Re: Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/19/2017 02:14 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:

>   "The Fortran codes implementing the most effective methods are
> provided in the included diskette. The codes are portable on virtually
> any computer, extensively commented and---hopefully---easy to use."

Take a look at early ACM CALGO (collected algorithms).  Algorithm 1
dates from 1960 and is in Algol; indeed all of Volume I and a good part
of Volume II are exclusively Algol.  You don't hit FORTRAN until about
1968 (somewhere around Algorithm 330).  After that, you'll see pages and
pages of FORTRAN.

I do think that Algol is far more elegant for describing algorithms than
FORTRAN; but the sad fact is that many (US-based) programmers didn't
speak Algol.

--Chuck

Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-03-17 2:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:


Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of
architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).


Well, okay--the European-American divide must be taken into account--and
the Burroughs B5000 architecture was sui generis.

But by and large, FORTRAN, at least in North America, was the first
language of choice in implementation--after assembly, if one can call
assembly a language--many would call it "symbolic coding"; using symbols
instead of numeric addresses.

--Chuck






I came across a typical example of how Fortran was used as lingua 
franca, just yesterday, in a book titled "Knapsack Problems - Algorithms 
and Computer Implementations" (Silvano Martello, Paolo Toth), published 
1990.


The Preface includes the words:

  "The Fortran codes implementing the most effective methods are 
provided in the included diskette. The codes are portable on virtually 
any computer, extensively commented and---hopefully---easy to use."


--Toby

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-03-17 3:19 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:

From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM


On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:



and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had
been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
inspire Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
being the predecessor to FORTRAN?



Valdres March has been around for more than a century--it's at least 113
years old.



So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.



It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.



"I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know
it will be called Fortran."

--Tony Hoare, winner of the 1980 Turing Award,
  in 1982.



Depressingly prescient...

--T

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> Still, vendors kept extending their FORTRAN IVs.  I think I remarked on
> a CDC syntactic extension that resulted in the ability to write an
> ambiguous statement, with no clear way to resolve the meaning.

I'm reminded of a T-shirt sold while I was in college (mid 1970s) with this 
text:

(.)(.)
   IKF4084I

I looked that up in Messages and Codes, found a pointer to the IBM COBOL 
messages manual, where I found this message text: "Questionable use of 
parentheses accepted with doubts as to meaning".  So I think CDC was not alone 
in that bad practice.

paul

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/19/2017 08:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

> FORTRAN.  FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN
> IV compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66").  VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except
> most VAXen of the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and
> Fortran was handled by f2c.
> 
> I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before
> moving on to PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.

There was another FORTRAN 66 available fro the S/360, but you usually
saw  it on the lower models (25, 30, 40).   It was called "Basic FORTRAN
IV" or sometimes "USA Basic FORTRAN".  There doesn't seem to be a manual
in S/360 section  for this on bitsavers.  I recall that it was a slim
little packet.

It was brutal--basic INTEGER, REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION data
declarations; blank COMMON only; arithmetic IF only, computed and
unconditional GO TO--and the bugbear of many programmers:  strict
enforcement  of "mixed mode" prohibitions.  File I/O was reasonable, I
suppose.  A maximum of 6 characters in a variable name, stuff like that.

Better than some of the stripped-down FORTRAN II versions, which often
didn't even include type declarations.

FORTRAN IV was a step forward--vendor "extensions" of FORTRAN II were
getting out of hand--contrast some of the conventions of, say, 7090 FMS
II/IBSYS fORTRAN with other vendors.  For example, punching a 'B" in
column 1 indicated a "logical/Boolean" expression and so on...

Still, vendors kept extending their FORTRAN IVs.  I think I remarked on
a CDC syntactic extension that resulted in the ability to write an
ambiguous statement, with no clear way to resolve the meaning.

I believe that Univac, at one point, boasted an 1100 "FORTRAN V". That's
chutzpah for you. "FORTRAN VI", of course, was PL/I.

F77 tightened that up and brought out the notion of having to flag any
non-ANSI syntax.  F90 was clear in that vendor extensions were to be
disabled by default; i.e., the user must explicitly enable them.

F90 was, to me, the point of departure.  Many statement types were
deprecated; since the world was no longer coding on cards, free-format
input was standardized.  Extensions for high-end supercomputers were
codified, etc.   Reserved words made their appearance--in previous
versions, the notion of "whitespace" was introduced.   It was perfectly
legitimate to name a variable "FORMAT" or "REAL" and write it as "F OR M
AT", though I suspect that few ever did.

The Fortran of today resembles FORTRAN II in the same way that COBOL
2014 resembles IBM COMTRAN.

But, mutatis mutandis, Fortran/FORTRAN still lives.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Raymond Wiker via cctalk]

> On 19 Mar 2017, at 16:14 , Paul Koning via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
>>  wrote:
>> ...
>> That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
>> the OO KoolAid.
> 
> Speaking of OO and COBOL, a colleage of mine has a button with the text "ADD 
> 1 TO COBOL".
> 
>   paul
> 

Given that C++ is the object-oriented descendant of C, one might expect 
object-oriented COBOL to be named "ADD 1 TO COBOL". In my opinion, the 
object-oriented successor to COBOL is called Java - it's similarly verbose, and 
like COBOL, originally intended for average, fungible programmers.

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

> FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look 
> anything like itself these days.


On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank 
from the OO KoolAid.


Yes, there does exist an Object Oriented COBOL!

Oh, and my 1401 only did Autocoder.  I didn't start using Fortran until 
my Univac-1100 days.


There wasn't a Fortran compiler for the 1401, but 
how much did they charge for the FORTRAN compiler?

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> ...
> That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
> the OO KoolAid.

Speaking of OO and COBOL, a colleage of mine has a button with the text "ADD 1 
TO COBOL".

paul

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Rich Alderson via 
cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 3:07 PM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

From: ben
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:28 PM

> On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

>> From: Chuck Guzis
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM

>>> And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the closest
>>> thing to a "portable" language...

>> Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

Preach it, brother!

> But was FORTRAN that portable?

Yes.

> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer that had ample I/O
> and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more
> paper tape I/O.

The PDP-8 family has compilers for both FORTRAN II and FORTRAN IV.  16 bits?
What could we possibly do with all that address space? ;-)

> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360 systems. A few
> ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.

FORTRAN.  FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN IV
compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66").  VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except most VAXen of
the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and Fortran was handled by
f2c.

I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before moving on to
PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.

FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look anything like
itself these days.


That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
the OO KoolAid.

Oh, and my 1401 only did Autocoder.  I didn't start using Fortran until my 
Univac-1100
days.

bill

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Rich Alderson via cctalk]

From: ben
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:28 PM

> On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

>> From: Chuck Guzis
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM

>>> And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the closest
>>> thing to a "portable" language...

>> Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

Preach it, brother!

> But was FORTRAN that portable?

Yes.

> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer that had ample I/O
> and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more
> paper tape I/O.

The PDP-8 family has compilers for both FORTRAN II and FORTRAN IV.  16 bits?
What could we possibly do with all that address space? ;-)

> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360 systems. A few
> ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.

FORTRAN.  FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN IV
compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66").  VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except most VAXen of
the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and Fortran was handled by
f2c.

I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before moving on to
PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.

FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look anything like
itself these days.

Rich

Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134

mailto:ri...@livingcomputers.org

http://www.LivingComputers.org/

RE: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Rich Alderson via cctalk]

From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM

> On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

>> and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had
>> been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
>> inspire Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
>> being the predecessor to FORTRAN?

> Valdres March has been around for more than a century--it's at least 113
> years old.

> So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.

> It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
> wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.


"I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know
it will be called Fortran."

--Tony Hoare, winner of the 1980 Turing Award,
  in 1982.

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:

> Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of
> architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
> And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
> VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
> level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
> envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).

I'll also consider that there are probably other exceptions.  Did
FORTRAN or RPG have the honor of "first implemented"  on the S/360 Model
20?  My gut says RPG.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:

> Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of
> architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
> And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
> VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
> level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
> envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).

Well, okay--the European-American divide must be taken into account--and
the Burroughs B5000 architecture was sui generis.

But by and large, FORTRAN, at least in North America, was the first
language of choice in implementation--after assembly, if one can call
assembly a language--many would call it "symbolic coding"; using symbols
instead of numeric addresses.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
> wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.

Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of architectures: 
Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.  And I supposed you 
could claim that status for Bliss in the case of VAXen, though in a different 
sense there was a whole set of high level languages that were there day 1 
because the architecture envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).

paul

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

> and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had
> been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
> inspire Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
> being the predecessor to FORTRAN?

Valdres March has been around for more than a century--it's at least 113
years old.

So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.

It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.

--Chuck

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

In response to a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN, guy who
insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also
had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment
disks, . . .

Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?

It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres and Valdres
march.

Oh, I know--I was making a joke.  It's a fine march and I've performed
it in conCert bands many times.


and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had been 
around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to inspire 
Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it being the 
predecessor to FORTRAN?



OB_Trivia: Originally "FORTRAN" was a portmanteau of "FORmula TRANslation".
cf. Lewis Carroll, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portmanteau
(Q: Why would anybody make a computer language out of a big suitcase?
 A: for portability!)
In 1992?, the revised standard changed the official spelling from FORTRAN 
to Fortran, (Fortran 8X, Fortran 90)
Valtrep came long after FORTRAN, and had no discernable influence on 
Fortran.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 10:06 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

> Oh, I know--I was making a joke.  It's a fine march and I've
> performed it in convert bands many times.


Er, make that "concert bands"

--Chuck

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 06:46 AM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
>  wrote:
>> On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?
> 
> It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres and Valdres
> march.

Oh, I know--I was making a joke.  It's a fine march and I've performed
it in convert bands many times.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[John Forecast via cctalk]

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
>> 
>> But was FORTRAN that portable?
>> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
>> that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
>> other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
>> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
>> systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
>> ran.
>> Ben.
> 
> I know of FORTRAN implementations for one's complement machines with word 
> length of 24, 27, and 60 bits, decimal machines (IBM 1620), two's complement 
> machines of 12, 16, 48 bit words, just to pick a few.  FORTRAN 
> implementations tended not to be all that demanding of resources: 4k words is 
> a typical minimum.  
> 
> I think a lot of high level languages are quite portable.  ALGOL is not as 
> widely ported but not because it's inherently harder.  PASCAL was ported to 
> many different machines too.  C is a bit of an anomaly because it's more like 
> a high level assembly language, so it has portability limitations that many 
> other high level languages don't run into.
> 
>   paul
> 

I just released a new version of the CDC 1700 simulator for SIMH. This is a 
one’s complement, 16-bit machine and the Fortran compiler is now functional in 
16KW of available space (a smaller version (12KW) was available but I don’t 
know if any copies survived). The source code for the compiler is available on 
Bitsavers - it’s written mostly in Fortran.

  John.

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
 wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>
>
> Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?

It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres
and Valdres march.
-- 
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> But was FORTRAN that portable?
> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
> that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
> other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
> systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
> ran.
> Ben.

I know of FORTRAN implementations for one's complement machines with word 
length of 24, 27, and 60 bits, decimal machines (IBM 1620), two's complement 
machines of 12, 16, 48 bit words, just to pick a few.  FORTRAN implementations 
tended not to be all that demanding of resources: 4k words is a typical 
minimum.  

I think a lot of high level languages are quite portable.  ALGOL is not as 
widely ported but not because it's inherently harder.  PASCAL was ported to 
many different machines too.  C is a bit of an anomaly because it's more like a 
high level assembly language, so it has portability limitations that many other 
high level languages don't run into.

paul

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

> In response to a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN, guy who
> insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also
> had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment
> disks, . . .

Oh jeez, not that again!  I'd hoped that I'd forgotten about him...

Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?

--Chuck

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/16/2017 06:28 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:

> But was FORTRAN that portable? Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think
> of a small computer that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile
> FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O. I
> suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360 systems.
> A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.


Oh, dear--time for a history lesson.

1. Even the IBM 650 had a FORTRAN of sorts
2. One thing that was a sales point for the PDP-8 back in the day was
that for about $5K, you could get a computer that would run 4K FORTRAN:

http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/dec/pdp8/software/DEC-08-AFCO-D_4K_FORTRAN.pdf

3. FORTRAN was originally released, IIRC for the IBM 709, and was a
card-only system; versions for the 704, and, as previously mentioned,
the 650.   I've used card-only FORTRANs on the 1620 and 1401.

4. The 8080/Z80 had FORTRAN, and I suspect there was also a FORTRAN for
the 8008 (if APL on the 8008 was possible, surely FORTRAN was).

5. I've never heard of a COBOL for the IBM 650.

--Chuck

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of ben via cctalk 
[cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:28 PM
To: computer talk
Subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
>
> 
> From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via 
> cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
>
> On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
>> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
>>>> latent bugs.
>>>
>>> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
>>> systems*, let alone architectures.
>>
>> I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
>> testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
>> another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
>> going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
>> going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.
>
> Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
> diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...
>
> And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
> closest thing to a "portable" language...
>
> __
>
> Not even close to COBOL.  :-)
>
> bill
>

But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.
_

U...  I ran Fortran on a TRS-80 with no problems.  I also ran it
on an LSI-11/02 under UCSD-Pascal.  Of course, I ran COBOL on the
same systems.  :-)

As for Universities.  I worked on the academic systems at the Military
Academy at West Point.  While the G (Geography and Computer
Science) Department did have a VAX 11/750 running VMS (and Eunice)
the main academic machine when I got there was a Univac-1100 later
replaced by a bunch of Prime 850's.

bill

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable than syphilis"


I found it!
I thought Djikstra, but it turned out to be Stan Kelly-Bootle:

"The definition of FORTRAN from the "Devil's DP Dictionary", by
Stan Kelly-Bootle:
"FORTRAN n. [Acronym for FORmula TRANslating system.]
 One of the earliest languages of any real height, level-wise, developed 
out

 of Speedcoding by Backus and Ziller for the IBM/704 in the mid 1950s in
 order to boost the sale of 80-column cards to engineers.
 In spite of regular improvements(including a recent option called
 'STRUCTURE'), it remains popular among engineers but despised elsewhere.
 Many rivals, with the benefit of hindsight, have crossed swords with
 the old workhorse ! Yet FORTRAN gallops on, warts and all, more
 transportable than syphilis, fired by a bottomless pit of working
 subprograms. Lacking the compact power of APL, the intellectually 
satisfying

 elegance of ALGOL 68, the didactic incision of Pascal, and the spurned
 universality of PL/I, FORTRAN survives, nay, FLOURISHES, thanks to a
 superior investmental inertia."

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, ben via cctalk wrote:

But was FORTRAN that portable?


Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable than syphilis"


Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.


1401
1620 (if you count PDQ)

In 1983, I was called in as a long-term substitute to take over teaching a 
Fortran class using IBM PCs with Microsoft/IBM Fortran.

Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[ben via cctalk]

On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:



From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via 
cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
<cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
latent bugs.


Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
systems*, let alone architectures.


I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.


Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...

And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...

__

Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

bill



But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.

RE: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via 
cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
>>> latent bugs.
>>
>> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
>> systems*, let alone architectures.
>
> I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
> testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
> another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
> going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
> going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.

Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...

And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...

__

Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

bill

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk 
>  wrote:
>>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
>>> latent bugs.
>> 
>> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
>> systems*, let alone architectures.
> 
> I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release 
> testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
> another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
> going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
> going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.

Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...

And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
 wrote:
>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.
>
> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating systems*,
> let alone architectures.

I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet another
Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's going to
work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's going to
be the one thing that gets fixed first.

-ethan

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

> > I politely suggested they should go back and read up on what
> > "undefined" means and then go fix their code...
> 
> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.

Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating systems*,
let alone architectures.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- "97% of readers say surveys are rubbish" -- The Register ---