[cctalk] Re: Elliott Algol

On 2025-02-15 11:27 a.m., Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote: Remove "Like Algol" and the statement is even more valid. I guess that was why the PDP-1 was successful, it had early core memory. I keep forgetting about drum memory, on most early machines. Around what time did core memory drop in price that one had ample main memory to compile with? I am guessing the late 60's. The PDP 8/e, being simple could have a fast cycle time 1.2 uS. I have a rather full featured, 18 bit design being run in real hardware using 10 ns CPLD's (emulating ROM) and the best speed I can do is 1.6 uS core memory cycle time with a 2 phase clock.5 Mhz Oscillator. Most of the delay is with the slow 74LS219 register file and ROM accesses time. Working backwards, ballpark timing for a 70's design using SSI is a 2.17 uS. 3.6864 Mhz clock. I keep finding out how the early computers got away with so little hardware and memory and did so much with that. I wonder how much progress computers would have made had ACSII and Algol not kept changing standards every few years? Some how 6 bit characters seems more standard, text wise, compared with the mess with accented characters and money characters of today. Is there any thing a ALGOL compiler needs for good code generation other than ample index and GP resisters? Ben.