perhaps a consultant, would get the 'bright idea' of > using a non standard language to do some funky task. For example, Fortran in > an otherwise business environment (or COBOL in an eng/sci site). We were a COBOL shop, but there was one funky stat program in FORTRAN to analyze employee data or something. I think it was at least a tray of cards. I don’t know who wrote it, or when, or even if it was ever run while I was there, but it was the Director’s pet. > > I've seen lots of people try to run Fortran on their S/360 only to discover it > didn't have the universal instruction set and they had to find a machine that > did (often that turned out to be our site). I’m surprised someone didn’t write FP emulation routines and distribute them thru SHARE or something. I know this was later done for the Intel 386. > > Anyway, people would have these exotic funky programs that usually proved > to be far too abstract and poorly written to be practical and accomplish anything. > > For whatever reason, high management would be enamored with these funky > proposals and insist on trying them out, even if their IT staff studied it and > advised against it. I wrote a bunch of PL/I programs, but never convinced anyone to do any production stuff in it. > > My guess is that that S/3 got Fortran for that reason in addition to govt specs. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-30 15:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddeecjrurr.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #218219 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> I wrote a bunch of PL/I programs, but never convinced anyone to do any
> production stuff in it.
Prior to moving into systems programming, I was a programmer/analyst in the
Financial Systems group for the University of Chicago Computation Center. The
accounting system was a suite of COBOL programs purchased from a commercial
vendor which ran on SVS (= OS/VS2 v1) on an Amdahl 470.
Our standard was to make mods for localization in COBOL, but to write any
external utilities in PL/I using the optimizing compiler. That's what got me
in the door: I had been writing PL/1 for 10 years already when I got the job.
(NB: When I first started programming, the language was called "PL/1" in the
IBM manuals; by the time I started using it professionally, years before the
UChicago job, they had gone to the "PL/I" version of the name.)
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-30 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ik48ndFhcr5U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #218221 |
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:56:40 -0400, Rich Alderson wrote: > (NB: When I first started programming, the language was called "PL/1" > in the > IBM manuals; by the time I started using it professionally, years > before the UChicago job, they had gone to the "PL/I" version of the > name.) One of my colleagues did his Ph.D. in the 1960s. He had also worked for IBM. Part of his research was the construction of a general purpose macro language and processor. As a piss take of IBM, he called it ML/I. (Macro Language 1) http://www.ml1.org.uk -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 05:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbjir5$1ai$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #218222 |
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> schrieb: > One of my colleagues did his Ph.D. in the 1960s. He had also worked for > IBM. Part of his research was the construction of a general purpose macro > language and processor. > > As a piss take of IBM, he called it ML/I. (Macro Language 1) > > http://www.ml1.org.uk Seems far more readable than m4 (which is the serious programming language that I would consier most unreadable). Or are there others? Joke languages like Intercal need not apply :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 06:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ik55k9Fhcr5U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #218226 |
On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 05:12:05 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> schrieb: > >> One of my colleagues did his Ph.D. in the 1960s. He had also worked for >> IBM. Part of his research was the construction of a general purpose >> macro language and processor. >> >> As a piss take of IBM, he called it ML/I. (Macro Language 1) >> >> http://www.ml1.org.uk > > Seems far more readable than m4 (which is the serious programming > language that I would consier most unreadable). > > Or are there others? Joke languages like Intercal need not apply :-) There really aren't many others. I learned it in 1971, and still use it. But ther is not much call for general purpose macro processors these days. A few years ago I used it to process some files where others in a Usenet group had all failed. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 13:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210701132812.286a9de337ec5cb9cb04f0b2@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #218226 |
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:12:05 -0000 (UTC) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > Seems far more readable than m4 (which is the serious programming > language that I would consier most unreadable). XSLT and sendmail.cf are both less readable IMHO - XSLT control flow is essentially come-from with wildcards. -- 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 | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 01:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbodvb$2646$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #218228 |
According to Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>: >On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:12:05 -0000 (UTC) >Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > >> Seems far more readable than m4 (which is the serious programming >> language that I would consier most unreadable). > > XSLT and sendmail.cf are both less readable IMHO - XSLT control >flow is essentially come-from with wildcards. Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque. Back in the day Trac (the macro language, not the bug tracker) was somewhat popular but it's basically dead now. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web