14 Oct
2013
14 Oct
'13
3:48 p.m.
On 10/14/2013 3:37 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 10/14/2013 02:32 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
If it is already scanned, it probably is not a lot of interest to have
the original. But there are a lot of people who study variants of
languages to see how features evolved, even from bad compilers.
You are right it probably won't interest anyone if it can't serve that
purpose.
It might be interesting also to hear how it got where it is today and
why if it was so awful, what project / purpose did it serve and was it used?
jim
Sorry to have to say that the CDC one has indeed
now gone to a new
home. The IBM SSP one remains, though, so Dave, I suggest you drop me
an email with your address & I'll get a price for postage for you.
I'm a bit curious...
What on earth would a FTN (that's what CDC called the extended
FORTRAN; "standard" was RUN) manual be of use to someone today? It's
not part of the Cray-Cyber public access setup (it came later than
COS). FTN is a horribly non-standard dialect of FORTRAN. The
EUQIVALENCE/COMMON processor in the compiler is a nightmare in
comment-free ASSIGN-ed GOTOs. "The rule was "Don't touch it--you'll
break it."
--Chuck