Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #158899 > unrolled thread
| Started by | philo <philo@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-05 11:25 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-13 11:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-05 11:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-05 14:56 -0800
Re: Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-05 18:13 -0600
Re: Qbasic Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-05 22:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-05 22:32 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Gene Buckle" <gene.buckle@bbs.retroarchive.org.remove-3hg-this> - 2016-02-11 10:22 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-11 17:16 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-11 18:49 -0800
Re: Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-12 05:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-12 11:50 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-12 14:02 +0000
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-12 23:24 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:50 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 06:53 -0500
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:53 -0800
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-13 14:37 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-12 14:04 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:55 -0800
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-12 20:49 +0000
Re: Qbasic Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-12 23:21 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 15:55 -0800
Re: Qbasic Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-13 00:26 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-12 21:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-12 17:11 -0600
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:27 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 06:26 -0500
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:54 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:34 -0800
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 19:56 +0000
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 12:48 -0800
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-17 18:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 19:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:00 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 15:02 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:36 -0500
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 04:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:34 -0500
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 08:03 -0600
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:09 -0500
Re: Qbasic JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:39 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 12:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 13:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 14:21 -0600
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 18:57 +0000
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 14:02 -0600
Re: Qbasic Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-20 16:51 -0400
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-18 06:25 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 14:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-18 11:33 -0600
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 17:41 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 14:54 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:14 -0500
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-18 20:54 -0600
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-19 11:44 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-13 12:24 -0600
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:26 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 07:43 -0700
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 10:29 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 08:20 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 09:21 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 12:44 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 11:31 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 15:52 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 13:02 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 16:58 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 20:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:39 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:17 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 20:00 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 17:52 -0800
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-13 19:28 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:32 -0800
Re: Qbasic David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 14:59 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-14 10:15 -0800
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-14 09:48 -0800
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-14 12:01 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 19:36 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 20:35 -0800
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:15 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 08:20 -0800
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-14 14:31 -0600
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:18 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-13 17:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 19:42 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 20:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:49 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 06:36 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 08:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 08:27 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 14:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:38 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-15 20:49 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-16 07:07 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 10:33 +0100
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-16 13:43 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 15:21 +0100
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 19:49 +0000
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:53 +0100
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:09 +1100
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:06 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:55 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-20 21:42 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:05 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:24 -0600
Re: Qbasic Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-21 00:26 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:43 +1100
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 18:36 +0000
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:31 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:13 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 06:00 +1100
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 10:10 -0800
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 18:32 +0000
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-16 21:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-16 08:20 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Qbasic Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 20:30 -0600
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:25 -0800
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:25 +0100
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 11:34 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 16:47 -0500
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-14 04:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 12:12 -0500
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 19:39 -0500
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:55 -0500
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 20:08 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 20:41 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 12:06 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 09:21 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 09:29 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-15 21:22 +0000
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-15 21:20 +0000
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 09:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:07 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 10:48 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 15:49 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:09 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 19:56 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 17:43 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-14 04:16 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:35 +0100
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 20:08 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 17:55 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-14 04:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 16:13 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 04:44 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:30 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:27 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-14 13:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:31 +1100
Re: Qbasic pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-02-12 17:38 +0000
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:33 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:51 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:24 -0500
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-13 14:37 +0000
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 10:24 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:20 -0800
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 11:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
Re: Qbasic Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2016-02-15 23:30 -0500
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:56 +0000
Re: Qbasic Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-13 11:33 +0000
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 20:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87ziv0gjbe.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #159543 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Interpress used "rational numbers": numerator+denominator rather than > floating point. A couple of decades ago, I was helping a friend who had been struggling to get his head around floating-point formats. Me: You know how any rational number can be expressed as a ratio of two integers (hence the name 'rational')? Him: Oh? That's where that name came from - I didn't know. Yeah, i get that. Me: Well, basically at its heart, every floating point format is a rational approximation of a real number, where the numerator is a simple integer, and the denominator is a power of two, over some range. A typical 32-bit float has 24 bits of numerator, and a denominator in the range 2**-127 ... 2**127. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na0s991oaf@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #159550 |
On 2016-02-17, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Interpress used "rational numbers": numerator+denominator rather than >> floating point. > > A couple of decades ago, I was helping a friend who had been struggling > to get his head around floating-point formats. > > Me: You know how any rational number can be expressed as a ratio of two > integers (hence the name 'rational')? > > Him: Oh? That's where that name came from - I didn't know. Yeah, i > get that. > > Me: Well, basically at its heart, every floating point format is a > rational approximation of a real number, where the numerator is a simple > integer, and the denominator is a power of two, over some range. A > typical 32-bit float has 24 bits of numerator, and a denominator in the > range 2**-127 ... 2**127. Nice. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <96ff5f3e-3ba7-4d62-97d6-d5aed95d1bfd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159477 |
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:20:37 AM UTC-7, Stan Barr wrote: > This was a constant subject for discussion in the Forth community way > back when. Many large astronomical programs and stuff for NASA were > written without floating point. Double length integers and scaling > are all that's needed in most cases. And Forth provided a nice function where you could take an integer, and first multiply it by one integer and then divide it by another, with the intermediate result kept in double precision, so that you could scale integers... in the fashion that requires conversion to floating-point, or an assembler-language call, in most other languages. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 17:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t024pc-pf3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #159236 |
In article <ee76a632-d12e-4ed1-9221-33c80c9b6a75@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 8:28:11 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >> In article <630582847.477066945.696306.peter_flass- >> yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > >> > Most companies try to develop products that give the customer what he >> > wants. Microsoft develops products that give the customer what microsoft >> > wants. > >> We're currently porting some code written in Fortran in the early '70s >> to C, mostly because IBM hasn't issued a version upgrade of Fortran on >> the mainframe since some time in the '80s. It's not EOL--they'll fix >> bugs if they find them and when they add new features to the hardware >> they _may_ update the compiler to provide support for them. > >Well, that's IBM trying to serve the customers it has. > >It sells System z architecture at premium prices, mainly to people who want to >use its premium database products that run the most robustly on its legacy >hardware. Its main competition is Oracle. > >People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use >PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that >hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date. And you can run a pretty full-featured Linux on System z. Fortran included. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 11:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d00a9070-7a71-4ef2-beee-d6406859298a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159254 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:07:02 PM UTC-7, Morten Reistad wrote: > And you can run a pretty full-featured Linux on System z. Fortran included. Yes. What it won't do, though, is generate code that runs under z/OS. If you want to run Linux, you have many way cheaper alternatives than a System z. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 16:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31296e747e51a575989f74@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159254 |
In article <t024pc-pf3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid says... > > In article <ee76a632-d12e-4ed1-9221-33c80c9b6a75@googlegroups.com>, > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 8:28:11 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > >> In article <630582847.477066945.696306.peter_flass- > >> yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > > >> > Most companies try to develop products that give the customer what he > >> > wants. Microsoft develops products that give the customer what microsoft > >> > wants. > > > >> We're currently porting some code written in Fortran in the early '70s > >> to C, mostly because IBM hasn't issued a version upgrade of Fortran on > >> the mainframe since some time in the '80s. It's not EOL--they'll fix > >> bugs if they find them and when they add new features to the hardware > >> they _may_ update the compiler to provide support for them. > > > >Well, that's IBM trying to serve the customers it has. > > > >It sells System z architecture at premium prices, mainly to people who want to > >use its premium database products that run the most robustly on its legacy > >hardware. Its main competition is Oracle. > > > >People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use > >PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that > >hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date. > > And you can run a pretty full-featured Linux on System z. Fortran included. We've had people look at that. The basic problem is that the Linux and Z/OS calling conventions are different and a wrapper has to be written in assembler to translate them. It would be nice if IBM added a switch to GFORTRAN that says "emit Z/OS native code" but as far as I know they haven't. Now, one could go off on a long tangent about such products as Tachyon Workbench, but experimenting with those takes time and money that nobody is willing to spend without there being a compelling business case for them. When there's a perfectly satisfactory, fully supported, native C compiler that business case gets very difficult to make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 04:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4uqdnUsFrL9AYCLLnZ2dnUU78TOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159236 |
On 13/02/2016 16:20, Quadibloc wrote:
{snip}
> People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use
> PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that
> hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date.
>
> John Savard
Hardware is so cheap and fast these days it may be easier to find a
compatible Fortran complier and buy the hardware that goes with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <150783820.477156402.082855.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159316 |
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 13/02/2016 16:20, Quadibloc wrote:
> {snip}
>
>> People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use
>> PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that
>> hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Hardware is so cheap and fast these days it may be easier to find a
> compatible Fortran complier and buy the hardware that goes with it.
>
One thing to look into. I think gcc now runs on zOS and generates native
code. Does this also apply to gfortran, which AFAIK is just a front-end to
the same code generator. Is this a better fortran than IBM's?
--
Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 12:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.312a7f8a7f520369989f7c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159353 |
In article <150783820.477156402.082855.peter_flass-
yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
>
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > On 13/02/2016 16:20, Quadibloc wrote:
> > {snip}
> >
> >> People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use
> >> PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that
> >> hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date.
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >
> > Hardware is so cheap and fast these days it may be easier to find a
> > compatible Fortran complier and buy the hardware that goes with it.
> >
>
> One thing to look into. I think gcc now runs on zOS and generates native
> code. Does this also apply to gfortran, which AFAIK is just a front-end to
> the same code generator. Is this a better fortran than IBM's?
There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How
well does it work and play with JCL?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 19:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n9r6ht$avv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159366 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> In article <150783820.477156402.082855.peter_flass-
> yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > On 13/02/2016 16:20, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > {snip}
>> >
>> >> People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use
>> >> PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that
>> >> hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date.
>> >>
>> >> John Savard
>> >
>> > Hardware is so cheap and fast these days it may be easier to find a
>> > compatible Fortran complier and buy the hardware that goes with it.
>> >
>>
>> One thing to look into. I think gcc now runs on zOS and generates native
>> code. Does this also apply to gfortran, which AFAIK is just a front-end to
>> the same code generator. Is this a better fortran than IBM's?
>
> There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How
> well does it work and play with JCL?
JCL doesn't do much, so I anticipate JCL wouldn't be an issue.
In C you fopen using either a filename, or if you like JCL you can
open "DD:INFILE". Other file attributes like VB vs. FB can be
handled in the fopen or in JCL.
--
Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 19:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.312aebfd2f6edcb5989f7f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159397 |
In article <n9r6ht$avv$3@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In article <150783820.477156402.082855.peter_flass-
> > yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> > On 13/02/2016 16:20, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> > {snip}
> >> >
> >> >> People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use
> >> >> PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that
> >> >> hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date.
> >> >>
> >> >> John Savard
> >> >
> >> > Hardware is so cheap and fast these days it may be easier to find a
> >> > compatible Fortran complier and buy the hardware that goes with it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> One thing to look into. I think gcc now runs on zOS and generates native
> >> code. Does this also apply to gfortran, which AFAIK is just a front-end to
> >> the same code generator. Is this a better fortran than IBM's?
> >
> > There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How
> > well does it work and play with JCL?
>
> JCL doesn't do much, so I anticipate JCL wouldn't be an issue.
>
> In C you fopen using either a filename, or if you like JCL you can
> open "DD:INFILE". Other file attributes like VB vs. FB can be
> handled in the fopen or in JCL.
That works fine with XL C. How does it work with GCC?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 20:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n9r885$avv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159399 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> In article <n9r6ht$avv$3@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <150783820.477156402.082855.peter_flass-
>> > yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
>> >>
>> >> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 13/02/2016 16:20, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> > {snip}
>> >> >
>> >> >> People wanting to do scientific computation on IBM hardware are expected to use
>> >> >> PowerPC hardware, which offers better price-performance. Fortran for that
>> >> >> hardware, I presume, is kept more up-to-date.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John Savard
>> >> >
>> >> > Hardware is so cheap and fast these days it may be easier to find a
>> >> > compatible Fortran complier and buy the hardware that goes with it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> One thing to look into. I think gcc now runs on zOS and generates native
>> >> code. Does this also apply to gfortran, which AFAIK is just a front-end to
>> >> the same code generator. Is this a better fortran than IBM's?
>> >
>> > There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How
>> > well does it work and play with JCL?
>>
>> JCL doesn't do much, so I anticipate JCL wouldn't be an issue.
>>
>> In C you fopen using either a filename, or if you like JCL you can
>> open "DD:INFILE". Other file attributes like VB vs. FB can be
>> handled in the fopen or in JCL.
>
> That works fine with XL C. How does it work with GCC?
No idea, but I'd guess gcc would either use IBM's implementation
or try to emulate it.
--
Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 20:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f4fcbfb-87dd-4aaa-bfa9-c78e2a40de34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159366 |
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How > well does it work and play with JCL? In that case, putting the Fortran front-end on it should be possible. That would resolve the issue created by IBM not updating their own compiler for z/OS. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 12:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.312bcf90864e06d5989f81@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159414 |
In article <5f4fcbfb-87dd-4aaa-bfa9-c78e2a40de34@googlegroups.com>, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > > There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How > > well does it work and play with JCL? > > In that case, putting the Fortran front-end on it should be possible. That would > resolve the issue created by IBM not updating their own compiler for z/OS. > > John Savard Possible, yes. Something that any IT department would be willing to spend money doing, no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 09:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce705194-9b8c-4d58-8713-fa8846a5e739@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159433 |
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:06:16 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <5f4fcbfb-87dd-4aaa-bfa9-c78e2a40de34@googlegroups.com>, > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > > There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How > > > well does it work and play with JCL? > > In that case, putting the Fortran front-end on it should be possible. That would > > resolve the issue created by IBM not updating their own compiler for z/OS. > Possible, yes. Something that any IT department would be willing to > spend money doing, no. I'm thinking that it may already have been done. I am surprised to hear that such a version of GCC exists, though. But if it does, then why not proceed as the next step to include the basic GCC stable of languages? However, it may well be that GCC for z/OS doesn't support all the functionality with respect to interacting with the OS that would be needed for regular use. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 09:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <798c6636-1652-49aa-a6ea-fe562020282b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159434 |
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:21:38 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:06:16 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <5f4fcbfb-87dd-4aaa-bfa9-c78e2a40de34@googlegroups.com>, > > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > > > > There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How > > > > well does it work and play with JCL? > > > > In that case, putting the Fortran front-end on it should be possible. That would > > > resolve the issue created by IBM not updating their own compiler for z/OS. > > > Possible, yes. Something that any IT department would be willing to > > spend money doing, no. > > I'm thinking that it may already have been done. I am surprised to hear that > such a version of GCC exists, though. But if it does, then why not proceed as > the next step to include the basic GCC stable of languages? > > However, it may well be that GCC for z/OS doesn't support all the functionality > with respect to interacting with the OS that would be needed for regular use. I think I've found it: http://gccmvs.sourceforge.net/ Although it's directed at z/OS, it's apparently by the same group that brought us MVS/380 - basically, a Hercules mod that supports bigger addresses with reduced changes from the previous 360 architecture, plus a modified version of MVS to run on it. It's intended as a way to make the software written for Linux available under z/OS. So there may well be difficulties and obstacles in the way of using it as the basis for a Fortran port. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 21:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ar2dnYub58bj3F_LnZ2dnUU78cEAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159435 |
On 15/02/2016 17:29, Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:21:38 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote: >> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:06:16 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >>> In article <5f4fcbfb-87dd-4aaa-bfa9-c78e2a40de34@googlegroups.com>, >>> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... >>>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>>>> There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How >>>>> well does it work and play with JCL? >> >>>> In that case, putting the Fortran front-end on it should be possible. That would >>>> resolve the issue created by IBM not updating their own compiler for z/OS. >> >>> Possible, yes. Something that any IT department would be willing to >>> spend money doing, no. >> >> I'm thinking that it may already have been done. I am surprised to hear that >> such a version of GCC exists, though. But if it does, then why not proceed as >> the next step to include the basic GCC stable of languages? >> >> However, it may well be that GCC for z/OS doesn't support all the functionality >> with respect to interacting with the OS that would be needed for regular use. > > I think I've found it: > > http://gccmvs.sourceforge.net/ > > Although it's directed at z/OS, it's apparently by the same group that brought > us MVS/380 - basically, a Hercules mod that supports bigger addresses with > reduced changes from the previous 360 architecture, plus a modified version of > MVS to run on it. > > It's intended as a way to make the software written for Linux available under > z/OS. > > So there may well be difficulties and obstacles in the way of using it as the > basis for a Fortran port. > > John Savard > Fortran programs operating system functions normally restrict themselves to start, stop and I/O. Not hard to implement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 13:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.312be566f029a6ed989f82@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159434 |
In article <ce705194-9b8c-4d58-8713-fa8846a5e739@googlegroups.com>, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:06:16 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <5f4fcbfb-87dd-4aaa-bfa9-c78e2a40de34@googlegroups.com>, > > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > > > > There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How > > > > well does it work and play with JCL? > > > > In that case, putting the Fortran front-end on it should be possible. That would > > > resolve the issue created by IBM not updating their own compiler for z/OS. > > > Possible, yes. Something that any IT department would be willing to > > spend money doing, no. > > I'm thinking that it may already have been done. If it has I find no evidence of it. > I am surprised to hear that > such a version of GCC exists, though. But if it does, then why not proceed as > the next step to include the basic GCC stable of languages? You'll have to ask the person who ported it that one. > However, it may well be that GCC for z/OS doesn't support all the functionality > with respect to interacting with the OS that would be needed for regular use. > > John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 21:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ar2dnYib58ZF3V_LnZ2dnUU78cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159433 |
On 15/02/2016 17:06, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <5f4fcbfb-87dd-4aaa-bfa9-c78e2a40de34@googlegroups.com>, > jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... >> >> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:11:27 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> There is a gcc that runs natively on Z/OS and emits native code. How >>> well does it work and play with JCL? >> >> In that case, putting the Fortran front-end on it should be possible. That would >> resolve the issue created by IBM not updating their own compiler for z/OS. >> >> John Savard > > Possible, yes. Something that any IT department would be willing to > spend money doing, no. > The cost of buying gcc Fortran with back end just has to be cheaper than translating a couple of programs into C for many IT departments to buy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 09:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f06ca151-d32c-49e3-a4ff-e3441550b3e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159233 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 10:28:11 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > We're currently porting some code written in Fortran in the early '70s > to C, mostly because IBM hasn't issued a version upgrade of Fortran on > the mainframe since some time in the '80s. It's not EOL--they'll fix > bugs if they find them and when they add new features to the hardware > they _may_ update the compiler to provide support for them. There is still some old Fortran that still runs on the Z mainframe. But I think most Fortran work is now done by other means, such as CAD/CAM or spreadsheets; or mini-computers where Fortran is still supported and expanded. But if a conversion is necessary, today's mainframe COBOL supports some sci/eng functions. Might be easier to go to COBOL than C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web