On Jun 18, 19:07, Allison J Parent wrote:
> Subject: Re: OT -mostly -
> <Compare this to modern OSs - windows, macos, etc where the development
pack
> <costs hundreds or thousands of dollars extra.
>
> VMS, all of the Unix clones,
All cost extra, unless you mean gcc etc. None of HP/UX, Solaris, IRIX,
AIX, come with more than the minimum required to relink the kernel,
although you can buy the development tools separately.
> RT-11 to name a few still provide full
> development environment.
That's certainly valid. The exception that proves the rule, perhaps :-)
> I'm sure some(I would) here would add CPM
> OS9 and even PC based DOS(MS, DRdos, CCPM...). the amount of freeware
> or lowcost shareware for DOS/winders is quite impressive and plentyful.
>
> Of all the software out there CPM-80, APPLE and PCdos has the largest
> archives, but the PDP-8, -11, VAX archives are getting big.
But does freeware/shareware count? The original point was that the
manufacturers don't provide their tools for free as part of the OS; of
course you can add on any amount of 3rd party free software to virtually
any OS.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
--- Huw Davies <H.Davies(a)latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
> At 16:13 18/06/99 -0700, Ethan Dicks wrote:
> > ISTR that the error log analyzer is written in PL/1, for example.
>
> CUSP is something like Commonly Used System (Software?) Program.
That's it.
> I'm not sure about the error log analyzer but certainly part (if not all)
> of the monitor program is written in PL/1. (Monitor monitors the
> performance of a VMS system and is not to be confused with The Monitor
> which was the system for a DECsystem-10).
Right! The system monitor was written in PL/1. The error log analyzer was
written in COBOL.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Huw Davies <H.Davies(a)latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
> I've heard that Bliss was not liked within Digital.
As they used to say:
"Bliss is Ignorance"
-ethan
===
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
<On a side note, perhaps it would be better to have the most
<collectable by category (e.g. 8 bit home, S-100, early GUI, etc).
<That way more items can be listed but still be managed. Plus then
<everyone can argue about how to classify things (does the
<CompuPro go under CPM or S100 or both).
Well, the people that classify things have a field day. The reality with
computers is that they are metamorphic making that a challenge.
For it to work the list must have a coherent set of rules. For example:
S100 is a buss but that does not dictate what cpus are used and the list
of CPUs (and OSs) are quite large(nearly every cpu used!). Listing by
OS narrows that to groups or specific cpus.
the list in my mind has these criteria. Order by introduction,
by OS or CPU, by bus used, by attributes (first, portable, GUI...).
I'm sure there are more ways but it would likely end up looking like a
matrix.
Allison
<I've heard that Bliss was not liked within Digital. I'm assuming some
<aspects of NIH along with support issues. Perhaps someone who was there
<might like to comment?
Correct BLISS was not a favorite of the systems people and there was an
effort in the 80s to move a lot of bliss (vax) code to C. It was partly
the portability plus interfacing issues between languages and that C or
Pascal was seen as becomming the more standard languages. I think also
it was considered by more than me to be an esoteric skill that showed little
value outside of DEC or DEC environments.
Allison
>> Ah, but does this not actually fall under the same catagory as the above
>> comments about UNIX? Or does RT-11 ship with more than Macro-11? You
>>kind
>> of have to have Macro-11 in order to run a SYSGEN I believe.
>True, but a fair amount of development work is/was done with MACRO-11.
That's an understatement. Compared with a PC-clone or Unixy
assemblers, the expansive abilities of a true Macro assembler are
astounding. Think of Macro-11 not so much as an assembler, but as a
completely extensible language. Many other architectures have
similarly powerful macro assemblers.
Unfortunately, folks these days think of "macros" in relation to programming
as being limited to what 'cpp' is capable of.
Tim.
>I wonder if anybody's ever put together an "old micros spotted in movies"
>list.
It doesn't necessarily meet everybody's definition of a "micro", but
at the start of _Three Days of the Condor_ there's some nice shots of
a PDP-8 with DECTape drives.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
On Jun 18, 22:32, Roger Merchberger wrote:
> Subject: OT: Included Development Tools
> Rumor has it that Tony Duell may have mentioned these words:
>
> >For the unices mentioned earlier, I believe that cc, an assembler, etc
> >were _not_ included with the OS. So there is no way of writing programs
> >with the software as supplied.
>
> Dunno about the others that were mentioned, but Solaris (in every form
that
> I dealt with, anyway...) did include cc, plus perl, tcl/tk, I think
Python,
> and maybe some others.
>
> Now... the libraries that were included with Solaris were lame at best,
and
> it is tough to get 3rd party programs to compile with the included cc (a
> quick upgrade to gcc fixes that...) but it was included, and was enough
to
> write C & perl programs out of the box.
IIRC that isn't ANSI C, and certainly isn't intended for development work.
Sun sell a development compiler separately, and it's *not* cheap.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On Jun 19, 2:53, Tony Duell wrote:
> It doesn't matter (IMHO) _why_ Macro-11 was included, the fact is that it
> was. And it's possible to write programs in Macro-11, so it counts as a
> programming tool.
>
> For the unices mentioned earlier, I believe that cc, an assembler, etc
> were _not_ included with the OS. So there is no way of writing programs
> with the software as supplied.
Usually there would be only part of the compiler, and a linker, but no
assembler; and in some cases the linker would be a cut-down version. For
example, in IRIX, you only need to able to link COFF executables to rebuild
the kernel, whereas the normal linker/loader handles ELF executables.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On Jun 18, 16:39, Zane H. Healy wrote:
> Pete wrote
> > On Jun 18, 19:07, Allison J Parent wrote:
> > > VMS, all of the Unix clones,
> >
> > All cost extra, unless you mean gcc etc. None of HP/UX, Solaris, IRIX,
> > AIX, come with more than the minimum required to relink the kernel,
> > although you can buy the development tools separately.
> >
> > > RT-11 to name a few still provide full
> > > development environment.
> >
> > That's certainly valid. The exception that proves the rule, perhaps
:-)
>
> Ah, but does this not actually fall under the same catagory as the above
> comments about UNIX? Or does RT-11 ship with more than Macro-11? You
kind
> of have to have Macro-11 in order to run a SYSGEN I believe.
True, but a fair amount of development work is/was done with MACRO-11.
However, very few people would even contemplate writing assembler for a
UNIX system (except for very small very low level things). 18 months ago I
had to write some applications stuff in MIPS assembler for IRIX, and was
disgusted to find that SGI's C compiler could do just as good a job as I
could, most of the time.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
