> Wasn't Fortran/H for 360 written in Fortran IV for 7090 > and then bootstrapped? Or was that the 3rd party Fortran > IBM bought when Fortran/H was late?
Fortran H is about half written in Fortran and half assembly.
I know that 7090's were used a lot for simulations of S/360 during development so it would be possible they were also used for compiler bootstrapping. Maybe even assemblers that would run directly on the 7090. It does seem to have a lot of ASSIGNed GOTOs.
Fortran G is the 3rd party implementation. It is written in some other assembly-like language, implemented as OS/360 macros.
G0506 BALR G0097,G0111 BALR A,B IEYFLP G0025 FLP DMY DIMENSION ROLL IEYRSV G0016 RSV TEMP ROLL #050601 IEYMOA G0025 MOA DMY DIMENSION ROLL IEYJAF #050603 JAF #3 IEYW1P SNE W1P SNE IEYJAT #050602 JAT #2 IEYMOA G0025 MOA DMY DIMENSION ROLL IEYW1P ASP W1P ASP IEYRSV G0016 RSV TEMP ROLL IEYJSB G0507 JSB CALCULATE DMY DIM IEYREL G0016 REL TEMP ROLL IEYJUN #050601 JUN #1 #050602 IEYMON G0016 MON TEMP ROLL IEYMOA G0025 MOA DMY DIMENSION ROLL IEYMON G0016 MON TEMP ROLL IEYJUN #050601 JUN #1
Walter Bushell wrote: >> (As an aside, >> though perhaps not a totally irrelevant one, note that Fortran II is >> certainly _a_ difficult language in which to write Fortran 2003.)
> Especially if you have to handle recursion.
Precisely. Other language features might be a pain, but that one's the deal breaker. Of course it _could_ be done.
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Walter Bushell wrote: > In article <yzlabspvs4e....@news.dtpq.com>, > cst...@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >> > There *was* a Russian-language dialect of ALGOL; I remember seeing >> > that described in a book about one of their computers.
>> In Russia, labels GOTO *you*!
> And the execute the operator operation is not a joke.
Classic article: "GOTO Siberia considered harmful".
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Walter Bushell wrote: > In article <5imougF3pem4...@mid.individual.net>, > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>> > jmfbah...@aol.com wrote: >> >> You are kidding. Nobody could be that perverse and expect to be >> >> taken seriously. I couldn't check even one line for typos.
>> > The people designing *those* languages did not *expect* to be taken >> > seriously; although full definitions are given for those languages - >> > and implementations - they are intended as jokes.
>> That accounts for INTERCAL, Brainfuck, Unlambda, Orthogonal, and >> Whitespace, but how do you explain TECO?
> On first glance these examples don't look worse to me than the perl the > first time I saw it.
Who says they are?
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
> That's a bad wrap. One of the design goals for PL/I was eas of learning, > and I think the designers succeeded. With no reserved words you can > learn whatever subset of the language you need without worrying about > the parts you don't. IBM published a couple of small manuals "PL/I for > FORTRAN programmers", and "PL/I for commercial programmers" that > introduce the language as FORTRAN-like or COBOL-like.
IBM also wrote Fortran to PL/I and COBOL to PL/I conversion programs. I believe at one time they hoped to use those to convert everyone to PL/I, and avoid writing Fortran and COBOL compilers. That obviously didn't happen.
> There are a few features of the language that are confusing, but > basically the language is very orthogonal and there are few special cases.
At least compared to Fortran 66 (or Fortran IV) it should be somewhat easier to learn. Many of the strange restrictions of Fortran, especially on DO loops and places you could use expressions were removed.
One interesting difference, though: In PL/I formatted (EDIT directed) output, it stops just after the last list time is printed, instead of continuing onto until just before the next item would be needed.
1 FORMAT(1X,F15.3///)
will print blank lines after the last (or only) item.
ONE: FORMAT(X(1),F(15,3),SKIP(3));
won't use the SKIP format item, after the last number is printed. One of those non-obvious differences.
krw wrote: > In article <03kcc3tltbdrtn09fs1o1p1fdjjjatv...@4ax.com>, > mcc...@millcomm.com says... >> In alt.folklore.computers Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >Roland Hutchinson wrote: >> >> It is, for example, conceivable that some dialect of BASIC might be >> >> the easiest in which to "write Fortran" in that sense.
>> >Perhaps second easiest.
>> >PL/I would almost certainly take top honors IMO.
Now that you mention it, that sounds about right.
It's not even surprising when you think about it, given that the design critera of the language were basically to come up with something that would out-Fortran Fortran, out-Algol Algol, and out-Cobol Cobol.
>> Perhaps ... But that doesn't take into account the horrid ramp-up of >> learning PL/I in the first place.
> I found PL/I to be rather easy to learn. Huge, but nothing real hard > in there. ...but I ain't no damned programmer.
>> Lisp, for example, might be (and is argued to be) by far the easiest >> computer-language to process human languages in (not computer >> languages). But the learning-curve for Lisp is FAR behind many others.
>> I think such things need to be taken into account.
>> BTW: Has nobody suggested APL yet?
> I was thinking about APL, but it's not hard to really hack up APL > (and make it readable ;-).
APL might (perhaps uniquely) be in the running for both the easiest and the hardest language to write Fortran in.
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
James Raynard wrote: > (Bluffer's guide to becoming a German > philosopher: stick two arbitrary words together, then write an unreadable > tome basing an entire system of thought on the resulting compound noun).
It's not as simple as that. You can also use three words, but the third one has to be "Prinzip".
It also helps if you can arrange to have the resulting tome translated into equally impenetrable French, but the ultimate coup is getting it translated into English with translator's footnotes that exceed the length of the translated text by at least a factor of two.
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Peter Flass wrote: > Frank McCoy wrote: >> Perhaps ... But that doesn't take into account the horrid ramp-up of >> learning PL/I in the first place.
> That's a bad wrap.
It looks okay to me; correctly wrapped at around column 70.
> One of the design goals for PL/I was eas of learning, > and I think the designers succeeded. With no reserved words you can > learn whatever subset of the language you need without worrying about > the parts you don't.
This part, I can agree with. That was no small accomplishment.
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
John Ahlstrom wrote: > krw wrote: >> In article <fa6gm7$8qk_...@s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbah...@aol.com says... >>> In article <5imougF3pem4...@mid.individual.net>, >>> Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> jmfbah...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>> You are kidding. Nobody could be that perverse and expect to be >>>>>> taken seriously. I couldn't check even one line for typos. >>>>> The people designing *those* languages did not *expect* to be taken >>>>> seriously; although full definitions are given for those languages - >>>>> and implementations - they are intended as jokes. >>>> That accounts for INTERCAL, Brainfuck, Unlambda, Orthogonal, and >>>> Whitespace, but how do you explain TECO? >>> Easiest to learn and the most efficient editor man ever invented.
>> The only religion with more priests is EMACS.
> All believers are priests.
But are all priests believers?
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
In article <proto-872BA8.10201818082007@032-325- 625.area1.spcsdns.net>, pr...@oanix.com says...
> In article <yzlabspvs4e....@news.dtpq.com>, > cst...@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
> > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > > > There *was* a Russian-language dialect of ALGOL; I remember seeing > > > that described in a book about one of their computers.
> > In Russia, labels GOTO *you*!
> And the execute the operator operation is not a joke.
James Raynard wrote: > [comp.lang.fortran removed] > In article <fa455u$8qk_...@s931.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbah...@aol.com> wrote:
>>It is a state edict to purge all non-French words from all aspects >>of French life.
> Which edict is this, and when was it passed?
> Presumably you refer to the "Toubon law", which originally sought to ban > the use of foreign words in business, broadcasting, government > communications and advertising - where suitable equivalents existed in > French. (A previously set-up committee having conveniently created some > 3,500 "suitable equivalents", almost all of them for English words). > However it was considerably watered down after many of its provisions > were found to be unconstitutional.
> The final version of the law requires that commercial advertising, public > announcements and government publications must be provided in French. > There is nothing to prevent the use of English in some or even all of > the communication, so long as it is accompanied by a French version > (a footnote is sufficient).
This is still a sign of a massive national inferiority complex. Few other countries feel the need to support their national language by edict. In the US there is lots of advertising in most world languages, no English translation required. The "english only" movement is not, as far as I know, attempting to suppress this, but only to make sure government business is transacted in English, and that school children learn English as a first language. Personally, I think the profusion of languages adds a little color to the passing scene.
> The law does not apply to non-commercial communications from individuals > or private organisations.
> Even in its original form, it did not seek "to purge all non-French words > from all aspects of French life".
>>They're idiots to handcuff their people and innovations.
> Au contraire, centuries of living under idiotic legislation, arbitrarily > enforced, has made the French into the innovative and pragmatic nation > of individuals they are today.
>>Using English allowed us to create new words to explain new concepts. >>No other language would have been able to do that.
> Nonsense. Why were so many philosophers German? Because it was so easy for > them to coin new words for concepts. (Bluffer's guide to becoming a German > philosopher: stick two arbitrary words together, then write an unreadable > tome basing an entire system of thought on the resulting compound noun).
jmfbah...@aol.com wrote: > In article <5imoppF3q7sr...@mid.individual.net>, > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...@verizon.net> wrote: >>jmfbah...@aol.com wrote:
>>> In article <1187358367.259744.147...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> Using English keywords made BASIC much >>>>easier for beginners in computing to learn.
>>> Using English allowed us to create new words to explain new concepts. >>> No other language would have been able to do that.
>>You REALLY need to get out more, Barb.
> Why? I'm talking about how we created new words for stuff we made. > We didn't have to ask permission from the government to make a new > word and/or a new meaning.
You seem to have a very odd idea of how language works in non-English-speaking countries.
-- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
>> [comp.lang.fortran removed] >> In article <fa455u$8qk_...@s931.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbah...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>It is a state edict to purge all non-French words from all aspects >>>of French life.
>> Which edict is this, and when was it passed?
>> Presumably you refer to the "Toubon law", which originally sought to ban >> the use of foreign words in business, broadcasting, government >> communications and advertising - where suitable equivalents existed in >> French. (A previously set-up committee having conveniently created some >> 3,500 "suitable equivalents", almost all of them for English words). >> However it was considerably watered down after many of its provisions >> were found to be unconstitutional.
>> The final version of the law requires that commercial advertising, public >> announcements and government publications must be provided in French. >> There is nothing to prevent the use of English in some or even all of >> the communication, so long as it is accompanied by a French version >> (a footnote is sufficient).
>This is still a sign of a massive national inferiority complex. Few >other countries feel the need to support their national language by >edict.
Um (Very stupidly), here in the USofA, there are people who are trying to make this "An English Speaking Country" by edict. Never mind that many people were here speaking other languages and NOT English when we took over those territories (now states).
> In the US there is lots of advertising in most world languages, >no English translation required. The "english only" movement is not, as >far as I know, attempting to suppress this, but only to make sure >government business is transacted in English, and that school children >learn English as a first language. Personally, I think the profusion of >languages adds a little color to the passing scene.
>> The law does not apply to non-commercial communications from individuals >> or private organisations.
>> Even in its original form, it did not seek "to purge all non-French words >> from all aspects of French life".
>>>They're idiots to handcuff their people and innovations.
>> Au contraire, centuries of living under idiotic legislation, arbitrarily >> enforced, has made the French into the innovative and pragmatic nation >> of individuals they are today.
>>>Using English allowed us to create new words to explain new concepts. >>>No other language would have been able to do that.
>> Nonsense. Why were so many philosophers German? Because it was so easy for >> them to coin new words for concepts. (Bluffer's guide to becoming a German >> philosopher: stick two arbitrary words together, then write an unreadable >> tome basing an entire system of thought on the resulting compound noun).
> >>>It is a state edict to purge all non-French words from all aspects > >>>of French life.
> >> Which edict is this, and when was it passed?
> >> Presumably you refer to the "Toubon law", which originally sought to ban > >> the use of foreign words in business, broadcasting, government > >> communications and advertising - where suitable equivalents existed in > >> French. (A previously set-up committee having conveniently created some > >> 3,500 "suitable equivalents", almost all of them for English words). > >> However it was considerably watered down after many of its provisions > >> were found to be unconstitutional.
> >> The final version of the law requires that commercial advertising, public > >> announcements and government publications must be provided in French. > >> There is nothing to prevent the use of English in some or even all of > >> the communication, so long as it is accompanied by a French version > >> (a footnote is sufficient).
> >This is still a sign of a massive national inferiority complex. Few > >other countries feel the need to support their national language by > >edict.
> Um (Very stupidly), here in the USofA, there are people who are trying > to make this "An English Speaking Country" by edict. Never mind that > many people were here speaking other languages and NOT English when we > took over those territories (now states).
It's not stupid at all. *ALL* government operations should be in English, particularly schools. NO ONE was speaking English or any other language when we took over any territories. Get over it, English is the language of the US. Anyting else is *stoopid*.
]Um (Very stupidly), here in the USofA, there are people who are trying ]to make this "An English Speaking Country" by edict. Never mind that ]many people were here speaking other languages and NOT English when we ]took over those territories (now states).
Most of my ancestors didn't speak English of any sort.
I have no problem with there being an official language here, English. All official transactions should be conducted in one language. English is just fine for that.
Yeah, some of my ancestors were forced to learn English. But these days it is possible to learn any of the languages of any of my ancestors.
>> >>>It is a state edict to purge all non-French words from all aspects >> >>>of French life.
>> >> Which edict is this, and when was it passed?
>> >> Presumably you refer to the "Toubon law", which originally sought to ban >> >> the use of foreign words in business, broadcasting, government >> >> communications and advertising - where suitable equivalents existed in >> >> French. (A previously set-up committee having conveniently created some >> >> 3,500 "suitable equivalents", almost all of them for English words). >> >> However it was considerably watered down after many of its provisions >> >> were found to be unconstitutional.
>> >> The final version of the law requires that commercial advertising, public >> >> announcements and government publications must be provided in French. >> >> There is nothing to prevent the use of English in some or even all of >> >> the communication, so long as it is accompanied by a French version >> >> (a footnote is sufficient).
>> >This is still a sign of a massive national inferiority complex. Few >> >other countries feel the need to support their national language by >> >edict.
>> Um (Very stupidly), here in the USofA, there are people who are trying >> to make this "An English Speaking Country" by edict. Never mind that >> many people were here speaking other languages and NOT English when we >> took over those territories (now states).
>It's not stupid at all. *ALL* government operations should be in >English, particularly schools. NO ONE was speaking English or any >other language when we took over any territories. Get over it, >English is the language of the US. Anyting else is *stoopid*.
> >> >>>It is a state edict to purge all non-French words from all aspects > >> >>>of French life.
> >> >> Which edict is this, and when was it passed?
> >> >> Presumably you refer to the "Toubon law", which originally sought to ban > >> >> the use of foreign words in business, broadcasting, government > >> >> communications and advertising - where suitable equivalents existed in > >> >> French. (A previously set-up committee having conveniently created some > >> >> 3,500 "suitable equivalents", almost all of them for English words). > >> >> However it was considerably watered down after many of its provisions > >> >> were found to be unconstitutional.
> >> >> The final version of the law requires that commercial advertising, public > >> >> announcements and government publications must be provided in French. > >> >> There is nothing to prevent the use of English in some or even all of > >> >> the communication, so long as it is accompanied by a French version > >> >> (a footnote is sufficient).
> >> >This is still a sign of a massive national inferiority complex. Few > >> >other countries feel the need to support their national language by > >> >edict.
> >> Um (Very stupidly), here in the USofA, there are people who are trying > >> to make this "An English Speaking Country" by edict. Never mind that > >> many people were here speaking other languages and NOT English when we > >> took over those territories (now states).
> >It's not stupid at all. *ALL* government operations should be in > >English, particularly schools. NO ONE was speaking English or any > >other language when we took over any territories. Get over it, > >English is the language of the US. Anyting else is *stoopid*.
> Three words: > New Mexico and California.
That's four.
Ok, everyone born before the Mexican-American war can keep on speaking Spanish. They can even file their taxes in Spanis if that'll make you happy.
D.J. <alphmo...@cableone.net> wrote: >Frank McCoy ><mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote: >>Um (Very stupidly), here in the USofA, there are people who are >>trying to make this "An English Speaking Country" by edict. Never >>mind that many people were here speaking other languages and NOT >>English when we took over those territories (now states). >Most of my ancestors didn't speak English of any sort. >I have no problem with there being an official language here, >English. All official transactions should be conducted in one >language. English is just fine for that. >Yeah, some of my ancestors were forced to learn English. But these >days it is possible to learn any of the languages of any of my >ancestors.
I doubt it. Most of the e.g. German dialects have been diluted by "standard" German and if there are any speakers, they are 80 years or more old. Many languages that were alive in 1900, now have no more speakers. I guess that the same goes for native American languages and provincial dialects in "developed" regions.
You can't learn a language properly without having to think in it for day-to-day use. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The object of life is not to be on the side of X against HTML mail | the majority but to escape finding oneself in / \ and postings | the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Roland Hutchinson wrote: > Walter Bushell wrote: > > Especially if you have to handle recursion.
> Precisely. Other language features might be a pain, but that one's the deal > breaker. Of course it _could_ be done.
Having written a program in BASIC with a recursive subroutine (using an array to save certain variables in) I know that by replacing ASSIGNed GO TO by computed GO TO, one could do it *even* in the original FORTRAN if one had to.
For a subroutine to call itself, even if in FORTRAN II doing it the first time you could use a conventional subroutine call, the other calls would have to use those old mechanisms as well.
Brooks Moses wrote: > Why, the easiest language to write _any_ program you want to write (when > you're not doing real work), of course: HQ9+ [1].
HQ9+ is not a complete language, and it is impossible to write in it many programs that can be written in other languages: it does not meet the conditions of the Church-Turing thesis.
Although it is impossible to write FORTRAN in HQ9+, therefore, that language is disqualified from the competition.
Roland Hutchinson wrote: > It also helps if you can arrange to have the resulting tome translated into > equally impenetrable French, but the ultimate coup is getting it translated > into English with translator's footnotes that exceed the length of the > translated text by at least a factor of two.
The book "On the Sensations of Tone" by Helmholtz (available in a Dover edition) just about qualifies - and yet the book and the footnotes were readable and interesting.
krw wrote: > In article <i2oec3520k9tdd4n9i75s3s88g6umu0...@4ax.com>, > mcc...@millcomm.com says... > > Um (Very stupidly), here in the USofA, there are people who are trying > > to make this "An English Speaking Country" by edict. Never mind that > > many people were here speaking other languages and NOT English when we > > took over those territories (now states).
> It's not stupid at all. *ALL* government operations should be in > English, particularly schools. NO ONE was speaking English or any > other language when we took over any territories. Get over it, > English is the language of the US. Anyting else is *stoopid*.
That is preposterous.
Immigrants have the obligation to learn the language of the country they came to. They chose to accept this obligation.
But pushing around people who are residing in *their own national homeland*?
We do not tolerate this when foreign countries do it, and we should set a good example. It is true that due to the overwhelming dominance of the English language economically, very few Native Americans - or Hawaiians - would seriously not wish to bother with learning English, but rejecting the notion, out of hand, of providing them with the opportunity to do so is unreasonable.
On the other hand, as far as I know, all those people of Hispanic ancestry in the United States who lived there *at the time* such places as Texas, New Mexico, and California were acquired by the United States - and, of course, all those people in the United States of Hispanic ancestry whose *ancestors* were in the United States at that time - speak English quite well, thank you.
Thus, I have no objection to Americans resisting being *taken over* by foreigners, and resisting any attempt to give _Spanish_ any kind of official status in the United States of America. There is simply no Spanish-speaking community in the United States which is entitled to linguistic rights.
Unlike, for example, the French-speaking community of the Province of Quebec. But although in this respect Canada has shown itself to be enlightened, we still haven't made Inuktitut a third official language of Canada, equal to French in status.
Roland Hutchinson wrote: > Walter Bushell wrote: > > In article <yzlabspvs4e....@news.dtpq.com>, > > cst...@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote: . > >> In Russia, labels GOTO *you*!
> > And the execute the operator operation is not a joke.
> Classic article: "GOTO Siberia considered harmful".
Russia is resuming long-range bomber flights, in an effort to aid the alertness of U.S. military personnel.
And it just recently conducted a joint military exercise with the People's Republic of China.
For a democracy, they're sure giving the impression that they're still up to their old tricks.
And, of course, the tragedy and bloodshed in Bosnia was not prevented by the United States thanks to threats - from *Gorbachev*!
It's bad enough that China and terrorism are two serious threats the United States faces now. Despite their economic difficulties (and China's military buildup), Russia has rather a larger nuclear capability than China even now, at least from what I read in the newspapers.
jmfbah...@aol.com wrote: > Easiest to learn and the most efficient editor man ever invented.
Ah vi :)
-- C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see | http://www.sohara.org/
