14 Jul
2018
14 Jul
'18
12:14 p.m.
Hello,
I recently received the following request:
I just recently found a (9 or 7 track?) tape of mine
made on an
HP2000 (probably C, maybe F) in 1977 from a DUMP of two accounts.
I've had it for 40 years with nothing to process it. Now I have
simh to process it on, but nothing to read it with.
Does anyone have experience and the ability to read such a tape?
Cheers,
Dan
14 Jul
14 Jul
12:17 p.m.
isn't the? basic? programs? also stored in tokinized? forms!?!?
Ed#
?
?
In a message dated 7/14/2018 9:14:22 AM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at
classiccmp.org writes:
?
Hello,
I recently received the following request:
I just recently found a (9 or 7 track?) tape of mine
made on an
HP2000 (probably C, maybe F) in 1977 from a DUMP of two accounts.
I've had it for 40 years with nothing to process it. Now I have
simh to process it on, but nothing to read it with.
Does anyone have experience and the ability to read such a tape?
Cheers,
Dan
4:53 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
isn't the? basic? programs? also stored in
tokinized? forms!?!?
Yes.
And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations,
or even between different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC
I don't know the token list for it. You MIGHT be able to find that
in one of the early manuals for it (1969), possibly as an appendix.
newline is 0D,0A
Saving a file in UN-tokenized form is done with "CSAVE". (similar to the
"SAVE xxx,A in Microsoft BASIC)
If writing a conversion program for it is an unsurmountable obstacle, then
all that you need to do is to send me back in time to 1960. That will
give me almost a decade to get established and get the money together, so
that when the machine is first released, I will get hold of one, and write
a program in BASIC to detokenize a stored BASIC file, and save it in
untokenized form. I will then put a copy of that BASIC utility program
onto the tape that you will end up with. To leave enough space on the
tape for the other stuff, I will store that program in tokenized form.
Optionally, I can set up a portfolio for you then, to fund the time
machine.
NOTE: I have made a similar open offer to John Titor. So do it quickly to
be first! Offer is for a ONE-WAY trip. Round-trip is not acceptable.
NOTE: the language BASIC is an acronym for "Beginner's All-purpose
Symbolic Instruction Code." ALL CAPS !
The basic programs and utilities that come with the machine that are not
written in BASIC are not tokenized.
The language was developed by Thomas E. Kurtz and John G. Kemeny at
Dartmouth College in 1963. One of their "basic" oremises was "a number is
a number", and that people using the language shouldn't have to understand
the difference between integer and floating point.
They abandoned their offspring for decades, and it wasn't until mid 1980s
that they ever even looked at the BASIC that was present, even built-in,
on most personal computers! They finally noticed how the adult had grown
up, and were SHOCKED at "street BASIC", and how people such as billg
(MICROS~1) and Gordon Eubanks (CBASIC) had corrupted it. So, they
created and marketed "TRUE BASIC" in 1985, which was a structured
compiled language, that returned to the true faith.
"I think I'll pass up the opportunity to become a born-again True BASIC
believer. I'll enjoy my Microsoft and CBASIC heresies." - Jerry Pournelle
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
5:10 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
Apparently Eric Smith has already done so.
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/tsbutils/
You can still send me back to the sixties.
6:44 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
On 2018-07-14 5:10 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Apparently Eric Smith has already done so.
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/tsbutils/
You can still send me back to the sixties.
Hey, form an orderly queue, please!
17 Jul
17 Jul
3:33 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
I think it was called a "decompiler" though. Seemed like magic at the time.
Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
decompiler under RSTS. RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
could get back very reasonable code."
And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=121804804023540&w=2
- John
isn't the? basic? programs? also stored in
tokinized? forms!?!?
Yes.
And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or even between
different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC 
4:21 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
I should also mention that for the IBM S/23, once the BASIC program is entered, the
original
source is discarded and only the tokenized code remains (comments are retained as-is).
The
LIST command runs a de-tokenizer and reconstructs the original source (well close to it
anyway).
TTFN - Guy
On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:33 PM, John Foust via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
I think it was called a "decompiler" though. Seemed like magic at the time.
Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
decompiler under RSTS. RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
could get back very reasonable code."
And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=121804804023540&w=2
- John
isn't the? basic? programs? also stored in
tokinized? forms!?!?
Yes.
And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or even between
different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC 
4:50 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
The HP9830 (1972) with it's ROM'ed BASIC works this way.
LIST produces a 'cleaned up' version of the source code.
On 2018-Jul-17, at 1:21 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote:
I should also mention that for the IBM S/23, once the
BASIC program is entered, the original
source is discarded and only the tokenized code remains (comments are retained as-is).
The
LIST command runs a de-tokenizer and reconstructs the original source (well close to it
anyway).
TTFN - Guy
On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:33 PM, John Foust via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
I think it was called a "decompiler" though. Seemed like magic at the time.
Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
decompiler under RSTS. RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
could get back very reasonable code."
And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=121804804023540&w=2
- John
isn't the? basic? programs? also stored in
tokinized? forms!?!?
Yes.
And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or even between
different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC 
18 Jul
18 Jul
1 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
And so does the HP 85.
Marc
On Jul 17, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
The HP9830 (1972) with it's ROM'ed BASIC works this way.
LIST produces a 'cleaned up' version of the source code.
On 2018-Jul-17, at 1:21 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via
cctalk wrote:
I should also mention that for the IBM S/23, once the BASIC program is entered, the
original
source is discarded and only the tokenized code remains (comments are retained as-is).
The
LIST command runs a de-tokenizer and reconstructs the original source (well close to it
anyway).
TTFN - Guy
On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:33 PM, John Foust via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk
wrote:
> isn't the? basic? programs? also stored in tokinized? forms!?!?
Yes.
And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or even between
different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC
I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
I think it was called a "decompiler" though. Seemed like magic at the time.
Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
decompiler under RSTS. RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
could get back very reasonable code."
And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=121804804023540&w=2
- John
1:21 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
I would think that any interpreted BASIC would do this or for that
matter any interpreted language except maybe for APL which is pretty
much written with tokens anyway.? One other exception I can think of is
perl? which is stored as source text.? Saving in tokenized form was good
for to reasons, it saved storage space, both in memory and on mass
storage and when you loaded the program it was ready to go.
Paul.
On 2018-07-18 2:00 PM, Curious Marc via cctalk wrote:
And so does the HP 85.
Marc
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk <cctalk at
classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> The HP9830 (1972) with it's ROM'ed BASIC works this way.
> LIST produces a 'cleaned up' version of the source code.
>
>
>
>> On 2018-Jul-17, at 1:21 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote:
>>
>> I should also mention that for the IBM S/23, once the BASIC program is entered,
the original
>> source is discarded and only the tokenized code remains (comments are retained
as-is). The
>> LIST command runs a de-tokenizer and reconstructs the original source (well close
to it anyway).
>>
>> TTFN - Guy
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:33 PM, John Foust via cctalk <cctalk at
classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
>>>>> isn't the? basic? programs? also stored in tokinized?
forms!?!?
>>>> Yes.
>>>> And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations,
or even between different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
>>>> http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC
>>> I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
>>>
>>> I think it was called a "decompiler" though. Seemed like magic at
the time.
>>>
>>> Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
>>> decompiler under RSTS. RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from
"push-pop" code.
>>> The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
>>> between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
>>> could get back very reasonable code."
>>>
>>> And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
>>>
>>> https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=121804804023540&w=2
>>>
>>> - John
>>>
1:47 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:21 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I would think that any interpreted BASIC would do this or for that matter any interpreted
language except maybe for APL which is pretty much written with tokens anyway. One other
exception I can think of is perl which is stored as source text. Saving in tokenized
form was good for to reasons, it saved storage space, both in memory and on mass storage
and when you loaded the program it was ready to go.
Paul...
>
>>>> I think it was called a "decompiler" though. Seemed like magic
at the time.
>>>>
>>>> Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
>>>> decompiler under RSTS. RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from
"push-pop" code.
>>>> The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the
correspondence
>>>> between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
>>>> could get back very reasonable code."
>>>>
>>>> And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
>>>>
>>>> https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=121804804023540&w=2
I would not say "written with tokens".
Basic-PLUS essentially used a stack machine code, easy to generate and pretty efficient.
It wasn't designed to be reversible, but since the symbol table was saved as well (had
to be, to allow for incremental editing and interactive debugging) you could reverse
pretty easily. This sort of thing has a long history. UCSD Pascal used something
similar, which it called "P-code". The TUTOR language of the U of Illinois
PLATO system did as well, except for expressions which were compiled into actual machine
code. That sort of mixed encoding was used a decade earlier in the first ALGOL compiler,
by Dijkstra and Zonneveld, 1961, for the EL-X1. And yes, it's still done a lot, I
believe Python is a good example.
A somewhat different approach is found in RT-11 BASIC, a somewhat simpler language than
BASIC-PLUS and an unrelated implementation. That one does convert the text into tokens,
it doesn't generate a stack language transformation as B+ did. And the token encoding
is explicitly designed to be reversible: when you use the LIST command the token stream is
converted back to source text. That means, for example, that comments are included in the
token stream (unlike B+).
paul
2:49 p.m.
New subject: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes
On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Paul Berger via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
I would think that any interpreted BASIC would do this
or for that matter any interpreted language except maybe for APL
You'd think so but many BASIC dialects don't fully tokenize. Many leave in all the
extra spaces the user types in, such as the Microsoft BASIC on various Commodores. Some
BASICs even require the spaces in order to properly parse during tokenization.
There's a page here which includes a field for machines which do full tokenization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computers_with_on-board_BASIC
--
Follow me on twitter: @FozzTexx
Check out my blog: http://insentricity.com
14 Jul
14 Jul
12:59 p.m.
On 07/14/2018 09:14 AM, Dan Veeneman via cctalk wrote:
Hello,
I recently received the following request:
I can read 7-track as well as 9-track (800 NRZI, 1600 PE and 6250 GCR)
tapes. My output format is SIMH .TAP files. Interpretation is up to you.
--Chuck
I just recently found a (9 or 7 track?) tape of
mine made on an
HP2000 (probably C, maybe F) in 1977 from a DUMP of two accounts.
I've had it for 40 years with nothing to process it. Now I have
simh to process it on, but nothing to read it with.
Does anyone have experience and the ability to read such a tape? 
4:50 p.m.
Dan Veeneman via cctalk wrote:
I recently received the following request:
..and Chuck responded:
I just recently found a (9 or 7 track?) tape of
mine made on an
HP2000 (probably C, maybe F) in 1977 from a DUMP of two accounts.
I've had it for 40 years with nothing to process it. Now I have
simh to process it on, but nothing to read it with.
Does anyone have experience and the ability to read such a tape? I can read 7-track as well as 9-track (800 NRZI, 1600
PE and 6250 GCR)
tapes. My output format is SIMH .TAP files. Interpretation is up to you.
Once you get .TAP files, here's a link to the tools you need to extract the catalog
directories, as well as decode the BASIC programs on the tape. They work fantastic:
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/tsbutils/
Once you get the tape read and have a .tap image, please put it somewhere where Time
Shared BASIC fans can download it and take a look at what's there. If it's a
HIBernate tape, could potentially be fired up under SimH and run just as it was the day
the tape was made.
If it's a 9-Track tape, I do have ability to read them, but no 7-track capability.
I'm in Oregon.
-Rick
--
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum
http://oldcalculatormuseum.com
5:15 p.m.
On 7/14/18 1:50 PM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote:
Dan Veeneman via cctalk wrote:
>
> I recently received the following request:
>
>> I just recently found a (9 or 7 track?) tape of mine made on an
>> HP2000 (probably C, maybe F) in 1977 from a DUMP of two accounts.
>> I've had it for 40 years with nothing to process it. Now I have
>> simh to process it on, but nothing to read it with.
>
It will be a 9-track tape.
I'd strongly suggest sending it to Chuck to recover.
3:47 p.m.
On 07/14/2018 11:14 AM, Dan Veeneman via cctalk wrote:
Hello,
I recently received the following request:
What density and number of tracks? I currently have
capability to read 1600 (PE) and 6250 (GCR) tapes in 9-track
format. No 7-track or 800 BPI capability, however.
Jon
I just recently found a (9 or 7 track?) tape of
mine made on an
HP2000 (probably C, maybe F) in 1977 from a DUMP of two accounts.
I've had it for 40 years with nothing to process it. Now I have
simh to process it on, but nothing to read it with.
Does anyone have experience
and the ability to read such a tape?
2196
days inactive
2200
days old
15 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
bhilpert＠shaw.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
couryhouse＠aol.com -
curiousmarc3＠gmail.com -
dan＠ekoan.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
fozztexx＠fozztexx.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
phb.hfx＠gmail.com -
rickb＠bensene.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au