Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:05:01 -0700
> On 04/11/2017 04:53 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
>
> > I consider the heart of any modern high performance CPU to be a
> > dataflow architecture (described as an "out of order execution
> > engine") with a hardware to t
On 04/11/2017 04:53 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
> I consider the heart of any modern high performance CPU to be a
> dataflow architecture (described as an "out of order execution
> engine") with a hardware to translate the macrocode (CISC or RISC) to
> the dataflow graph and tokens o
On 04/11/2017 04:47 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Apparently there was little concern for either Fortran or COBOL, the
> most widely used programming languages at the time.
So FORTRAN/Fortran and COBOL are still with us and the 432 is dust.
There's a lesson there somewhere...
--Chuck
Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Sean Conner
>
> > I really think it's for *this* reason (the handler() example) that C
> > doesn't allow nested functions.
>
> I wouldn't be sure of that; I would tend to think that nested functions were
Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:37:27 -0700
> On 04/10/2017 02:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> > When the 432 project (originally 8800) started, there weren't many
> > people predicting that C (and its derivatives) would take over the world.
>
> That's the danger of a too-aggress
On Apr 11, 2017 11:29 AM, "Chuck Guzis via cctalk"
wrote:
> This has me wondering about how the 432 people implemented FORTRAN.
Oh, there's a very simple answer to that. They didn't!
Early in the 8800/432 development (which started in 1975), Intel was
developing their own language for it, genera
Eric writes:
The 432 architects went on to design a RISC processor that eliminated most
of the drawbacks of the 432, but still supported object-oriented
addressing, type safety, and memory safety, but using 33-bit word with one
bit being the tag to differentiate Access Descriptors from data. This
On 04/11/2017 10:05 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> Back then it would have seemed a reasonable assumption that high
> level, strongly typed, languages would continue to flourish. If you
> assume Algol or Pascal or Ada, a machine like the 432 (or like the
> Burroughs 5500 and its descendants) makes p
> On Apr 11, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2017 02:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> When the 432 project (originally 8800) started, there weren't many
>> people predicting that C (and its derivatives) would take over the world.
>
> That's the danger of a too-agg
On 04/10/2017 02:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> When the 432 project (originally 8800) started, there weren't many
> people predicting that C (and its derivatives) would take over the world.
That's the danger of a too-aggressive CISC, isn't it? I suppose that
it's safe to say that if you look under
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 11:18 PM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> That is a bit of a surprise--in my experience it takes very little
>> code to support Forth on any processor--that someone would build a
>> dedicated chip for it is unusual.
>
> There are actually quit
> From: Sean Conner
> I really think it's for *this* reason (the handler() example) that C
> doesn't allow nested functions.
I wouldn't be sure of that; I would tend to think that nested functions were
left out simply because they add complexity, and didn't add enough value to
outweig
Two of them went past Pluto in 2015, inside the LORRI and PEPSSI
instruments on New Horizons, running (of course) flight software in FORTH. At
least one more was aboard MESSENGER at Mercury, in the MASCS instrument.
That is a processor architecture with legs… :-)
See pp. 1
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
> What about C made it difficult for the [Intel iAPX] 432 to run?
>
The iAPX 432 was a capability based architecture; the only kind of pointer
supported by the hardware was an Access Descriptor, which is a pointer to
an object (or a refinemen
Chuck Guzis wrote:
> That is a bit of a surprise--in my experience it takes very little
> code to support Forth on any processor--that someone would build a
> dedicated chip for it is unusual.
There are actually quite a few Forth processors. Charles Moore himself
designed half a dozen or so. The
It was thus said that the Great Sean Conner via cctalk once stated:
> It was thus said that the Great Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk once stated:
>
> > You can declare
> > new variables inside { ... } and they will shadow variables with the
> > same name declared outside of these brackets but this
It was thus said that the Great Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk once stated:
> Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote on Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:21:08 -0700
> > Thanks for the list--I was aware of the various Java engines and the WD
> > P-code engine, but had never run into the SCAMP.
>
> I just found an a
It was thus said that the Great Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk once stated:
> Sean Conner via cctalk wrote on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:39:57 -0400
> > What about C made it difficult for the 432 to run?
> >
> > -spc (Curious here, as some aspects of the 432 made their way to the 286
> > and we
On 4/10/2017 5:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
I suspect that at some point, Intel had
its big-system hopes pinned on the iA432 chipset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432
A friend made his career at Biin, mostly coding mind numbing code from
specs, and a round of golf every m
On 04/10/2017 04:47 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
> The 64KB segments in the 8086 were not a problem for Pascal (or
> Smalltalk, as shown by the Xerox PARC Notetaker computer) because each
> heap object and each proceedure can live in a different segment to take
> advantage of the whol
_
From: cctalk on behalf of Dave via cctalk
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:41:34 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)
I have a Harris RTX-2000 based system control board for a long defunct system.
The board w
> > Thanks for the list--I was aware of the various Java engines and the WD
> > P-code engine, but had never run into the SCAMP.
>
> I just found an academic Pascal microprocessor from 1980 called EM-1 and
> described all the way to the chip layout level:
>
> http://authors.library.caltech.edu/27
Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote on Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:21:08 -0700
> Thanks for the list--I was aware of the various Java engines and the WD
> P-code engine, but had never run into the SCAMP.
I just found an academic Pascal microprocessor from 1980 called EM-1 and
described all the way to the c
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk
wrote:
> About the original question, since the Burroughs architecture was
> eventually implemented as a microprocessor you can say that this was
> designed to run Algol:
>
> http://www.cpushack.com/2015/04/18/the-forgotten-ones-unisy
On 04/10/2017 02:49 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
Thanks for the list--I was aware of the various Java engines and the WD
P-code engine, but had never run into the SCAMP.
> Some architectures that are considered general purpose have included
> features to support specific languages.
Sean Conner via cctalk wrote on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:39:57 -0400
> What about C made it difficult for the 432 to run?
>
> -spc (Curious here, as some aspects of the 432 made their way to the 286
> and we all know what happened to that architecture ... )
C expects memory addresses to lo
Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:59:40 +
> On 4/10/2017 4:42 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> > Were there any microprocessor chips that attempted to mimic the
> > Burroughs B5000 series and natively execute Algol of any flavor?
>
> No, but Western Digital implemented
It was thus said that the Great Eric Smith via cctalk once stated:
>
> The Intel iAPX 432 was also designed to explicitly support block-structured
> languages. The main language Intel pushed was Ada, but there was no
> technical reason it couldn't have supported Algol, Pascal, Modula, Euclid,
> Me
On Apr 10, 2017 2:43 PM, "Chuck Guzis via cctalk"
wrote:
> Were there any microprocessor chips that attempted to mimic the
> Burroughs B5000 series and natively execute Algol of any flavor?
Yes, that's what the HP 3000 did (before PA RISC), and they did make
microprocessor implementations of it.
On 4/10/2017 4:42 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 04/10/2017 11:41 AM, Dave via cctalk wrote:
>> I have a Harris RTX-2000 based system control board for a long
>> defunct system. The board worked when removed more than 20 years ago
>> in the mid 90's. The RTX-2000 is a stack-based proces
On 04/10/2017 11:41 AM, Dave via cctalk wrote:
> I have a Harris RTX-2000 based system control board for a long
> defunct system. The board worked when removed more than 20 years ago
> in the mid 90's. The RTX-2000 is a stack-based processor designed
> for running FORTH. I think it was designed
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Dave via cctalk
wrote:
> I have a Harris RTX-2000 based system control board for a long defunct
> system. The board worked when removed more than 20 years ago in the mid
> 90's. The RTX-2000 is a stack-based processor designed for running FORTH.
> I think it wa
I have a Harris RTX-2000 based system control board for a long defunct system.
The board worked when removed more than 20 years ago in the mid 90's. The
RTX-2000 is a stack-based processor designed for running FORTH. I think it was
designed by Phil Koopman based on his graduate work. The boa
33 matches
Mail list logo
