A primeval C compiler
Dennis Ritchie
written
in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
what
the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
Dennis
Richard Heathfield
<379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
newsgroup.
If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
of your email.
What was your C question?
--
Richard Heathfield
The bug stops here.
nasaldemon: "Richard, they won't get it. They won't understand. You're
gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
Richard: "I know. It's one of those do-it-and-damn-the-consequences days."
Alexander Bartolich
> is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
> newsgroup.
Wow.
Dennis Ritchie posts something.
And all he gets is a standard move-your-ass-to-the-right-group-reply.
> If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
> of your email.
>
> What was your C question?
hahahhahahahah.
Alexander Viro
Alexander Bartolich <al...@spam-cscw1.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
>> DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
>> is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
>> newsgroup.
>
>Wow.
>
>Dennis Ritchie posts something.
>And all he gets is a standard move-your-ass-to-the-right-group-reply.
YHBT. What I really wonder is whether these birds will be able to work
under v5 (tweaking into the state when v5 cc will take them, then feeding
the original variant to the result)...
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
John Birch
<comp...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
><379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
>> I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
>> written
>> in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
>> what
>> the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
>> transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
>> type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
>> struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
>>
>> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
>> Dennis
>DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
>is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
>newsgroup.
>If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
>of your email.
>What was your C question?
>Richard Heathfield
>The bug stops here.
>nasaldemon: "Richard, they won't get it. They won't understand. You're
>gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
>Richard: "I know. It's one of those do-it-and-damn-the-consequences days."
I guess this might have been an attempt at humour. <pttt..bahh> you
lose ;-)
Were you around when K&R happened, or still playing trains? This was a
cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. The whole point about a standard
is the decision process that makes it a standard - in this respect the
early origins of the C language _are_ of relevance to the current
incarnation. What could be more relevant to comp.lang.c than a posting
by one of the languages creators about the process of designing it?
Richard Heathfield
The humour stops here.
analdemon: "Richard, they don't get it. They don't understand. You're
gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
except hopefully we're too mature for that. :-)
regards John B.
Mark Brader
Er, well, it *was* a joke, wasn't it? I mean, did you see the signature?
--
Mark Brader Twas unix and the C++
Toronto Did compile and load upon the vax:
msbr...@interlog.com All Ritchie was the Kernighan,
And Lisp ran in GNU EMACS.
--Larry Colen (after Lewis Carroll)
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Pertti Kotipalo
Haven't seen better for ages.
(Sorry, if someone feels this is out of the topic, just couldn't help
it)
-Pertti Kotipalo
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
> <379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
> > I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
> > written
> > in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
> > what
> > the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
> > transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
> > type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
> > struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
> >
> > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
> >
> > Dennis
> >
>
> DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
> is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
> newsgroup.
>
> If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
> of your email.
>
> What was your C question?
>
> --
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
>>Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
>><379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
>>> I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
>>> written in 1972-73, ...
> Were you around when K&R happened, or still playing trains?
The time period 1972-1973 puts this right around the time I first heard of
C. Sadly, I didn't go to Ritchie's talk. I was too busy hacking a shell
(we didn't call it that) for the DDP 516 in room 2D 518 at Murray Hill, so
all I heard was my boss's comments on the talk. He said it was really
interesting. He told me about this neat language called C, a modified
BCPL, that some people upstairs were working on (upstairs was where the
UNIX group worked), and the thing that seems to have impressed him the
most was the idea of adding explicit macros to a high level language.
I only looked briefly at the code Ritchie posted, so I didn't notice if
the macro preprocessor was part of the language yet, or just something that
was presented as an idea at the talk. This would have been in the summer
of 1973, by the way.
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
Lawrence Kirby
al...@spam-cscw1.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at "Alexander Bartolich" writes:
>> DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
>> is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
>> newsgroup.
>
>Wow.
>
>Dennis Ritchie posts something.
>And all he gets is a standard move-your-ass-to-the-right-group-reply.
You apparently failed to read the whole of Richard's reply.
>> If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
>> of your email.
>>
>> What was your C question?
>
>hahahhahahahah.
Sometimes plastering :-)'s everywhere just spoils the effect.
--
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fr...@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 7073...@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------
Volker Hetzer
[snip]
You should copyright that one. The whole letter is worth to become a .sig.
Greetings!
Volker
Paul Lutus
Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered if it
was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
John Birch <jo...@invision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37a01776...@news.demon.co.uk...
> On 29 Jul 1999 09:28:45 +0100, "Richard Heathfield"
> <comp...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
> ><379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
> >> I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
> >> written
> >> in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
> >> what
> >> the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
> >> transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
> >> type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
> >> struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
> >>
> >> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
>
> >> Dennis
>
> >DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C,
which
> >is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
> >newsgroup.
>
> >If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
> >of your email.
>
> >What was your C question?
>
> >Richard Heathfield
>
> >The bug stops here.
>
> >nasaldemon: "Richard, they won't get it. They won't understand. You're
> >gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
>
> >Richard: "I know. It's one of those do-it-and-damn-the-consequences
days."
>
> I guess this might have been an attempt at humour. <pttt..bahh> you
> lose ;-)
>
> Were you around when K&R happened, or still playing trains? This was a
> cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. The whole point about a standard
> is the decision process that makes it a standard - in this respect the
> early origins of the C language _are_ of relevance to the current
> incarnation. What could be more relevant to comp.lang.c than a posting
> by one of the languages creators about the process of designing it?
>
> Richard Heathfield
>
> The humour stops here.
>
> analdemon: "Richard, they don't get it. They don't understand. You're
> gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
>
Tim Shoppa
> nasaldemon: "Richard, they won't get it. They won't understand. You're
> gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
>
> Richard: "I know. It's one of those do-it-and-damn-the-consequences days."
I'm trying to think how I might've done better. Maybe criticizing
the code style and quoting some passages from K&R to him? Telling
him to go read K&R and come back when he understands the basics?
From the simple fact that several folks *didn't* get the implied
:-), I think you've been entirely successful, though!
Tim.
Rob Nicholson
If this is *the* Dennis Ritchie then this is *the* most funniest thing I've
seen in ages :-)
Rob.
Martin Ambuhl
Richard Heathfield wrote:
I am posting the reply at the top in violation of usenet norms simply
because I don't know where to break in and EOM seems a long way for
people to page down. Dennis Ritchie posted a nice announcement of
additions to the C museum, to which Richard Heathfield posted a Paul
Lutus-like reply.
Richard, there are people who who will not recognize the tongue-in-cheek
nature of your posting. I know that's hard to believe, but it's true.
You simply have to decorate these things with smileys. It is not that
people are necessarily humor-impaired, although that is possible. There
are plenty of newer people who simply don'y know who either Dennis
Ritchie or Richard Heathfield are. To them, instead of humor, they see
a post from a real pain in the butt.
>
> Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
> <379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
> > I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
> > written
> > in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
> > what
> > the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
> > transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
> > type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
> > struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
> >
> > http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
> >
> > Dennis
> >
>
> DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
> is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
> newsgroup.
>
> If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
> of your email.
>
> What was your C question?
--
Martin Ambuhl mam...@earthlink.net
__________________________________________________________
Fight spam now!
Get your free anti-spam service: http://www.brightmail.com
Peter Seebach
Paul Lutus <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered if it
>was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
I think this was a beautiful experiment. While I agree that dmr's post
was clearly topical, I think most of the flames the Richard got for his
effort were misdirected.
There's nothing wrong with flaming Dennis Ritchie, if he gets confused and
posts in the wrong group.
The argument against the "flame" Richard posted shouldn't be "how dare you
flame dmr". It should be "the evolution of the language is important to
understanding the standard and how it got here".
Even dmr can post off-topic, even in a C newsgroup. He didn't this time, but
the knee-jerk defenses are sort of silly. (For that matter, isn't it fairly
obvious that, if it came down to it, he could defend himself plenty well?)
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Kaz Kylheku
><< This was a cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. >>
>
>was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
Yeah, but do you think he actually *reads* this newsgroup? I suspect that he
just dropped off the notification. The only way he will read it is if some day
later he by chance a Deja News search on his name.
The reply was clearly intended for us, not for Mr. Ritchie. :)
Kaz Kylheku
>I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
>written
>in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
>what
>the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
>transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
>type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
>struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
Wow, Bell Labs embraces Open Source. :) :)
I have to comment that IS a heck of a lot better than SCO's move, whose
lawyers came up with the brilliant idea---in response to a net petition
initiative to open up the source to V7 UNIX---to not only impose a hundred
dollar licensing fee upon people who want a copy of the source code, but to
also restrict licensees to sharing modifications only with other licensees.
Last I heard, anyway. Shockingly incredible.
Paul Lutus
I agree. He undoubtedly has better things to do than note the reactions to
his occasional post.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Kaz Kylheku <k...@ashi.FootPrints.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7q1bm...@ashi.FootPrints.net...
Richard Heathfield
<slrn7q1bm...@ashi.FootPrints.net>...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:18:18 -0700, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> ><< This was a cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. >>
> >
> >Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered
if it
> >was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
>
> Yeah, but do you think he actually *reads* this newsgroup? I suspect that
he
> just dropped off the notification. The only way he will read it is if
some day
> later he by chance a Deja News search on his name.
>
> The reply was clearly intended for us, not for Mr. Ritchie. :)
>
Indeed.
I have a new sig block. I am rather foolishly proud of it, for a reason
which I'll leave you to guess. (It shouldn't be too difficult.)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
Paul Lutus
to which Richard Heathfield posted a Paul Lutus-like reply. >>
Oh, no -- a "Paul Lutus-like reply?" I'm clearly in pretty deep doo-doo when
a type of reply gets named after me. Hopefully it means a tongue-in-cheek
mock-hostile reply, rather than the obvious alternative. :)
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Martin Ambuhl <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37A0A54E...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> I am posting the reply at the top in violation of usenet norms simply
> because I don't know where to break in and EOM seems a long way for
> people to page down. Dennis Ritchie posted a nice announcement of
> additions to the C museum, to which Richard Heathfield posted a Paul
> Lutus-like reply.
>
> Richard, there are people who who will not recognize the tongue-in-cheek
> nature of your posting. I know that's hard to believe, but it's true.
> You simply have to decorate these things with smileys. It is not that
> people are necessarily humor-impaired, although that is possible. There
> are plenty of newer people who simply don'y know who either Dennis
> Ritchie or Richard Heathfield are. To them, instead of humor, they see
> a post from a real pain in the butt.
>
>
> >
> > Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
> > <379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
> > > I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
> > > written
> > > in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
> > > what
> > > the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
> > > transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
> > > type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
> > > struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
> > >
Richard Stamp
>Yeah, but do you think he actually *reads* this newsgroup? I suspect that
he
>just dropped off the notification.
If "this newsgroup" is comp.std.c, he has certainly appeared to read it in
the past.
Part of the issue here is that the whole thread has been crossposted. I
thought that Richard's article was very funny and not really open to
misinterpretation -- in comp.lang.c. In the other groups the situation may
have been less clear.
It's a shame that we have pretty much ignored the original subject of this
thread. I haven't yet had time to look beyond the introductory notes on the
web page, but I'm interested in the evolution of programming languages and
I'm looking forward to delving deeper. If DMR *is* reading, I'd like to
thank him for taking the time to make this -- and his other historical
materials -- available to us all.
Douglas A. Gwyn
> I only looked briefly at the code Ritchie posted, so I didn't notice if
Through Sixth Edition UNIX, the C preprocessor was a separate program
(written by Reiser). At some point the "cc" compiler driver was
written, and it looked at the first character of the source file to
see whether it was '#'. If so, the source file was passed through cpp
before it reached c0 (compiler proper, first pass). That explains why
so many UNIX C source files had "#" for their first line.
Francis Glassborow
<richar...@acm.org> writes
>It's a shame that we have pretty much ignored the original subject of this
>thread. I haven't yet had time to look beyond the introductory notes on the
>web page, but I'm interested in the evolution of programming languages and
>I'm looking forward to delving deeper. If DMR *is* reading, I'd like to
>thank him for taking the time to make this -- and his other historical
>materials -- available to us all.
Seconded
Francis Glassborow Journal Editor, Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
Floyd Davidson
Kaz Kylheku <k...@ashi.FootPrints.net> wrote:
>Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>><< This was a cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. >>
>>
>>Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered if it
>>was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
>
>later he by chance a Deja News search on his name.
>
>The reply was clearly intended for us, not for Mr. Ritchie. :)
Over the years it has been very apparent that while, 1) dmr does
not read this group on a regular basis, 2) he definitely is made
aware of threads where his particular attention would be of
historic value, and 3) he does read the follow-ups to articles
that he posts and sometimes will even provide further
enlightenment.
The chances he has not been chuckling over this thread are none.
This is the first time to my knowledge that anyone has spoofed a
"flame" at dmr; however, it is not the first time that several
people have run off the deep end because of responses that were
thought to be flames. I do not recall exactly the person
involved, or even the exact subject, but maybe 8-9 years ago in
a thread relating to the way C handles strings Dennis posted an
article relating to zero terminated strings and BCPL compared to
C, which was immediately corrected by another poster who said
Dennis was mistaken.
That brought at least one response from a person who came a bit
unglued at the idea someone would have the brass to tell Dennis
Ritchie he was wrong. It went something like "Who are YOU to
tell *Dennis Ritchie* how it was!". Dennis, in his typical
deadpan style with no appearance of any nonsense at all, replied
to that article and pointed out that indeed he had remembered it
wrong, and indeed the person who corrected him out was as well
qualified as he was to know how it had been done originally.
(The poor fellow who let loose with the "Who are you..." was
embarrassed, but also very gracious in his apology.)
Hence comedy based on Dennis Ritchie's comp.lang.c articles is
very rare indeed, but not unheard of before Richard Heathfield's
worthy attempt. (Perhaps his is the first _intentional_ effort
though... :-)
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@barrow.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
Jeff Mullen
Richard Heathfield wrote in message
<01bed997$999aca20$0e01...@eton.powernet.co.uk>...
>Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
><379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
>> I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
>> written
>> in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
>> what
>> the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
>> transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
>> type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
>> struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
>>
>> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>
>DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
>is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
>newsgroup.
>
He said that the code was *TAKEN OFF OF* DEC tapes, *not* that
what he was making available currently resided on them. This is a
non-problem, and your mention of it a non-sequitir.
>If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
>of your email.
>
Funny. Last time *I* did something like that, I was told by one of the
*regulars*
to *put it on a web site and post the URL.* That's what Mr. Ritchie did.
I've
checked. It's there.
>What was your C question?
>
There was an implied question:
*Is this old C code currently still useful?*
Unfortunately, I doubt that any single person alive can
satisfactorily answer that question.
>--
>Richard Heathfield
>
>The bug stops here.
>
>
>
Fergus Henderson
>On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:18:18 -0700, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>><< This was a cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. >>
>>
>>Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered if it
>>was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
>
>Yeah, but do you think he actually *reads* this newsgroup?
Which newsgroup? This thread is cross-posted.
I think Dennis Ritchie does read comp.std.c, at least occaisionally;
he has been posting a few articles there recently. Check DejaNews.
--
Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger f...@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
Arthur T. Murray
Dennis Ritchie, d...@bell-labs.com, wrote on Thu, 29 Jul 1999:
>
>I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
>written
>in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
>what
>the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
>transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
>type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
>struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
>
> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
Thanks for the historic link, which has now been added to
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7256/c.html A C FAQ for
promoting the creation of public domain artificial intelligence (Mindix?)
as exemplified by the 19.Jul.1999 release of downloadable
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7256/mind-fpc.html Mind.Forth AI.
> Dennis
Ric Werme
>Part of the issue here is that the whole thread has been crossposted. I
>thought that Richard's article was very funny and not really open to
>misinterpretation -- in comp.lang.c. In the other groups the situation may
>have been less clear.
Being a DECtape-owning fossil myself who has never subscribed to the
the .c groups (well, maybe did for a week 10 years ago) I admit to
being impressed with what an idiot this Heathfield character was.
However, being a fossil who's be around USENET too long, I checked
him out on Deja news and concluded he means well in most postings.
I even checked dmr's WWW page to see if there were binary dumps of
the DECtapes.
I concluded it was likely plenty of feet would be in mouths in the posts
I had not yet read.
>It's a shame that we have pretty much ignored the original subject of this
>thread.
Indeed, DECtapes were wonderful devices and astoundingly reliable. Many
other media would have lost that old code. More folks in comp.*.c should
take the time to learns about DECtapes, PDP-11s, and especially PDP-10s.
-Ric Werme
--
Ric Werme | http://people.ne.mediaone.net/werme
we...@nospam.mediaone.net | http://www.cyberportal.net/werme
^^^^^^^ delete
Douglas A. Gwyn
> I have to comment that IS a heck of a lot better than SCO's move, whose
> lawyers came up with the brilliant idea---in response to a net petition
> initiative to open up the source to V7 UNIX---to not only impose a hundred
> dollar licensing fee upon people who want a copy of the source code, but to
> also restrict licensees to sharing modifications only with other licensees.
> Last I heard, anyway. Shockingly incredible.
What's incredible is that anyone would think that a corporation
shouldn't care about protecting its intellectual property (even
if acquired from some other original developer). The $100 fee
just about covers their costs in handling your application.
Steve Meyer
the pre-1976 Unix compiler, it has many methods and algorithms that are
superior to those in use today. Off the top of my head some are: 1) better
expression parsing (this is documented in Gries' old compiler writing
text book), 2) better optimization because machine dependent throughout,
3) better use of intermediate forms and data structures.
An interesting archeological experiment would be to try those algorithms
on modermn ansii standard C compiler syntax.
I think the reasons those old algorithms may be superior are:
1) Computer Science was part of traditional science and Bell Labs
people used and believed in scientific method. This changed in
late 1970's and early 80';s EE departments took over traditional
(in Literate and Science schools) Computer Science departments
where evaluation became manufacturability,
2) a result of moving Computer Science to EE departments
is that evaluation and promotion has become tied to efficiency of
working with industry (cronyism?).
Just my two cents.
/Steve
--
Steve Meyer Phone: (415) 296-7017
Pragmatic C Software Corp. Fax: (415) 296-0946
220 Montgomery St., Suite 925 email: sjm...@crl.com
San Francisco, CA 94104
Kaz Kylheku
It would take far less than $100 for someone to make a tarball and put it on
some server somewhere. It's not the fee that I specifically object to, but
the silly licensing restrictions.
The stuff is old, and the V6 sources were already published in a book. And
it's not even comparable to modern freeware operating systems; there is
obviously no strategic advantage in hanging on to this particular bit of
intellectual property.
I believe that the move on the part of SCO was strictly a ploy to discourage
the interested users: a mere bureaucratic run-around concocted by people who
don't really understand or care why anyone would be interested in the old
stuff, and don't want to take any real initiative on their behalf.
[ Okay, time to set followups to alt.folklore.computers, I think. ]
James Kuyper Jr.
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:18:18 -0700, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> ><< This was a cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. >>
> >
> >Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered if it
> >was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
>
I think he does read it; he makes contributions fairly frequently.
Peter Seebach
So? It's widely documented that "wizards" have mystical powers and the
"second sight". I have always assumed he merely posts "appropriate" responses
based on hunches about what people are talking about. In some cases, he
inserts cleverly forged "References:" headers to make it look like part of a
thread.
Anyway, this one's not the "real" Dennis Ritchie; after the Bell
Labs/Lucent/AT&T breakup, Dennis ended up working for all three of them, so
you should immediately distrust anyone with an address that looks like
he works for only one. It's actually
d...@research.att.com
m...@bell-labs.com
r...@research.lucent.com
but the therapy is coming along nicely.
Eric Gillespie
>> ... from DECtapes written in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers
>> (including source) to show what the very early stages of the language were
>> like.
Cool! Some historical background for the ANSI people to see how their standard
was developed!
On 29 Jul 1999, Richard wrote:
>DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C, which
>is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
>newsgroup.
Great troll, Richard! Considering this is one of the guys who practically
WROTE the language, I'd say his source code would be well worth studying.
--
/| _,.:*^*:., |\ Cheers from the Viking family, including Marmalade
| |_/' viking@ `\_| | Running Linux and OpenDOS in Christchurch!
| flying-brick | $FunnyMail Bilbo : Now far ahead the Road has gone,
\_.caverock.net.nz_/ 5.39 in LOTR : Let others follow it who can!
Chris Dollin
> Richard, there are people who who will not recognize the tongue-in-cheek
> nature of your posting.
I (should) find it enormously hard to believe that *anyone* who read
Richard's post *completely* wouldn't see that it was a joke. Even
without
knowing who Richard "is" (I don't).
> You simply have to decorate these things with smileys.
If he had done that, it would not have been funny.
(Yes, I thought it was funny. Not hilarious; just funny. I know who dmr
is.
I know what a nasal demon is. Perhaps it's not funny if you don't.)
--
Chris "with a *machine*!" Dollin
John Birch
wrote:
>In article <w10o3.60083$AU3.1...@news2.giganews.com>,
>Paul Lutus <paul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered if it
>>was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
Oh I saw the humorous _intent_, just didn't find it humorous! I don't
claim to know how Dennis Ritchie would interpret it.
>I think this was a beautiful experiment. While I agree that dmr's post
>was clearly topical, I think most of the flames the Richard got for his
>effort were misdirected.
Well, I hope you don't consider my message a flame, maybe the TIC
comment about trains was a bit OTT tho'. I still find it a 'cheap
shot' tho', but that probably says more about me than the original
posting :-)
>There's nothing wrong with flaming Dennis Ritchie, if he gets confused and
>posts in the wrong group.
Which he didn't. Bearing in mind that it was posted to the a.f.c,
comp.lang.c and comp.std.c group**s**. Not OT for any AFAIK.
>The argument against the "flame" Richard posted shouldn't be "how dare you
>flame dmr". It should be "the evolution of the language is important to
>understanding the standard and how it got here".
Indeed!
>Even dmr can post off-topic, even in a C newsgroup. He didn't this time, but
>the knee-jerk defenses are sort of silly. (For that matter, isn't it fairly
>obvious that, if it came down to it, he could defend himself plenty well?)
Well consider my response as a second hook on the line then ;-)
regards John B.
Douglas A. Gwyn
> Cool! Some historical background for the ANSI people to see how their standard
> was developed!
? How does it do that, pray tell?
Linus Torvalds
Douglas A. Gwyn <DAG...@null.net> wrote:
>
>What's incredible is that anyone would think that a corporation
>shouldn't care about protecting its intellectual property (even
>if acquired from some other original developer). The $100 fee
>just about covers their costs in handling your application.
What costs?
They could have just released it, no licensing required. Like the
original mail in this thread did.
Linus
Robert Brady
>>--
>>Richard Heathfield
>>
>>The bug stops here.
>>
>>
>>
>>nasaldemon: "Richard, they won't get it. They won't understand. You're
>>gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
>>
>>Richard: "I know. It's one of those do-it-and-damn-the-consequences days."
>>
Did you read this bit? If not, don't you feel a bit silly now?
--
Robert
(Ancalimon)
David R Tribble
>>> I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from
>>> DECtapes written in 1972-73, ...
>>> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
...
Douglas W. Jones wrote:
> I only looked briefly at the code Ritchie posted, so I didn't notice
> if the macro preprocessor was part of the language yet, or just
> something that was presented as an idea at the talk. This would
> have been in the summer of 1973, by the way.
DMR states in the HTML doc that the preprocessor didn't yet exist
at the time. But I wonder if he's found any source for the early C
preprocessor(s) yet?
-- David R. Tribble, da...@tribble.com --
Enrico Badella
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> I believe that the move on the part of SCO was strictly a ploy to discourage
> the interested users: a mere bureaucratic run-around concocted by people who
> don't really understand or care why anyone would be interested in the old
> stuff, and don't want to take any real initiative on their behalf.
Agree. SCO is just a very small company with more bean counters than
visionares. Compare it with DEC that freed all 36 bit software, gives VMS
hobbyist licenses. I signed the petition but refuse to pay $100 for V6. Given
the appropriate HW resources I rather run TOPS-10
e.
========================================================================
Enrico Badella email: enrico....@softstar.it
Soft*Star srl e...@vax.cnuce.cnr.it
InterNetworking Specialists tel: +39-011-746092
Via Camburzano 9 fax: +39-011-746487
10143 Torino, Italy
Wanted, for hobbist use, any type of PDP and microVAX hardware,software,
manuals,schematics,etc. and DEC-10 docs or manuals
==========================================================================
Paul Lutus
original mail in this thread did. >>
Oh, of course, you *would* say that ... :)
OTOH, $100 as a "licensing fee" is uncomfortably close to the full cost of
many applications that are sold for a profit by money-hungry corporations.
One can't help thinking this is simply a retail cost under another name.
I prefer my own "Careware" program -- give programs away, but provoke a tiny
bit of thought at the same time. www.arachnoid.com/careware.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Linus Torvalds <torv...@transmeta.com> wrote in message
news:7nslra$nmj$1...@palladium.transmeta.com...
Douglas A. Gwyn
> In article <37A11263...@null.net>,
> Douglas A. Gwyn <DAG...@null.net> wrote:
> >What's incredible is that anyone would think that a corporation
> >shouldn't care about protecting its intellectual property (even
> >if acquired from some other original developer). The $100 fee
> >just about covers their costs in handling your application.
> What costs?
> They could have just released it, no licensing required.
Sure, if they wanted to surrender their property rights.
7th Edition UNIX utilities are close enough to modern UNIX
versions that protecting them has some value to their owner.
Richard M. Alderson III
<enrico....@softstar.it> writes:
>Agree. SCO is just a very small company with more bean counters than
>visionares. Compare it with DEC that freed all 36 bit software, gives VMS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>hobbyist licenses. I signed the petition but refuse to pay $100 for V6. Given
>the appropriate HW resources I rather run TOPS-10
Oh? Please cite a reference for this item. We'd be extremely interested...
--
Rich Alderson Last LOTS Tops-20 Systems Programmer, 1984-1991
Current maintainer, MIT TECO EMACS (v. 170)
last name @ XKL dot COM Chief systems administrator, XKL LLC, 1998-now
eup...@cwcom.net
On 1999-07-30 vik...@brick.flying-brick.caverock.net.nz(EricGillespie) said:
:Great troll, Richard! Considering this is one of the guys who
:practically WROTE the language, I'd say his source code would be
:well worth studying.
Why? By his own admission, he was a beginner at C when he wrote it. I'm
sure his coding style has changed a great deal since then.
More interesting will be to see exactly what language it compiles...
--
the desk lisard communa time's taught the killing game herself
Howard S Shubs
>Why? By his own admission, he was a beginner at C when he wrote it. I'm
>sure his coding style has changed a great deal since then.
OTOH, he was the most experienced user.
--
Howard S Shubs hsh...@mindspring.com hsh...@bix.com
The Denim Adept Is this the right room for an argument?
SPAM: u...@ftc.gov postmaster@[127.0.0.1] abuse@[127.0.0.1]
Gergo Barany
So are the BSD utilities. If I were to release my own proprietary Unix,
I would take one of the BSD distibutions as my base. The BSD license is
permissive enough; in fact, it basically states "take the source and do
whatever." Unix *utilities* are basically worthless nowadays (how hard
is it to implement cat?), only a well-written kernel holds interesting
technical information.
Of course I won't release my own Unix, the operating system market is
too saturated, especially since GNU finds more and more users.
Gergo
--
A bachelor never quite gets over the idea that he is a thing of beauty
and a boy for ever.
-- Helen Rowland
GU d- s:+ a--- C++>$ UL+++ P>++ L+++ E>++ W+ N++ o? K- w--- !O !M !V
PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP+ t* 5+ X- R>+ tv++ b+>+++ DI+ D+ G>++ e* h! !r !y+
Paul Eggert
>Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> They could have just released it, no licensing required.
>Sure, if they wanted to surrender their property rights.
>7th Edition UNIX utilities are close enough to modern UNIX
>versions that protecting them has some value to their owner.
Superior free replacements exist for every 7th edition utility.
The original source code is practically worthless, though it
does have historical interest.
I would not examine the 7th edition source even if I had a copy,
since the current owner of the code could then accuse me of stealing
their intellectual property. I wan't look at dmr's old compiler
either, for similar silly reasons. Too bad -- it would be amusing.
But such are the wonders of modern intellectual property law.
Edward Rice
Alexander Bartolich <al...@spam-cscw1.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
> > DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C,
which
> > is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
> > newsgroup.
>
> Wow.
>
> Dennis Ritchie posts something.
> And all he gets is a standard move-your-ass-to-the-right-group-reply.
In a way, it's pretty neat. The net has become a perfect democracy, and
now everybody can be rude to everybody else without regard to whom they're
speaking to.
Okay, pretend to be rude, but still, it's an interesting phenomenon. I
rather like it, just so nobody flames me out who can't be bothered to learn
a real HLL.
For the record, Mr. Heathfield (Richard?), the first appearance of your
comment in alt.folklore.computers didn't contain the trool cautions, merely
the flame, which may account for some of the reaction it got.
Edward Rice
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,319338 wrote:
> UNIX group worked), and the thing that seems to have impressed him the
> most was the idea of adding explicit macros to a high level language.
>
> I only looked briefly at the code Ritchie posted, so I didn't notice if
> the macro preprocessor was part of the language yet, or just something
that
> was presented as an idea at the talk. This would have been in the
summer
> of 1973, by the way.
But PL/I already had a macro processor, at least on Multics. Wasn't IBM's
available yet?
Marco S Hyman
> >whatever." Unix *utilities* are basically worthless nowadays (how hard
> >is it to implement cat?)
>
> A lot easier than it is to implement awk or sed. :)
A lot? I suppose all is relative. I know lines of code is a bad
measure of complexity, but still... looking at *.[chly] on one
variant of BSD sources (OpenBSD) I get:
cat: 1 file, 266 lines
sed: 6 files, 2156 lines
awk: 11 files, 5934 lines
However, I agree with the sentiment. I'd call the UNIX utilities
anything but worthless. After all there are 693 programs among the
directories /bin /usr/bin /sbin /usr/sbin and /usr/libexec. Most
are just fine and do not need a re-write.
// marc
Peter Seebach
Howard S Shubs <hsh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <Yipo3.724$Zp.3...@news.mcmail.com>, eup...@cwcom.net wrote:
>>Why? By his own admission, he was a beginner at C when he wrote it. I'm
>>sure his coding style has changed a great deal since then.
>OTOH, he was the most experienced user.
Is that clear? I've written things where someone other than me ended up
being a more experienced user...
I suppose it's time to quote from the IAQ.
Is that clear? I've written things where someone other than me ended up
being a more experienced user...
I suppose it's time to quote from the IAQ.
2.2: I heard that structures could be assigned to variables and
passed to and from functions, but K&R I says not.
A:
K&R I was wrong; they hadn't actually learned C very well before
writing the book. Later, Ritchie got a job at Bell Labs, and worked
closely with the authors of C, allowing the 2nd edition of the book
to be much more accurate. (Kernighan already worked at Bell Labs,
where he helped develop the ``kaw'' programming language, used to
simulate crows in an international chess tournament.)
Craig Franck
><< They could have just released it, no licensing required. Like the
>original mail in this thread did. >>
>
>Oh, of course, you *would* say that ... :)
>
>OTOH, $100 as a "licensing fee" is uncomfortably close to the full cost of
>many applications that are sold for a profit by money-hungry corporations.
>One can't help thinking this is simply a retail cost under another name.
If it were retail it would be $99.95. The $100 price sounds so
much more dignified than trying to entice you by giving a nickel
in change. Anyway, the licensing fee may also include karmic
transmigration, which means you're also a registered user in your
next lifetime!
--
Craig
clfr...@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
Don't think only humans have nukes. There's over 20 nuclear subs
that have been sunk, and the whales know where they are. -- Stella
Kaz Kylheku
>So are the BSD utilities. If I were to release my own proprietary Unix,
>I would take one of the BSD distibutions as my base. The BSD license is
>permissive enough; in fact, it basically states "take the source and do
Douglas A. Gwyn
> Unix *utilities* are basically worthless nowadays (how hard
A good question, since only two versions of "cat" that I know of
were properly implemented, 8th Edition UNIX's and mine.
Martin Ambuhl
What does IBM have to do with it? Multics was developed on a GE 645 at
MIT and Bell Labs. The choice of the GE 645 was partly driven vy IBM's
refusal to modify the relocation registers on the machines it had to
offer.
--
Martin Ambuhl mam...@earthlink.net
__________________________________________________________
Fight spam now!
Get your free anti-spam service: http://www.brightmail.com
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
Edward Rice (ehr...@his.com) writes:
>
> But PL/I already had a macro processor, at least on Multics. Wasn't IBM's
> available yet?
Oh yes, but it rendered code so ugly ...
Charles Richmond
>
> Kaz Kylheku wrote...
> >Yeah, but do you think he actually *reads* this newsgroup? I suspect that
> he
>
> If "this newsgroup" is comp.std.c, he has certainly appeared to read it in
> the past.
>
> Part of the issue here is that the whole thread has been crossposted. I
> thought that Richard's article was very funny and not really open to
> misinterpretation -- in comp.lang.c. In the other groups the situation may
> have been less clear.
>
> It's a shame that we have pretty much ignored the original subject of this
> thread. I haven't yet had time to look beyond the introductory notes on the
> web page, but I'm interested in the evolution of programming languages and
> I'm looking forward to delving deeper. If DMR *is* reading, I'd like to
> thank him for taking the time to make this -- and his other historical
> materials -- available to us all.
>
Of course it is alright to have a joke or to point out to *anyone* when a
mistake has been made...
The big issue is: I hope that Mr. Dennis Ritchie does understand that we
greatly appreciate his making all these original material sources available.
I for one can *never* get enough of these insights that only the original
materials and source discussed by the original author can give. (Yes, I
have the Lions book.)
I wish we could somehow attract more of the computer pioneering people to
post and provide their unique insights to history of computing.
Also, when you think about it, Mr. Heathfields joke could be a jab at the
folks from <comp.lang.c>. They are *so* touchy about what is on-topic,
that they have become somewhat self-righteous IMHO.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
eup...@cwcom.net
On 1999-07-30 gw...@arl.mil said:
:> They could have just released it, no licensing required.
:Sure, if they wanted to surrender their property rights.
:7th Edition UNIX utilities are close enough to modern UNIX
:versions that protecting them has some value to their owner.
Be afraid, be very afraid. The world has changed a lot since the 7th
edition, as has Unix itself; if the utilities haven't, then I for one
don't particularly want to use them.
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <r2so3.1558$X97.2...@ptah.visi.com>,
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <hshubs-3007...@user-33qsc8o.dialup.mindspring.com>,
>Howard S Shubs <hsh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>In article <Yipo3.724$Zp.3...@news.mcmail.com>, eup...@cwcom.net wrote:
>>>Why? By his own admission, he was a beginner at C when he wrote it. I'm
>>>sure his coding style has changed a great deal since then.
>
>>OTOH, he was the most experienced user.
>
>Is that clear? I've written things where someone other than me ended up
>being a more experienced user...
>
>I suppose it's time to quote from the IAQ.
>
>
>Is that clear? I've written things where someone other than me ended up
>being a more experienced user...
<snip>
Good grief! You mean people expect us to know how to use the
software we wrote? [there may be a tongue in cheek emoticon
somewhere in this post].
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
James Kuyper Jr.
What was wrong with the other's versions? How can I tell whether the one
I'm using is defective?
dvd...@my-deja.com
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <gw...@arl.mil> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In article <37A11263...@null.net>,
> > Douglas A. Gwyn <DAG...@null.net> wrote:
> > >What's incredible is that anyone would think that a corporation
> > >shouldn't care about protecting its intellectual property (even
> > >if acquired from some other original developer). The $100 fee
> > >just about covers their costs in handling your application.
> > What costs?
>
> Sure, if they wanted to surrender their property rights.
> 7th Edition UNIX utilities are close enough to modern UNIX
> versions that protecting them has some value to their owner.
Surrender what property rights? Posting them on the net probably gives
you the implied right to download them and read them. It doesn't give
you the right to distribute them or use them in your code.
--
David Starner - dstar...@aasaa.ofe.org
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Greg Martin
>Also, when you think about it, Mr. Heathfields joke could be a jab at the
>folks from <comp.lang.c>. They are *so* touchy about what is on-topic,
>that they have become somewhat self-righteous IMHO.
>
language. They never discuss women or hockey or any of that stuff,
with the exception of Mr. Heathfield of course, who is forever spicing
things up with discussions of literature and lost languages. Oh, and
Paul Lutus who has been making ASCII art lately. I wouldn't even read
the darn group if it wasn't for the fact I'd like to learn to be a
good C programmer. ;-)
Regards,
Greg Martin.
Peter Seebach
James Kuyper Jr. <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote:
>"Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
>> A good question, since only two versions of "cat" that I know of
>> were properly implemented, 8th Edition UNIX's and mine.
>What was wrong with the other's versions? How can I tell whether the one
>I'm using is defective?
... thus the use of the expression "what a dog" to refer to defective
software.
Peter Seebach
>Be afraid, be very afraid. The world has changed a lot since the 7th
>edition, as has Unix itself; if the utilities haven't, then I for one
>don't particularly want to use them.
Some of the utilities have no reason to change. There are lots of new
utilities, but I ask you, what needs to change in "cat"?
The world has changed a lot; hydrocarbons are still a good idea. Utilities
are, after all, primitives.
Note followups; this no longer has any visible relevance to C.
-s
(Hmm. Come to think of it, perhaps the committee should declare that anything
anyone on the committee wants to say is topical in comp.std.c. RMS posted to
gnu.misc.discuss to ask if anyone was driving from Point A to Point B and
would be willing to ferry an instrument to Point B, perhaps we should
generalize this.)
Peter Seebach
>>
>>Is that clear? I've written things where someone other than me ended up
>>being a more experienced user...
>>
>>I suppose it's time to quote from the IAQ.
>>
>>
>>Is that clear? I've written things where someone other than me ended up
>>being a more experienced user...
><snip>
>Good grief! You mean people expect us to know how to use the
>software we wrote? [there may be a tongue in cheek emoticon
>somewhere in this post].
I didn't write the software I didn't know how to use above. (If anyone's
wondering how it happened, consider that at some point, I was in the state
"has just typed two paragraphs", and I started pasting something starting out
with "2.".
-s
bill_h
Some time back I'd mentioned having read somewhere that
one (of the two) Harvard Mark I's was reported to have
been shipped off to Arizona sometime in the fifties.
I tracked down the most likely knowledgable person I
could, to question about that story. He could not verify
it, so I dropped it for the time being.
There was something I didn't know (until a few minutes ago).
That man's name? Granino Korn. Formerly, Professor Korn, of
the University of Arizona. Now in his eighties.
While digging through a listing of about 1,300 tech. books,
sitting in a Las Cruces (there's THAT town again!) store, I
ran across his name. Author of 'Electronic Analog and Hybrid
Computers' (1952). Which, as it happens, is said to be the
very first textbook on computer science. !!
I think he deserves some sort of recognition for that.
Hey, want another tidbit? Remember the fictional Professor
Falkin? So where do you suppose Professor Korn retired to?
Must be something draws computer people there.......
Instead of all the fruitcakes searching around Sedona for magnetic
centers or whatever, maybe they oughta search further north?
Bill
Tucson
eup...@cwcom.net
On 1999-07-31 se...@plethora.net(PeterSeebach) said:
:I didn't write the software I didn't know how to use above. (If
:anyone's wondering how it happened, consider that at some point, I
:was in the state "has just typed two paragraphs", and I started
:pasting something starting out with "2.".
An off-by-one error; I can live with that.
eup...@cwcom.net
On 1999-07-31 se...@plethora.net(PeterSeebach) said:
:>Be afraid, be very afraid. The world has changed a lot
:>since the 7th edition, as has Unix itself; if the utilities
:>haven't, then I for one don't particularly want to use them.
:Some of the utilities have no reason to change. There are lots of
:new utilities, but I ask you, what needs to change in "cat"?
And what part of the source code of 'cat' needs protecting from prying
eyes, exactly...? Those primitives that are complex enough to warrant
some advantage being drawn from concealing their source code will
probably also have changed, somewhat, simply because the Unix interface
is a fair bit different from v7. Maybe I didn't make my intended meaning
sufficiently clear.
:Note followups; this no longer has any visible relevance to C.
This newsreader takes no heed of followup lines, sadly, so I trust that
you have trimmed to a.f.c only, and not to rec.cultivation.hemp or
similar.
:(Hmm. Come to think of it, perhaps the committee should declare
:that anything anyone on the committee wants to say is topical in
:comp.std.c. RMS posted to gnu.misc.discuss to ask if anyone was
:driving from Point A to Point B and would be willing to ferry an
:instrument to Point B, perhaps we should generalize this.)
Or perhaps better to reinforce the conclusion voiced earlier in the
thread, that the brand names can be as off-topic as the rest of us. :>
Eric Smith
> Agree. SCO is just a very small company with more bean counters than
> visionares. Compare it with DEC that freed all 36 bit software, gives VMS
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
alde...@netcom16.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) writes::
> Oh? Please cite a reference for this item. We'd be extremely interested...
I imagine he must be referring to the hobbyist license. All DEC's 36-bit
software was made available for noncommercial use. You can find the
license on my web site or Joe's.
That's why I've on several occasions asked you by private email whether
you could supply copies of the DEC distribution tapes in your posession
(NOT the XKL versions); I have a legal license to obtain and use the stuff.
Cheers,
Eric
Chris Weston
<fl...@ptialaska.net> writes
>Over the years it has been very apparent that while, 1) dmr does
>not read this group on a regular basis, 2) he definitely is made
>aware of threads where his particular attention would be of
>historic value, and 3) he does read the follow-ups to articles
>that he posts and sometimes will even provide further
>enlightenment.
>
>The chances he has not been chuckling over this thread are none.
>
Boo hoo, if I may make so bold. The man is not above any of us,
you know. Insights from a man so central to the way many of us
learned C are like diamonds, but that does not make the bloke
any different, just differently experienced (PC talk :()
Cheers
--
Chris
A lurker, but drawn out by this sickening sycophantic nonsense
Peter Seebach
>On 1999-07-31 se...@plethora.net(PeterSeebach) said:
> :Some of the utilities have no reason to change. There are lots of
> :new utilities, but I ask you, what needs to change in "cat"?
>And what part of the source code of 'cat' needs protecting from prying
>eyes, exactly...?
IMHO, none.
>Those primitives that are complex enough to warrant
>some advantage being drawn from concealing their source code will
>probably also have changed, somewhat, simply because the Unix interface
>is a fair bit different from v7. Maybe I didn't make my intended meaning
>sufficiently clear.
Well, I personally think they're crazy to be "protecting" things that are
no longer of interest. Some of them won't have changed, but those will
be irrelevant - because they'll have been implemented five or six times since
then, by GNU and BSD alike.
>This newsreader takes no heed of followup lines, sadly, so I trust that
>you have trimmed to a.f.c only, and not to rec.cultivation.hemp or
>similar.
;-)
>Or perhaps better to reinforce the conclusion voiced earlier in the
>thread, that the brand names can be as off-topic as the rest of us. :>
I tend to support that theory myself. The only people who can't be wrong
about where they post are moderators, and only in their own groups.
(However, by definition, whatever a moderator wants to approve is topical.
Well, moderators can make mistakes, but they can't be wrong...)
Douglas A. Gwyn
> What was wrong with the other's versions?
The main problem was that record boundaries were not preserved.
So, for example, one could not copy magnetic-tape special devices
with them and end up with a usable copy.
Kaz Kylheku
That's what dd is for. Of course, dd doesn't concatenate. So if you needed to
concatenate multiple tapes and write the result to another tape, dd would be
clumsy, but a block size aware cat would be handy.
Charles Richmond
>
> Well I'll spare you the long story. So this is short.
>
> Some time back I'd mentioned having read somewhere that
> one (of the two) Harvard Mark I's was reported to have
> been shipped off to Arizona sometime in the fifties.
>
recently got a book at the Friends of the Library sale titled:
_A History of Computing Technology_, by Michael R. Williams, Prentiss-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985, ISBN: 0-13-389917-9
According to this book, there was only *one* Harvard Mark I computer.
It was dismantled in 1959 after it was *no* longer deemed useful. Some of
the parts were kept for display at Harvard, at IBM headquarters in
New York, and in the Smithsonian.
However, the book did say that one of the computers designed (at least
partially) by George Stibitz of Bell Labs was donated finally to
the University of Arizona. This model was designed for the
National Advisory Committe for Aeronautics at Langley field, Virginia and
also for the Ballistics Research Laboratories at the U.S. Army Proving
Grounds at Aberdeen, Maryland. (Thus there were *two* copies of the machine,
although the later copy had some changes.) These machines were known as
the Bell Laboratories General Purpose Relay Calculators, or Model V for short.
Now here is what the book says about their final whereabouts:
"Afer the War [WW II], the Model V used by the Ballistics Research Laboratory
was moved to Fort Bliss [Texas] and, when the Army no longer felt it was
productive, it was given to the University of Arizona. The machine used by
the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics was donated to the Texas
Technical College in 1958 [assuming that is Texas Tech University now] but
the truck moving it was involved in an accident and the machine destroyed.
It ended its days as a series of spare parts for the one in Arizona."
This book has some really good information on early computer development,
but it also has chapters on early counting and calculating methods, the
workings of the astrolabe, internal details of Leibnitz's mechanical
calculating machine, etc. This really early stuff is a little too low
level for my taste, but some may enjoy it.
Lisa or Jeff
> but it also has chapters on early counting and calculating methods, the
> workings of the astrolabe, internal details of Leibnitz's mechanical
> calculating machine, etc. This really early stuff is a little too low
> level for my taste, but some may enjoy it.
does the book cover EAM tab machines?
Eric Levenez
SIMH, a PDP simulator running on unix. It simulates the
PDP-8, PDP-11, PDP-1, other 18b PDP, Nova, and IBM 1401.
The source code can be find at :
ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/digital/sim/sources/sim_2.3d.tar.Z
The disk image is there :
ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/digital/sim/software/uv5swre.tar.Z
Here is the result :
$ pdp11
PDP-11 simulator V2.3d
sim> set cpu 18b
sim> att rk0 unix_v5_rk.dsk
sim> boot rk
@unix
login: root
# chdir /usr/c
# ls -l
total 368
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 11610 Nov 26 18:13 c00.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 13248 Nov 26 18:13 c00.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 6528 Nov 26 18:13 c01.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 7344 Nov 26 18:13 c01.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 11494 Nov 26 18:13 c02.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 12268 Nov 26 18:13 c02.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 2316 Nov 26 18:13 c03.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 3168 Nov 26 18:13 c03.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 6186 Nov 26 18:13 c04.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 1488 Nov 26 18:13 c04.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 3652 Nov 26 18:13 c0h.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 1704 Nov 26 18:13 c0t.s
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 12576 Nov 26 18:13 c10.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 8434 Nov 26 18:13 c11.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 9274 Nov 26 18:13 c12.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 2146 Nov 26 18:13 c13.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 2905 Nov 26 18:13 c1h.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 934 Nov 26 18:13 c1t.s
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 11044 Nov 26 18:13 c20.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 9698 Nov 26 18:13 c21.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 1735 Nov 26 18:13 c2h.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 1142 Nov 26 18:13 cctab.s
-rwxr-xr-x 1 bin 3138 Nov 26 18:13 cvopt
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 3948 Nov 26 18:13 cvopt.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 1884 Nov 26 18:13 efftab.s
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 6317 Nov 26 18:13 regtab.s
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 773 Nov 26 18:13 sptab.s
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 16398 Nov 26 18:13 tab.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 bin 105 Nov 26 18:13 trc
# date
Fri Mar 21 13:33:58 EST 1975
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Éric Lévénez "Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas"
mailto:lev...@club-internet.fr Publius Vergilius Maro,
http://perso.club-internet.fr/levenez Georgica, II-489
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Paul Mesken
<rich...@plano.net> wrote:
>Also, when you think about it, Mr. Heathfields joke could be a jab at the
>folks from <comp.lang.c>. They are *so* touchy about what is on-topic,
>that they have become somewhat self-righteous IMHO.
Nah, c.l.c has become much more tolerant. Some time ago you could draw
some serious flames with comparing c to its successors like C++ or
Java. Nowadays only Lutus would object with stating that it is off
topic. Too bad.
Perhaps it's a consequence of c being replaced by other languages.
Looking at the recent cross posts having alt.folklore.computers in the
newsgroups line really is an omen. Although c has the charm of having
a standard for free standing environments (like coffee machines) and
thus is an obvious choice for making embedded software. I guess most
of the posters in c.l.c are students interested in the history of
programming languages of which c was a big part.
c is a good language for understanding some basics about programming
since it's quite "close" to the underlying system. A little bit like
Assembly (although Assembly hasn't lost its significance over the
years ofcourse)
bv
>
> Great troll, Richard! Considering this is one of the guys who practically
> WROTE the language, I'd say his source code would be well worth studying.
Maybe, but it probably wouldn't reveal how much of that "writing" was
influenced by Bachus' language already well in its teens at the time of
Ritchie's endeavor...
--
Dr.B.Voh
-----------------------------------------------
Modeling * Simulation * Analysis
http://www.netcom.com/~essoft
-----------------------------------------------
Charles Richmond
a kind of pre-computer using its multiplying punch connected to a tabulator
(read "printer"). There are some black-and-white pictures of the 603
multiplying punch, the Card Programmed Calculator, and a typical IBM
punched card accounting/calculating installion. There are also a couple
of pictures of the SSEC. In all there are nine pages devoted to discussing
the IBM electro-mechanical equipment.
Peter Seebach
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>Perhaps it's a consequence of c being replaced by other languages.
Oooh, look who's trying for flame wars now. (Hey, long time no see!)
>Looking at the recent cross posts having alt.folklore.computers in the
>newsgroups line really is an omen.
I don't really think so. This is a discussion of 70's code; that's folklore
anyway.
>c is a good language for understanding some basics about programming
>since it's quite "close" to the underlying system. A little bit like
>Assembly (although Assembly hasn't lost its significance over the
>years ofcourse)
Ooh, look at that big shiny hook!
Charles Richmond
> Eric Gillespie wrote:
> >
> > Great troll, Richard! Considering this is one of the guys who practically
> > WROTE the language, I'd say his source code would be well worth studying.
>
>
> Maybe, but it probably wouldn't reveal how much of that "writing" was
> influenced by Bachus' language already well in its teens at the time of
> Ritchie's endeavor...
>
Now if we could only get Mr. Backus to post and give us some info on the
development of the *original* FORTRAN compiler, we could get more insight
there also. Hmmm...anyone have Mr. Backus' email address???
Howard S Shubs
rich...@dallas.net (Charles Richmond) wrote:
>Now if we could only get Mr. Backus to post and give us some info on the
>development of the *original* FORTRAN compiler, we could get more insight
>there also. Hmmm...anyone have Mr. Backus' email address???
Mr. Backus is still with us?? Is he active?
--
Howard S Shubs hsh...@mindspring.com hsh...@bix.com
The Denim Adept Is this the right room for an argument?
SPAM: u...@ftc.gov postmaster@[127.0.0.1] abuse@[127.0.0.1]
Curt Schemmel
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:BU5p3.44$mB3....@ptah.visi.com...
> In article <37abd8f2...@news.euronet.nl>,
> Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
> >Perhaps it's a consequence of c being replaced by other languages.
>
> Oooh, look who's trying for flame wars now. (Hey, long time no see!)
>
> >Looking at the recent cross posts having alt.folklore.computers in the
> >newsgroups line really is an omen.
>
> I don't really think so. This is a discussion of 70's code; that's
folklore
> anyway.
>
> >c is a good language for understanding some basics about programming
> >since it's quite "close" to the underlying system. A little bit like
> >Assembly (although Assembly hasn't lost its significance over the
> >years ofcourse)
>
> Ooh, look at that big shiny hook!
>
Yeah, but is Assembly PORTABLE???
(how's THAT for a hook? PASM anyone?)
Curt
--
Gone are the days of yore,
in which REAL programmers wrote programs with a piece of cardboard and a
hole punch...
**** Curt Schemmel **** sche...@home.com ****
Tom Reingold
> On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:18:18 -0700, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> ><< This was a cheap shot at a computing great IMHO. >>
> >
> >Some may not have seen the clear humorous intent, or may have wondered if it
> >was all that clear, but I'll bet Dennis Ritchie wasn't among them.
> Yeah, but do you think he actually *reads* this newsgroup? I suspect
> that he just dropped off the notification. The only way he will read
> it is if some day later he by chance a Deja News search on his name.
> The reply was clearly intended for us, not for Mr. Ritchie. :)
You've made a bad assumption. The inventor of C, who is involved in
evolving it as well, has a big interest in how people are using it. I
can vouch for the legitimacy of his posts. He reads comp.lang.c
regularly.
--
Tom Reingold
to...@bell-labs.com http://www.bell-labs.com/~tommy
Bell Labs, the Research and Development unit of Lucent Technologies
Murray Hill, NJ, 07974-0636 US
David R Tribble
> Unix *utilities* are basically worthless nowadays.
Well, I use 'grep' several times in a week, to name just one of the
hundreds of worthless Unix utilities. (Try doing that under
bare MS-Windows.)
> (how hard is it to implement cat?)
Not very. But then I don't like to spend my time re-implementing
hundreds of worthless utility programs on each platform I use.
I appreciate the fact that they are distributed along with the
other worthless operating system and compiler software. I really
do have more important things to do.
-- David R. Tribble, da...@tribble.com --
David R Tribble
>
> Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote
>> Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>> > c is a good language for understanding some basics about
>> > programming since it's quite "close" to the underlying system.
>> > A little bit like Assembly (although Assembly hasn't lost its
>>
>> Ooh, look at that big shiny hook!
>>
>
> Yeah, but is Assembly PORTABLE???
> (how's THAT for a hook? PASM anyone?)
Java bytecode is universally portable, so presumably JVM assembly
code would be, too (if there were any JVM assemblers to begin with).
So there. We've come full circle.
P.S. Has anyone written a C/C++ compiler backend that produces JVM
bytecode?
am...@nsof.co.il-n0spam
>Old Bell Labs C compiler may be "fossil" but from my recollection of
>the pre-1976 Unix compiler, it has many methods and algorithms that are
>superior to those in use today. Off the top of my head some are: 1) better
>expression parsing (this is documented in Gries' old compiler writing
>text book), 2) better optimization because machine dependent throughout,
>3) better use of intermediate forms and data structures.
>An interesting archeological experiment would be to try those algorithms
>on modermn ansii standard C compiler syntax.
Interesting indeed, but note that part of the the old compiler's success
was due to the different language it was implementing: there were only 2
types, int (16 bit) and char; no unsigned types (though pointers were
implicitly signed); no unions; no casts. The hardware it compiled for
was also simpler than modern chips; it had very few registers, and
supported several flavors of memory-to-memory operations.
--
Amos Shapir
Paper: nSOF Parallel Software, Ltd.
Givat-Hashlosha 48800, Israel
Tel: +972 3 9388551 Fax: +972 3 9388552 GEO: 34 55 15 E / 32 05 52 N
Francis Glassborow
<da...@tribble.com> writes
>P.S. Has anyone written a C/C++ compiler backend that produces JVM
>bytecode?
I have been told by an expert in C compilers that there are technical
difficulties in compiling C to JVM bytecode.
Francis Glassborow Journal Editor, Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
Corey Brenner
> Yeah, but is Assembly PORTABLE???
> (how's THAT for a hook? PASM anyone?)
Scott Nudds would be proud.
*snif*
--Corey
Bruce Hoult
> The hardware it compiled for
> was also simpler than modern chips; it had very few registers, and
> supported several flavors of memory-to-memory operations.
Well that's the worst of all possible worlds, for compiler complexity.
With a simple accumulator architecture you have to load every operand from
memory, and store all results back in memory.
With a load-store architecture you know that you *have* to load all
operands into registers before you can use them. With 32 or more
registers a simple compiler can just assume that everything will fit into
registers and make the user rewrite his code if it doesn't.
It's only with a machine with a medium number of registers and both
register-register and memory-register instructions (PDP11, x86, 68K all
fit both criteria) that you have to make those nasty decisions about what
to load into registers and what to use directly from memory, and worry
about register allocation and spills/reloads. Nasty stuff.
-- Bruce
Stephen Baynes
> P.S. Has anyone written a C/C++ compiler backend that produces JVM
> bytecode?
I used to read comp.compilers and there it was a topic of dicsussion. Several
people were working on it but I think they were having problems with
simulating the C memory model for arrays. I suggest you ask in comp.compilers
for the current status.
--
Stephen Baynes CEng MBCS Stephen...@soton.sc.philips.com
Philips Semiconductors Ltd
Southampton SO15 0DJ +44 (0)23 80316431 *** NEW ***
United Kingdom My views are my own.
Do you use ISO8859-1? Yes if you see © as copyright, ÷ as division and ½ as 1/2.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <37abd8f2...@news.euronet.nl>,
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>>Perhaps it's a consequence of c being replaced by other languages.
>
>Oooh, look who's trying for flame wars now. (Hey, long time no see!)
>
Hehe, Seebach. It doesn't seem it works (the attempt to an all out and
awe inspiring flame war that is :-)
Perhaps I've lost my touch but it could also be that it's a too
obvious troll since I nowadays quote a lot out of The Standard
(capitals are back again :-)
>>Looking at the recent cross posts having alt.folklore.computers in the
>>newsgroups line really is an omen.
>
>I don't really think so. This is a discussion of 70's code; that's folklore
>anyway.
>
Waaaaaay back in the 70's ;-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Yeah, but is Assembly PORTABLE???
>(how's THAT for a hook? PASM anyone?)
>
Assembly programmers aim for *performance* at the given platform.
Portability and readability is irrelevant :-)
fungus
David R Tribble wrote:
>
> P.S. Has anyone written a C/C++ compiler backend that produces JVM
> bytecode?
>
I'm not aware of one. I think the problem is that you wouldn't be able
to implement pointers on a JVM (pretty fundamental to C or C++).
Other languages like ADA have been implemented though...
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Curt Schemmel" <sche...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
>news:BU5p3.44$mB3....@ptah.visi.com...
>> In article <37abd8f2...@news.euronet.nl>,
>> Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>> >Perhaps it's a consequence of c being replaced by other languages.
>>
>> Oooh, look who's trying for flame wars now. (Hey, long time no see!)
>>
>> >newsgroups line really is an omen.
>>
>> I don't really think so. This is a discussion of 70's code; that's
>folklore
>> anyway.
>>
>> >since it's quite "close" to the underlying system. A little bit like
>> >Assembly (although Assembly hasn't lost its significance over the
>> >years ofcourse)
>>
>>
>
>(how's THAT for a hook? PASM anyone?)
Thanks the gods it's not portable. Makes life so much simpler
when one doesn't base one's work on a myth.
This is going to turn into a war of who can throw the
biggest hooks :-).
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Jeff Mullen
Jeff Mullen wrote in message <_R0o3.6$Jg4...@iagnews.iagnet.net>...
>
>Richard Heathfield wrote in message
><01bed997$999aca20$0e01...@eton.powernet.co.uk>...
>>Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
>><379FE9...@bell-labs.com>...
>>> I finally prepared another fossil for museum exhibition: from DECtapes
>>> written
>>> in 1972-73, there are exhumed C compilers (including source) to show
>>> what
>>> the very early stages of the language were like. This was a highly
>>> transitional stage; for example, the earlier one anticipates a "long"
>>> type, but doesn't have struct; the 6-months-later compiler implements
>>> struct, but reuses long's slot in the type table.
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/~dmr/primevalC.html
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>
>>DECtapes are highly platform specific, and are not covered by ANSI C,
which
>>is the subject of this newsgroup (comp.lang.c). Try a DEC-related
>>newsgroup.
>>
>
>He said that the code was *TAKEN OFF OF* DEC tapes, *not* that
>what he was making available currently resided on them. This is a
>non-problem, and your mention of it a non-sequitir.
>
>>If you want us to comment on your source code, please post it in the body
>>of your email.
>>
>
>Funny. Last time *I* did something like that, I was told by one of the
>*regulars*
>to *put it on a web site and post the URL.* That's what Mr. Ritchie did.
>I've
>checked. It's there.
>
>>What was your C question?
>>
>
>There was an implied question:
>
>*Is this old C code currently still useful?*
>
>Unfortunately, I doubt that any single person alive can
>satisfactorily answer that question.
>
>>--
>>Richard Heathfield
>>
>>The bug stops here.
>>
>>
>>
>>nasaldemon: "Richard, they won't get it. They won't understand. You're
>>gonna be shot down in flames for this one, big-time."
>>
>>Richard: "I know. It's one of those do-it-and-damn-the-consequences days."
>>
analdemon: "Jeff, they won't get it. They won't understand. They won't
even reply."
Jeff: "I know, but he asked for it. Besides, where does it say that I have
to be any *seriouser than thou.* This is going to be fun *anyway."*
analdemon: "Jeff, that's devious. In fact, that's positivly DEVILISH. I
*like* you."
Jeff: "There goes the neighborhood."
>
>
Paul Hughett
: Yeah, but is Assembly PORTABLE???
: (how's THAT for a hook? PASM anyone?)
Sure it is. You just spend a couple of long weekends rewriting the
code for your new machine.
Paul "My _second_ computer was a 1620" Hughett
Joe Morris
>On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:17:38 -0500, "Curt Schemmel" <sche...@home.com>
>wrote:
>>Yeah, but is Assembly PORTABLE???
>Assembly programmers aim for *performance* at the given platform.
>Portability and readability is irrelevant :-)
I'll buy that statmemt for "portability" since in most environments
it's -- shall we say, "not very common" (these *are* family
newsgroups after all...)
But "readability"? If you're talking about a hack programmer, you'll
find that UNreadability is a language-independent characteristic. Good
assembler programmers -- and I would argue that *especially* assembler
programmers -- will write both code and commentary that are readable,
at least to someone competent in the computer architecture, the
assembler syntax and symantics, and the operating system/application
design.
'Way back when I was hiring programmers for the mainframe facility
that I managed I would ask applicants to show me examples of programs
they had written, in a language that they would be using as my
employee. Neatness, readability, and an occasional touch of humor
were all positive points in my evaluation; whether I could understand
the nitty-gritty details of the program was a different question.
Expertise in programming is necessary but not sufficient to make
someone a valuable employee; it can in fact be a problem if it's
coupled with an obsessive desire to win the "obfusticated _x_" contest
(for any programming language name value of _x_).
There are certainly times when it's impractical to include a tutorial
in the commentary of a program (the famous "you are not expected to
understand this" comment in the UNIX kernel comes to mind) but
"readability" is a larger concept than the issue of understanding
the details of the underlying algorithm.
Joe Morris (who escaped from the management job long ago)
Alexander Bartolich
>
> Sure it is. You just spend a couple of long weekends rewriting the
> code for your new machine.
One of the more useful definitions of portability is:
Source code is portable when the amount of work required to build it on
another machine is significantly less than rewriting it from scratch.