Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #38714
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.raspberry-pi, comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Cross Platform Development |
| Date | 2015-04-29 13:34 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mhr4kc$87o$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <mhiouk$r6u$1@dont-email.me> <mhjf5l$kul$1@dont-email.me> <3qadnXtCmfZhbKDInZ2dnUU7-KudnZ2d@supernews.com> <mhp0kq$vlt$1@speranza.aioe.org> <mhpmcd$9rr$1@news.albasani.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 4/29/2015 12:23 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/04/15 23:12, Steve Graham wrote: >> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> ... >> >>> >>>> There were a number of odd/specialised languages around at the time >>>> which >>>> are not much used now and many of them had similar development >>>> characteristics and the ability to run on small, slow machines. >>>> >>>> MUMPS, anybody? >>> >>> MUMPS was unbelievably slow, even on fairly fast machines. Interactivity >>> was its own advantage. >>> >> >> MUMPS is a lot like Forth in one aspect: Both were able to create >> multi-user systems out of low-powered CPU's (Z80 for Forth (?) and 80286 >> for MUMPS). And when 386's and 486's appeared on the scene, these >> physically small machines took over the duties formerly relegated to >> much larger mini-computers. As has been said of Forth in another >> thread, MUMPS was able to eek out a lot more performance from the same >> system than other languages could. >> >> Steve >> > Your version of history is interesting, but appears to be unique. > > MUMPS was a minicomputer language developed in the 60s. Specifically > for medical use. > > Looking at the wiki entry reveals its more akin to a super COBOL than > anything else. You got all that from the wikipedia page? You seem to read selectively. It was developed in a medical environment but the applications are much more varied because the language is not specific to the medical community in any way. Did you read that Ameritrade uses it to handle 12 billion transactions per day? Seems to do well for a language from the 60's, no? Is "super COBOL" a good thing or a bad thing? -- Rick
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Cross Platform Development rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 09:25 -0400
Re: Cross Platform Development Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-26 19:43 +0000
Re: Cross Platform Development rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 21:30 -0400
Re: Cross Platform Development Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-28 15:16 -0700
Re: Cross Platform Development hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-26 19:46 -0700
Re: Cross Platform Development "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-04-26 22:23 -1000
Re: Cross Platform Development Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-28 15:12 -0700
Re: Cross Platform Development The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-29 05:23 +0100
Re: Cross Platform Development rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-29 13:34 -0400
Re: Cross Platform Development Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-29 19:31 +0000
Re: Cross Platform Development rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-29 15:43 -0400
Re: Cross Platform Development Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-04-29 20:07 +0000
Re: Cross Platform Development rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-29 18:49 -0400
Re: Cross Platform Development Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> - 2015-05-01 18:23 +0100
Re: Cross Platform Development Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2015-05-02 02:35 -0500
Re: Cross Platform Development Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-05-02 10:08 +0000
Re: Cross Platform Development The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-27 09:31 +0100
csiph-web