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

2017-03-19 Thread 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

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

2017-03-19 Thread 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

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

2017-03-19 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-19 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-19 Thread 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.

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-19 Thread 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. >

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

2017-03-19 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-19 Thread 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".

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

2017-03-19 Thread 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

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

2017-03-19 Thread 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

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

2017-03-19 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-17 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-17 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-17 Thread 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

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

2017-03-17 Thread 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?

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

2017-03-17 Thread 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

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

2017-03-17 Thread 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

2017-03-17 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-17 Thread 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

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

2017-03-17 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-17 Thread 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

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

2017-03-16 Thread 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

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

2017-03-16 Thread 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

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

2017-03-16 Thread 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

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

2017-03-16 Thread 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

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

2017-03-16 Thread 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

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

2017-03-16 Thread ben via cctalk
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

RE: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-16 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-16 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-16 Thread 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

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

2017-03-16 Thread 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