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
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
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
> 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
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.
> 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.
>
> 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
> 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".
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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?
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
T
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
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
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
> > 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
31 matches
Mail list logo