Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
Had to fire up BasiliskII to find out what kind of Fortran I used on Mac in 1988. Turned out it was Absoft Fortran 2.4 and seemed a bit strange as I recall M$ was written on floppies that I got for it. Did a bit of digging on internet today and, surprisingly, Absoft still exists and continues to produce Fortran compilers. What I had in 1988 was a Fortran 77 implementation. Liked the Absoft Fortran, but it definitely wasn't PDP-11 Fortran. Had no trouble porting my old code which primarily did graphics on a printer (also wrote a huge amount of code to use an HP plotter a few years before but didn't have one around then). Looked at some of the Fortran code to create windows, scroll bars and other controls and decided that QuickBasic was easier. Main thing I used Absoft Fortran for was to learn 68000 assembler as could get it to dump out assembler for each statement. Main failing of Absoft Fortan on Mac was that one had to write ones own graphics routines as well as deal with the idiosyncracies of Mac files with data and resource forks. There was a TOOLBOX command but remember doing anything required sitting down with Inside Macintosh books to debug errors. There was a debugger in later versions but at that point had switched to VB for when I needed to quickly create windows and controls. Main failing of Absoft Fortan on Mac was that one had to write ones own graphics routines as well as deal with the idiosyncracies of Mac files with data and resource forks. There was a TOOLBOX command but remember doing anything required sitting down with Inside Macintosh books to debug errors. Also weird that M$ licensed Mac Fortran from Absoft. Looked at Absoft's latest versions of Fortran and whole development system weighs in at 400+ Mb whereas the version I had was about 400 Kb. Boris Gimbarzevsky Exactly. Microsoft Fortran for the PC, written in Pascal, was not related to Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for CP/M, which was written in 8080 assembly. Microsoft Fortran for the PC was not related to Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for TRS80, which was a derivative of Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for CP/M, which was written in 8080 assembly. Because the TRS80 was Z80, I would not be surprised if some of the TRS80 specific code in Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for TRS80 might have used some Z80. Microsoft Fortran for the PC was written in Pascal. It was an unrelated product. I don't think that any of the Microsoft Fortran products were related to the Intel FORTRAN-80. Did Microsoft ever develop anything in PL/M? Did Microsoft ever develop anything for ISIS-II?
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 07:50:18PM -0400, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote: > Which is even funnier when you realize that the PL/M compiler > was written in Fortran. When all you have is a hammer ... mcl
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:50 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was > unrelated > > to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development > > systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written > in > > PL/M. > > > > Which is even funnier when you realize that the PL/M compiler > was written in Fortran. > In at least the more recent versions, Intel FORTRAN-80 on ISIS-II was compiled with the ISIS-II PL/M compiler, which was itself written in PL/M. The ISIS-II PL/M compiler was bootstrapped from the PL/M cross-compiler that was written in FORTRAN, and it's entirely possible that early versions of Intel FORTRAN-80 were developed that way as well.
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
Sent from my iPhone. > On May 31, 2020, at 9:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon > wrote: > > On 5/31/20 8:35 PM, Mich.com wrote: >> Sent from my iPhone. On May 31, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >>> >>> On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written in PL/M. >>> >>> Which is even funnier when you realize that the PL/M compiler >>> was written in Fortran. >>> >>> bill >> As I recall, it was the cross compiler for PL/M that was written in FORTRAN. >> But that came first, before any 8080-hosted PL/M compiler. > > You are definitely right on that. I forget what it was intended to run > on, probably some minicomputer like a DEC System-10 or -20. Hmmm... I > wonder if it would compile with Fortran-80 on my TRS-80. That might be > fun to see. I even have corrected sources around here somewhere because > after all those years of people using it I found a few bugs in the two > sets of sources that were floating around the Internet. :-) > > bill > I remember the “technical Computer center” people at Chrysler where I worked talking about making the PL/M compiler run on our CDC Cyber computers (60-bit). It was a bit of work. I seem to remember thinking it was written to run on an IBM mainframe, if that makes sense. But they got it working and we used it until Intel came out with their 8080-based development systems. Then we started using them to compile. Dave
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
On 5/31/20 8:35 PM, Mich.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone. On May 31, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written in PL/M. Which is even funnier when you realize that the PL/M compiler was written in Fortran. bill As I recall, it was the cross compiler for PL/M that was written in FORTRAN. But that came first, before any 8080-hosted PL/M compiler. You are definitely right on that. I forget what it was intended to run on, probably some minicomputer like a DEC System-10 or -20. Hmmm... I wonder if it would compile with Fortran-80 on my TRS-80. That might be fun to see. I even have corrected sources around here somewhere because after all those years of people using it I found a few bugs in the two sets of sources that were floating around the Internet. :-) bill
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
Sent from my iPhone. > On May 31, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > > On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: >> On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated >> to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development >> systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written in >> PL/M. > > Which is even funnier when you realize that the PL/M compiler > was written in Fortran. > > bill As I recall, it was the cross compiler for PL/M that was written in FORTRAN. But that came first, before any 8080-hosted PL/M compiler.
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written in PL/M. Which is even funnier when you realize that the PL/M compiler was written in Fortran. bill
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. It was written in Microsoft Pascal. On Sat, 30 May 2020, John Foust via cctalk wrote: Really! How does this connect to Microsoft's FORTRAN-80 for CP/M circa 1977? unrelated product, with no apparent connections, that I'm aware of. The 8080/Z80 FORTRAN-80 would have been a better starting point! Bob Wallace wrote the original Microsoft Pascal; I don't know who wrote the [PC] Fortran, other than being told that it was written in Microsoft Pascal, and to avoid the run-time library. On Sun, 31 May 2020, Eric Smith wrote: I assume you mean that Microsoft Fortran for the PC was written in Pascal. I did some reverse-engineering of the Microsoft FORTRAN-80 compiler, and it appears to be hand-written in 8080 assembly. On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written in PL/M. Exactly. Microsoft Fortran for the PC, written in Pascal, was not related to Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for CP/M, which was written in 8080 assembly. Microsoft Fortran for the PC was not related to Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for TRS80, which was a derivative of Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for CP/M, which was written in 8080 assembly. Because the TRS80 was Z80, I would not be surprised if some of the TRS80 specific code in Microsoft FORTRAN-80 for TRS80 might have used some Z80. Microsoft Fortran for the PC was written in Pascal. It was an unrelated product. I don't think that any of the Microsoft Fortran products were related to the Intel FORTRAN-80. Did Microsoft ever develop anything in PL/M? Did Microsoft ever develop anything for ISIS-II?
Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 3:27 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > >> One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first > >> version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. > >> It was written in Microsoft Pascal. > > On Sat, 30 May 2020, John Foust via cctalk wrote: > > Really! > > How does this connect to Microsoft's FORTRAN-80 for CP/M circa 1977? > > unrelated product, with no apparent connections, that I'm aware of. The > 8080/Z80 FORTRAN-80 would have been a better starting point! > Bob Wallace wrote the original Microsoft Pascal; I don't know who wrote > the Fortran, other than being told that it was written in Microsoft > Pascal, and to avoid the run-time library. > I assume you mean that Microsoft Fortran for the PC was written in Pascal. I did some reverse-engineering of the Microsoft FORTRAN-80 compiler, and it appears to be hand-written in 8080 assembly. On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written in PL/M.
PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC
One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first
version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great.
It was written in Microsoft Pascal.
On Sat, 30 May 2020, John Foust via cctalk wrote:
Really!
How does this connect to Microsoft's FORTRAN-80 for CP/M circa 1977?
unrelated product, with no apparent connections, that I'm aware of. The
8080/Z80 FORTRAN-80 would have been a better starting point!
Bob Wallace wrote the original Microsoft Pascal; I don't know who wrote
the Fortran, other than being told that it was written in Microsoft
Pascal, and to avoid the run-time library.
In late 1978, Microsoft also announced a version of FORTRAN-80 for TRS80.
OB_anecdeote:
I ordered 3 copies, for resale, through Lifeboat (Shrewsbury NJ major
distributor of CP/M, DR, and MS products). For months, I got,
"Oh, it was delayed, but your order just got shipped!". (in spite of
telling me each previous week that it had already just been shipped.)
In late February 1979, I drove with some friends from Berkeley to
Lewistown Montana for the solar eclipse, but had to fly back due to work
schedule. Flew back by way of Seattle. Had my friend Bob Wallace (who
worked for Microsoft) meet me at the airport during my layover; he
brought me three copies at the airport. (Serial #1,2,3, or maybe it was
10001, etc.)
I delivered copies to the community college district, where I was
teaching part-time, just in time for the start of their class.
They contacted me a couple of days later; the instructor typed in the
first demo program in the manual, and it SYNTAX ERROR'd out.
"The compiler doesn't work."
I pointed out a missing comma in the listing of the sample program in the
manual, and that fixed it.
"Well, it's no good if even the manual has errors."
That was pretty much my only/last contact with FORTRAN-80
In Fall 1983, that instructor managed to get hired at Cal State Hayward.
I got a call from the department chair, Wil Price, whom I knew well, at 6
PM, "Can you teach Fortran?"
"I think so."
"Great. You start tomorrow morning at 8:00 AM in room D252. Park in the
visitor lot, and see me after class for a parking permit."
Another call at about 8:30, "Can you handle more than one section?"
"Yes"
"OK, we'll have to 'LTS' ('long term sub') you to be 'full-time'
immediately."
When they held formal hiring for the full-time tenure-track position, a
year later, I got it.
Eventually tenure, etc.
Over the next decade, I created additional courses. C, Microcomputer
Disk Operating Systems (CP/M,TRSDOS,AppleDOs, but mostly MS-DOS),
Microcomputer (8088) Assembly Language, Desktop Publishing, Data
Structures And Algorithms, Introduction To The Internet, etc.
The PC Fortran, written by Microsoft and distributed by IBM was an
unrelated product. I think that it might be:
https://winworldpc.com/product/ibm-fortran-compiler/100
We used the PC Fortran on a couple dozen 5150s in the
school lab. It worked quite well for teaching beginners; I would not have
wanted to use it for anything real-world.
I heard that a few years later, it was rewritten, and MUCH better, so my
gripes about it aren't valid for the later products.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
