7 May
2010
7 May
'10
12:44 a.m.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
On 5/6/10 6:21 PM, Nigel Williams wrote:
Hopefully, someone will find this thread and remember they kept a copy
I wonder if Apple would be now willing to release
a copy of Lisa C
compiler
(beta) - the beta release (only) included the headers/support to allow C
applications to be compiled targeting Lisa (instead of just Macintosh);
and
Lisa FORTRAN is still to be found too.
I doubt anyone inside the company would know if copies still exist.
Bruce
Daniels might know, but I think it would be pretty tough to find. I'm guessing
Lisa FORTRAN would have come from SVS (Silicon Valley Software) who put one
out for the 68K around the same time as their non-interpreted Pascal which
Apple
used on Mac and Lisa and also as the starting point for the MPW C compiler.
Agree that FORTRAN probably came from SVS.
David Craig had this to say about Lisa C:
... this C compiler was written by Green Hills. From what I recall about
this from talking to a member of Apple's Lisa development team, this
compiler was created under contract and Apple itself did not have any people
who maintained this compiler. As such, this compiler had a very short life.
I also believe that Apple's later Macintosh MPW C compiler was written in
MPW Pascal and maintained by Apple. A later C compiler was written in C.
Note also that Lisa C could only generate Macintosh object files, not Lisa
object files (the Lisa's obj files were much more complex that the Mac's due
to the Lisa's need to support a virtual memory segmented architecture).
From the Lisa C manual:
"If you know of someone with a Beta version, then you can use it to generate
Lisa code. The Lisa support was stripped out of the final version".
7 May
7 May
9:59 a.m.
Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in Valtrep back in the 80s
yes, this was after fortran was already quite established.
it's very like fortran - if you can write fortran, you can do valtrep.
Interestingly perhaps, googling for valtrep is quite useless it seems...
Dan.
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 14:44:20 +1000
Subject: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
From: nigel.d.williams at gmail.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes: Hotmail makes your day easier! Enter Now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729710
On 5/6/10 6:21 PM, Nigel Williams wrote:
Hopefully, someone will find this thread and remember they kept a copy
I wonder if Apple would be now willing to release
a copy of Lisa C
compiler
(beta) - the beta release (only) included the headers/support to allow C
applications to be compiled targeting Lisa (instead of just Macintosh);
and
Lisa FORTRAN is still to be found too.
I doubt anyone inside the company would know if copies still exist.
Bruce
Daniels might know, but I think it would be pretty tough to find. I'm guessing
Lisa FORTRAN would have come from SVS (Silicon Valley Software) who put one
out for the 68K around the same time as their non-interpreted Pascal which
Apple
used on Mac and Lisa and also as the starting point for the MPW C compiler.
Agree that FORTRAN probably came from SVS.
David Craig had this to say about Lisa C:
... this C compiler was written by Green Hills. From what I recall about
this from talking to a member of Apple's Lisa development team, this
compiler was created under contract and Apple itself did not have any people
who maintained this compiler. As such, this compiler had a very short life.
I also believe that Apple's later Macintosh MPW C compiler was written in
MPW Pascal and maintained by Apple. A later C compiler was written in C.
Note also that Lisa C could only generate Macintosh object files, not Lisa
object files (the Lisa's obj files were much more complex that the Mac's due
to the Lisa's need to support a virtual memory segmented architecture).
From the Lisa C manual:
"If you know of someone with a Beta version, then you can use it to generate
Lisa code. The Lisa support was stripped out of the final version". 
10:20 a.m.
Dan Gahlinger wrote:
--
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, VideoGames)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out"
Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in Valtrep back in the 80s
yes, this was after fortran was already quite established.
it's very like fortran - if you can write fortran, you can do valtrep.
Interestingly perhaps, googling for valtrep is quite useless it seems...
Dan.
If you put quotes around "valtrep" instead of just valtrep then you do
get about 146 legitimate hits, instead of Voltrex which Google tries to
push.
Interesting that Google, which used to be a great search engine is now
deteriorating somewhat due to its' advertising policies. I'm finding
that the substitutes Google puts in get in the way of finding items with
odd spellings, making research more onerous.
One interesting site I found, which is good for math functions is:
http://www.wolframalpha.com
John :-#)#
Date: Fri, 7
May 2010 14:44:20 +1000
Subject: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
From: nigel.d.williams at gmail.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes: Hotmail makes your day easier! Enter Now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729710
On 5/6/10 6:21 PM, Nigel Williams wrote:
Hopefully, someone will find this thread and remember they kept a copy
I wonder if Apple would be now willing to release
a copy of Lisa C
compiler
(beta) - the beta release (only) included the headers/support to allow C
applications to be compiled targeting Lisa (instead of just Macintosh);
and
Lisa FORTRAN is still to be found too.
I doubt anyone inside the company would know if copies still exist.
Bruce
Daniels might know, but I think it would be pretty tough to find.
I'm guessing
Lisa FORTRAN would have come from SVS (Silicon Valley Software) who put one
out for the 68K around the same time as their non-interpreted Pascal which
Apple
used on Mac and Lisa and also as the starting point for the MPW C compiler.
Agree that FORTRAN probably came from SVS.
David Craig had this to say about Lisa C:
... this C compiler was written by Green Hills. From what I recall about
this from talking to a member of Apple's Lisa development team, this
compiler was created under contract and Apple itself did not have any people
who maintained this compiler. As such, this compiler had a very short life.
I also believe that Apple's later Macintosh MPW C compiler was written in
MPW Pascal and maintained by Apple. A later C compiler was written in C.
Note also that Lisa C could only generate Macintosh object files, not Lisa
object files (the Lisa's obj files were much more complex that the Mac's due
to the Lisa's need to support a virtual memory segmented architecture).
From the Lisa C manual:
"If you know of someone with a Beta version, then you can use it to generate
Lisa code. The Lisa support was stripped out of the final version".
4:10 p.m.
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
WOW!
Are you saying that Apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN?
Or are you saying that the earliest versions of FORTRAN were based on
Valtrep? If so, you should be aware that FORTRAN was in heavy active use
in the 1960s, rather long before your 1980s experiences with Valtrep.
NO. Valtrep may have made some nice improvements, but they were never
part of the original creation of FORTRAN.
I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in
Valtrep back in the 80s
yes, this was after fortran was already quite established.
Yes, RATHER.
FORTRAN was well on to its DECLINE in usage by then.
it's very like fortran - if you can write fortran,
you can do valtrep.
Interestingly perhaps, googling for valtrep is quite useless it seems...
Oh, I don't know, that guy "transnet" has some interesting ideas :-)
4:22 p.m.
From: Fred Cisin
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:10 PM
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
> Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
WOW!
Are you saying that Apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN?
Or are you saying that the earliest versions of
FORTRAN were based on
Valtrep? If so, you should be aware that FORTRAN was in heavy active use
in the 1960s, rather long before your 1980s experiences with Valtrep.
NO. Valtrep may have made some nice improvements, but they were never
part of the original creation of FORTRAN.
I certainly understood Dan to be saying the former.
> I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in
Valtrep back in the 80s
> yes, this was after fortran was already quite established.
Yes, RATHER.
FORTRAN was well on to its DECLINE in usage by then.
That would come as a serious surprise to my friend Ivor Philips, who
worked on the Fortran 90 and Fortran 95 standards committees, as well
as writing the book (ok, one of 3 co-authors) on Fortran 90, and being
interested in F.
As well as the Boeing engineers he supported as one of the theoretical
mathematicians at that company...
(I won't mention the shocked look I got from engineers here when I showed
them your statement.)
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
6:08 p.m.
>> Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
> WOW!
> Are you saying that Apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN?
> Or are you saying that the earliest versions of FORTRAN were based on
> Valtrep? If so, you should be aware that FORTRAN was in heavy active use
> in the 1960s, rather long before your 1980s experiences with Valtrep.
> NO. Valtrep may have made some nice improvements, but they were never
> part of the original creation of FORTRAN.
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Rich Alderson wrote:
I certainly understood Dan to be saying the former.
. . . and yet he is furious at me for suggesting that there was a
possibility that he might mean the former.
FORTRAN was
well on to its DECLINE in usage by then.
That would come as a serious surprise to
my friend Ivor Philips, who
. . .
As well as the Boeing engineers he supported as one of the theoretical
. . .
(I won't mention the shocked look I got from engineers here when I showed
them your statement.) 
6:15 p.m.
On 7 May 2010 at 15:08, Fred Cisin wrote:
I taught beginning FORTRAN in the 1980s at Merritt
College (community
college), and would not mind doing it again, if we could get a quorum
for the classes. COBOL is gone from our curriculum :-( RPG is gone
from our curriculum :-) FORTRAN is gone from our curriculum :-( APL is
gone from our curriculum :-( BASIC is gone from our curriculum :-( The
administration has cancelled C The administration has cancelled C# The
administration has cancelled ASM We are down to "Using Microsoft
Office", "VISUAL BASIC", and C++ (slated for cancellation soon)
I wonder if it's possible to find a copy of Valtrep for the IBM 709.
I think it was all downhill after PL/I.
--Chuck
6:45 p.m.
> I taught beginning FORTRAN in the 1980s at
Merritt College (community
> college), and would not mind doing it again, if we could get a quorum
> for the classes. COBOL is gone from our curriculum :-( RPG is gone
> from our curriculum :-) FORTRAN is gone from our curriculum :-( APL is
> gone from our curriculum :-( BASIC is gone from our curriculum :-( The
> administration has cancelled C The administration has cancelled C# The
> administration has cancelled ASM We are down to "Using Microsoft
> Office", "VISUAL BASIC", and C++ (slated for cancellation soon)
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I wonder if it's possible to find a copy of
Valtrep for the IBM 709.
FORTRAN was on the 704. (1954)
Was Valtrep on the 701??
BTW, the 704, 709 had 38 bit accumulator and 36 bit quotient. So, back in
the "good old days" we had "38 bit computers" :-)
I think it was all downhill after PL/I.
Ahhhhhh.
Different languages have different characteristics.
I believe that BASIC is the best language for a student's very first
exposure to computers ("Get the computer to put your name on the screen"
with very little frustration.)
PASCAL was good for building discipline and self-control.
C was great AFTER a student had develope self-control and discipline.
Therefore, what sequence do you think the educational institutions follow?
"What sequence do you think the educational institutions follow?", NOT
"What sequence do you think the educational institutions SHOULD follow?"
But most of us came in through other paths. "How can anybody claim to
know anything about computers when they haven't been working in machine
language?" "COBOL is the heart of Data Processing" "Nothing
compares
with APL for doing your calculations"
Dijkstra:
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offense.
APL is a mistake, carried through to perfection. It is the language of the
future for the programming techniques of the past: it creates a new
generation of coding bums.
FORTRAN, 'the infantile disorder', by now nearly 20 years old, is
hopelessly inadequate for whatever computer application you have in mind
today: it is now too clumsy, too risky, and too expensive to use.
In the good old days physicists repeated each other's experiments, just to
be sure. Today they stick to FORTRAN, so that they can share each other's
programs, bugs included.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that
have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
7:18 p.m.
On 7 May 2010 at 15:45, Fred Cisin wrote:
FORTRAN was on the 704. (1954)
704/709, very similar, but you're right--the 704 FORTRAN was first,
the 709 didn't escape until 1958.
Dijkstra:
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offense. APL is a mistake, carried through to
perfection. It is the language of the future for the programming
techniques of the past: it creates a new generation of coding bums.
FORTRAN, 'the infantile disorder', by now nearly 20 years old, is
hopelessly inadequate for whatever computer application you have in
mind today: it is now too clumsy, too risky, and too expensive to use.
In the good old days physicists repeated each other's experiments,
just to be sure. Today they stick to FORTRAN, so that they can share
each other's programs, bugs included. It is practically impossible to
teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to
BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond
hope of regeneration.
Yet, Edsgar is dead and Fortran (with F90, lowercase "Fortran" was
endorsed by X3J3 as an alternate spelling) is still going strong.
As far as his criticism of BASIC, it depends on what one calls
"BASIC". Visual BASIC is far, far from Kemeny and Kurtz, but there's
always "True BASIC" http://truebasic.com/ which is still pretty
distant from Dartmouth BASIC.
I wonder if FORTRAN/Fortran programmers speak better assembly than
Perl programmers do?
--Chuck
8 May
8 May
10:12 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
I taught beginning FORTRAN in the 1980s at Merritt College (community
college), and would not mind doing it again, if we could get a quorum for
the classes.
COBOL is gone from our curriculum :-(
RPG is gone from our curriculum :-)
FORTRAN is gone from our curriculum :-(
APL is gone from our curriculum :-(
BASIC is gone from our curriculum :-(
The administration has cancelled C
The administration has cancelled C#
The administration has cancelled ASM
We are down to "Using Microsoft Office", "VISUAL BASIC",
and C++ (slated for cancellation soon)
The CIS departments are circling the drain.
That sucks. I am *so* glad I never went on to further education after
secondary school. I have learnt more on my own (thanks to books, people on
this list and retro computers) than I ever would have in *modern courses*. A
piece of paper doesn't make me a good coder, good software written by me
does.
How can BASIC not be taught? Every computer has it's own version of BASIC,
whereas (as I understand it) Visual Basic is only available for modern
computers.
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
9 May
9 May
12:57 p.m.
> I taught beginning FORTRAN in the 1980s at
Merritt College (community
> college), and would not mind doing it again, if we could get a quorum for
> the classes.
> COBOL is gone from our curriculum :-(
> RPG is gone from our curriculum :-)
> FORTRAN is gone from our curriculum :-(
> APL is gone from our curriculum :-(
> BASIC is gone from our curriculum :-(
> The administration has cancelled C
> The administration has cancelled C#
> The administration has cancelled ASM
WOuld anybody mind if I cancelled the administration ? Painfully?
We are down to
"Using Microsoft Office", "VISUAL BASIC",
and C++ (slated for cancellation soon)
The CIS departments are circling the drain.
That sucks. I am *so* glad I never went on to further education after
secondary school. I have learnt more on my own (thanks to books, people on
this list and retro computers) than I ever would have in *modern courses*. A piece of paper doesn't make me a good coder, good
software written by me
does.
Too much emphassis is placed on paper qualifications these days... It's a
problem for me, since I don't have any particularly relevant ones. Lack
of these bits of paper does not mean you can't do the job, conversely
having them doesn't mean you can... Oh well...
How can BASIC not be taught? Every computer has it's own version of BASIC,
whereas (as I understand it) Visual Basic is only available for modern
computers.
I agree with the statemetn that 'every child should learn to program. Not
because they will become programmer,s but becuase programming teaches you
to think logically about solving problems and to break up problems into
simple steps'/ Or something like that anyway...
-tony
5:51 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Sun, 9 May 2010, Tony Duell wrote:
The administration offices are on the fourth floor, amenable to
defenestration.
Last XMAS, they had a potlock in the basement auditorium, making a cask of
Amontillado a viable option.
> The
administration has cancelled ASM
WOuld anybody mind if I cancelled the
administration ? Painfully? As I have said many times before, I leant nothing
useful at school. The
fact that I didn;t have one clueful mathementics of physics teacher may
have something to do with that. That $deity I had access to interesting
books...
You don't want to get me started on what they are trying to do to the
library. ""Kernighan & Ritchie" and "Knuth" are more than
five years old,
they should be replaced with something more current!" I used to use
astronomy as a counter argument, but now they think that ALL of those must
be replaced to reflect Pluto's "demotion".
[Oh, I learnt plenty of things while I was at school.
Like how to pick a
lock, how to make a master key, how to design state machines, and the
like. But that was not what I was supposed to be learning).
"supposed to be"??
A good teacher doesn't REALLY mind deviating a little from the lesson
plan.
Too much emphassis is placed on paper qualifications
these days... It's a
problem for me, since I don't have any particularly relevant ones. Lack
of these bits of paper does not mean you can't do the job, conversely
having them doesn't mean you can... Oh well...
College administrators who know that they will be laid off someday assign
THEMSELVES credentials! Then they can be re-assigned to teach when nobody
above them has the guts to fire them! REALLY!
I agree with the statemetn that 'every child
should learn to program. Not
because they will become programmer,s but becuase programming teaches you
to think logically about solving problems and to break up problems into
simple steps'/ Or something like that anyway...
I also see way too many students who were never handed a bulb, a battery,
a nail, and some pieces of wire, . . .
I have a bad case of "short-timer syndrome" - 6.16 semesters to go.
I have to keep a low profile, which is quite difficult for me.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
6:43 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On May 9, 2010, at 5:51 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
*spit* Bunch of damn suits.
Hey, haven't you heard? All of the standard sorting algorithms
(are ANY of them less than thirty years old?) are all so old now,
they MUST be obsolete! Better stop teaching them!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
As I have said
many times before, I leant nothing useful at
school. The
fact that I didn;t have one clueful mathementics of physics
teacher may
have something to do with that. That $deity I had access to
interesting
books...
You don't want to get me started on what they are trying to do to the
library. ""Kernighan & Ritchie" and "Knuth" are more than
five
years old,
they should be replaced with something more current!" I used to use
astronomy as a counter argument, but now they think that ALL of
those must
be replaced to reflect Pluto's "demotion". 
7:56 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 06:43:26PM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote:
On May 9, 2010, at 5:51 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
*spit* Bunch of damn suits.
Hey, haven't you heard? All of the standard sorting algorithms
(are ANY of them less than thirty years old?) are all so old now,
they MUST be obsolete! Better stop teaching them!
Don't say that too loud, some idio^WIndividuals In Charge might listen to
you and implement that as policy. And if that trend keeps up, you've
got to learn chinese to operate a new computer one day. *sigh*
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
As I have
said many times before, I leant nothing useful at
school. The
fact that I didn;t have one clueful mathementics of physics
teacher may
have something to do with that. That $deity I had access to
interesting
books...
You don't want to get me started on what they are trying to do to the
library. ""Kernighan & Ritchie" and "Knuth" are more than
five
years old,
they should be replaced with something more current!" I used to use
astronomy as a counter argument, but now they think that ALL of
those must
be replaced to reflect Pluto's "demotion". 
10 May
10 May
11:56 a.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
At 04:51 PM 5/9/2010, Fred Cisin wrote:
I also see way too many students who were never handed
a bulb, a battery,
a nail, and some pieces of wire, . . .
My freshman son was recently assigned a task like this in science
class. They were to assemble a sort of circuit board by using
thin strips of aluminum foil, joined at corners, instead of wires,
taped to a piece of cardboard, and improvised switches with flaps
that could be pressed to touch the ends together.
The objective was to design a circuit that could show lamps
in series and in parallel, depending on which switches were closed.
The assignment paperwork said to use "Christmas bulbs". The power
supply was not specified, although it was hinted a 9-volt could be
pressed against contacts. I thought this was very unclear, as there
are several types of Christmas bulbs these days.
To simplify, I bought four $1 old-style incandescent 3 volt (two AA)
flashlights, disassembled the bulbs, soldered wires to them, and
inserted them into the circuit.
Anyone care to predict what happened with two of these bulbs in series,
either with 3 volts or 6 volts?
What happened when I tried LEDs, in series or parallel, with a
current-limited source?
- John
11 May
11 May
10:13 a.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
At 10:56 AM 5/10/2010, John Foust wrote:
To simplify, I bought four $1 old-style incandescent 3
volt (two AA)
flashlights, disassembled the bulbs, soldered wires to them, and
inserted them into the circuit.
Anyone care to predict what happened with two of these bulbs in series,
either with 3 volts or 6 volts?
I thought someone would nibble on this. The answer? Only one bulb would light.
- John
12:05 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 9:13, John Foust wrote:
At 10:56 AM 5/10/2010, John Foust wrote:
In defense of the list, you didn't completely specify the initial
conditions. Obviously, the bulbs weren't identical.
I think a more instructive demonstration might be "I have two
ordinary incandescent light bulbs (line/mains operation rated). One
is labeled as 40W; the other as 100W. I hook them in series and
connect the resulting circuit to mains/line current. Which one glows
brighter?"
--Chuck
To simplify, I bought four $1 old-style
incandescent 3 volt (two AA)
flashlights, disassembled the bulbs, soldered wires to them, and
inserted them into the circuit. Anyone care to predict what happened
with two of these bulbs in series, either with 3 volts or 6 volts?
I thought someone would nibble on this. The answer? Only one bulb
would light.
12:14 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
At 11:05 AM 5/11/2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
In defense of the list, you didn't completely
specify the initial
conditions. Obviously, the bulbs weren't identical.
The four bulbs were identical as far as I could tell. Same
flashlights, off the rack, as I said "I bought four $1 flashlights".
I was perplexed. I assume it was due to some initial high resistance
that dropped once one of the bulbs won the battle to light, which
lowered the resistance for that bulb.
I was moreso perplexed about the poor specification for this take-home
assignment. How the average student was supposed to come up with
four bulbs and a power source to correctly light them, when instructed
to use "Christmas bulbs"? LEDs? Incandescents? What voltage?
My son reported that no one in the class came as close to an actual
circuit as he did. He got full credit because his circuit was correct
as judged by the teacher, even though it did not work as it was supposed to.
- John
2:05 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 11:14, John Foust wrote:
The four bulbs were identical as far as I could tell.
Same
flashlights, off the rack, as I said "I bought four $1 flashlights".
Quite possibly Far East-origin flashlights? Put together from
whatever the local spot market makes available. BTW, the local
Harbor Freight "Chinese Tool Store" is giving away 9 LED flashlights
with spun aluminum housings (3 AAA batteries included), so these
bargain things can't come to much on the wholesale market.
I was perplexed. I assume it was due to some initial
high resistance
that dropped once one of the bulbs won the battle to light, which
lowered the resistance for that bulb.
More likely, mismatched bulbs. Incandescent Christmas-tree strings
are typically series-connected with good results.
I was moreso perplexed about the poor specification
for this take-home
assignment. How the average student was supposed to come up with four
bulbs and a power source to correctly light them, when instructed to
use "Christmas bulbs"? LEDs? Incandescents? What voltage?
In fact, most Christmas-tree (wire-lead) replacement lamps will
operate on 6V just fine. I've got a string that I decorate my tuba
with at Christmastime that runs from 4 C cells at pretty much full
brightness.
Even a 120V incandescent will typically show some glow at 12V, so
voltage (as long as it's not too high) with incandescent lamps has a
fairly wide range.
--Chuck
2:37 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
At 01:05 PM 5/11/2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Quite possibly Far East-origin flashlights? Put
together from
whatever the local spot market makes available.
More likely, mismatched bulbs. Incandescent Christmas-tree strings
are typically series-connected with good results.
Yes, four seemingly identical bulbs from identical flashlights
from Walmart. I tried any two in series. Only one
lights.
In fact, most Christmas-tree (wire-lead) replacement
lamps will
operate on 6V just fine.
The tiny push-in type? No, for me, they didn't light at 3 volts and
blew out like fast fuses at 6 volts.
I didn't have any old screw-in types to test.
- John
3:29 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 13:37, John Foust wrote:
At 01:05 PM 5/11/2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yes, four seemingly identical bulbs from identical
flashlights
from Walmart. I tried any two in series. Only one lights.
It might be interesting to see what Mr. Ohmmeter says about the cold
resistance of each lamp.
--Chuck
3:49 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On May 11, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 11 May 2010 at 13:37, John Foust wrote:
I've seen this too - also helping my son :-)
My guess is the resistance changes as the filament begins to "glow".
Or at least that's what I remember thinking at the time. caveat: there may have
been
gin envolved - as I recall it was the weekend.
I'd be curious to know the real answer.
-brad
At 01:05 PM 5/11/2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yes, four seemingly identical bulbs from
identical flashlights
from Walmart. I tried any two in series. Only one lights.
It might be interesting to see what Mr. Ohmmeter says about the cold
resistance of each lamp.
5 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
My guess is the resistance changes as the filament
begins to "glow".
It does. The resistance increases as the filament gets hotter. In fact
many bulbs apporximate a constant current device.
I am going to have to do some experiments. I've connected bulbs in series
many times and never had any problems....
-tony
5:06 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 15:49, Brad Parker wrote:
I've seen this too - also helping my son :-)
My guess is the resistance changes as the filament begins to "glow".
Or at least that's what I remember thinking at the time. caveat:
there may have been gin envolved - as I recall it was the weekend.
I'd be curious to know the real answer.
Well, tungsten-filament incandescents have a strong positive
temperature coefficient to their resistance, so it's entirely likely
that the lamp with the highest cold resistance tends to glow much
more brightly when in series.
Cold resistance of a typical tungsten filament is around 1/10 that of
the filament when the lamp is at full brightness.
This is one of contributing factors to lamps going "poof" most often
when the current is first applied. One used to be able to buy
graphite "buttons" to insert in a lamp socket to ameliorate the
effect. (Carbon has a higher cold resistance than hot resistance).
Old 1950's era TV sets sometimes had an inrush current limiter to
extend the life of the tube heaters.
To extend your son's experiment a bit, it might be interesting to
devise a switched setup where lamps can be switched quickly from
parallel to series operation. (a DPDT switch should do the trick) to
see if pre-heating the filaments has an effect.
In other words, don't stop at the "book" experiment, but attempt to
find a cause. That's what *real* learning is about, after all.
--Chuck
5:16 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:07 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 15:49, Brad Parker wrote:
Once upon a time I was asked to judge at a middle school science fair. I was very
impressed with many of the students' projects, but one really stuck in my mind. The
young lady had started out with a hypothesis, designed experiments to test it - and
discovered that her original position was completely WRONG. Undismayed, she used the
results to develop a new hypothesis, tested that and learned something new (and somewhat
nonintuitive).
That teacher had done a great job of teaching his students the scientific method - I made
a point of finding him and complimenting him. He was gone the next year: at the
(parochial) school, they had decided he wasn't church-y enough. <sigh> -- Ian
I've seen this too - also helping my son :-)
My guess is the resistance changes as the filament begins to "glow".
Or at least that's what I remember thinking at the time. caveat:
there may have been gin envolved - as I recall it was the weekend.
I'd be curious to know the real answer.
Well, tungsten-filament incandescents have a strong positive
temperature coefficient to their resistance, so it's entirely likely
that the lamp with the highest cold resistance tends to glow much
more brightly when in series.
Cold resistance of a typical tungsten filament is around 1/10 that of
the filament when the lamp is at full brightness.
This is one of contributing factors to lamps going "poof" most often
when the current is first applied. One used to be able to buy
graphite "buttons" to insert in a lamp socket to ameliorate the
effect. (Carbon has a higher cold resistance than hot resistance).
Old 1950's era TV sets sometimes had an inrush current limiter to
extend the life of the tube heaters.
To extend your son's experiment a bit, it might be interesting to
devise a switched setup where lamps can be switched quickly from
parallel to series operation. (a DPDT switch should do the trick) to
see if pre-heating the filaments has an effect.
In other words, don't stop at the "book" experiment, but attempt to
find a cause. That's what *real* learning is about, after all.
--Chuck
5:02 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 13:37, John Foust wrote:
Any metal filaments have slightly different resistance when cold and when
glowing hot, they are designed with the properties of metal when at
operating temperature.
Don't you get a voltage drop with each bulb in series? First bulb has enough
voltage to light and the next one does not?
At 01:05 PM 5/11/2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yes, four seemingly identical bulbs from
identical flashlights
from Walmart. I tried any two in series. Only one lights.
It might be interesting to see what Mr. Ohmmeter says about the cold
resistance of each lamp.
--Chuck
5:14 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11/05/2010 19:37, John Foust wrote:
At 01:05 PM 5/11/2010, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I think Chuck's got it. Electrical resistance (at least for common
metals, as in a lightbulb filament) rises with temperature, sometimes
dramatically. That's why, incidentally, light bulbs nearly always blow
when first switched on rather than after running for a while: there's a
high inrush current when the filament is cold.
So what's probably happening is that the bulbs are indeed mismatched.
At switch-on, one gets a bit more of the voltage across it, heats up
more quickly, the resistance rises, so it gets even more of the voltage,
and so on, while the other is starved.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Quite possibly Far East-origin flashlights? Put
together from
whatever the local spot market makes available.
More likely, mismatched bulbs. Incandescent Christmas-tree strings
are typically series-connected with good results.
Yes, four seemingly identical bulbs from identical flashlights
from Walmart. I tried any two in series. Only one lights.
5:33 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 11:14, John Foust wrote:
> The four bulbs were identical as far as I could tell. Same
> flashlights, off the rack, as I said "I bought four $1 flashlights".
Getting back to the original problem, I don't believe that the fact that
a bulb came out of a torch that cost $1 uniquely specifies it :-)
I've not seen the original message (my ISP's mail is something of a joke
at the moment!) but as I understnad it, the OP had 4 similar filament
bulbs in series connected to a PSU and only one lit up. Some questions :
1) What is the voltageof thePSU compared to th nominal voltage of the
bulbs. If these are 3V bubls, is it s 3V PSU, a 12V PSU, or what?
2) Hat is the voltage across each bulb when they are wired in series and
turend ou?
3) What is th cold resistande of each bulb?
4) If you power each bulb individulally from a 3V (or whatever) supply,
what currents to they each draw?
5) If you have them in series an only one is lit, what happens if you
momentarily short out the lit bulb? Can you get the darn thing to have
several stable sttes?
Quite possibly Far East-origin flashlights? Put together from
whatever the local spot market makes available. BTW, the local
Harbor Freight "Chinese Tool Store" is giving away 9 LED flashlights
with spun aluminum housings (3 AAA batteries included), so these
bargain things can't come to much on the wholesale market.
We get those in some of the 'pound shops' over here. A good source of
white LEDs :-)
-tony
4:52 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
I think a more instructive demonstration might be
"I have two
ordinary incandescent light bulbs (line/mains operation rated). One
is labeled as 40W; the other as 100W. I hook them in series and
connect the resulting circuit to mains/line current. Which one glows
brighter?"
Since they are in series, they are both passing the same current.
Therefore the power disipated is porportional to the resistance. A 40W
bulb will have a higher resistance than a 100W bulb, so, making
reasonable assumptions about the bulbs, the 40W one will be brighter.
-tony
6:15 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 21:52, Tony Duell wrote:
Since they are in series, they are both passing the
same current.
Therefore the power disipated is porportional to the resistance. A 40W
bulb will have a higher resistance than a 100W bulb, so, making
reasonable assumptions about the bulbs, the 40W one will be brighter.
Yes, I was sort of hinting at a possible solution to the original
problem--in fact, the resistance difference becomes much larger as
the 40W lamp begins to glow. If you put the series-connected lamps
on a variac and slowly inch the voltage up, it's surprising how the
positive temperature coefficient of resistance starts kicking in.
But most people will, without thinking, say "Oh, a 100W bulb is
brighter than a 40W, so the answer is obvious." And wrong.
But then we learn more when something doesn't work the way it's
"supposed to", than when it does, don't we? That's one issue I have
with a lot of secondary-school laboratory courses. You do the
experiment, can pretty much guess from the course material what's
going to happen and it does. Time for lunch.
Back when I was taking a course in numerical methods, I had a teacher
who'd assign seemingly easy programs. You had a week to code it up;
just about any text would have the method documented. He'd post the
data set the day before the assignment was due.
Of course, after about the first two assignments, you learned that
his data were going to be pathological and destined to break any "out
of the book" method. In a previous life, he'd worked for NASA and I
suspect, learned things the hard way.
That I can remember the course (mumble) years later, is a testament
to its effectiveness.
--Chuck
12 May
12 May
1:59 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On 11 May 2010 at 21:52, Tony Duell wrote:
Sure. i never actually saw the original post... It would be interesting
to measure the votlages across the various bulbs in the OP's circuit.
Since they are in series, they are both passing
the same current.
Therefore the power disipated is porportional to the resistance. A 40W
bulb will have a higher resistance than a 100W bulb, so, making
reasonable assumptions about the bulbs, the 40W one will be brighter.
Yes, I was sort of hinting at a possible solution to the original problem--in fact, the resistance difference becomes
much larger as
the 40W lamp begins to glow. If you put the series-connected lamps
on a variac and slowly inch the voltage up, it's surprising how the
positive temperature coefficient of resistance starts kicking in.
That is something I am going to have to try (having never done it).
But most people will, without thinking, say "Oh, a 100W bulb is
brighter than a 40W, so the answer is obvious." And wrong.
These are the same people that think you _have_ to draw 13A from a 13A
mains socket, i guess ;-)
[A buyl disipating 100W is likely to be righter than one disipating 40W.
But in this circuit, the buls are not disipating their rated powers]
But then we learn more when something doesn't work
the way it's
"supposed to", than when it does, don't we? That's one issue I have
Of course. I can't rememebr who said it, but there's a quote something
like "The words that come before the greatest progresses in science are
not "Eureka" but "Hey, that's curious"'
with a lot of secondary-school laboratory courses.
You do the
experiment, can pretty much guess from the course material what's
going to happen and it does. Time for lunch.
One thing that I learnt very early on (from my parents, not at school, I
hasten to add) is that if something does not do wht you expect, you stop
and investigate. Most of the time it will be because you've done
something silly. Just occasionally it's because there's something
interesting going on.
Back when I was taking a course in numerical methods, I had a teacher
who'd assign seemingly easy programs. You had a week to code it up;
just about any text would have the method documented. He'd post the
data set the day before the assignment was due.
Of course, after about the first two assignments, you learned that
his data were going to be pathological and destined to break any "out
of the book" method. In a previous life, he'd worked for NASA and I
suspect, learned things the hard way.
That's the sort of teacher I would like...
-tony
13 May
13 May
4:29 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
Tony Duell wrote:
OK, you folks are going to just force me to go put some bulbs
in series
and play around with them. :-) Multiple stable states would indeed be
most interesting!
You also remind me that school can occur anywhere, any time, under any
circumstances. During college I worked part time repairing TV's etc.
Many TV's back then (early 1960's) had one or more "oil-filled" or
"oil-impregnated" (can't recall which) paper caps, often somewhere in
the horizontal oscillator circuitry or thereabouts IIRC. They would go
bad and have to be replaced, but what was really interesting were the
bad ones. Something had happened inside to turn them into what I
perceive to be a battery with a rather large series resistance. I think
I first discovered this when I discharged a bad one, then measured it
with my ohm meter and it proceeded to peg the meter. I shorted it out
again for a bit, then measured it with a voltmeter. Sure enough it was
still generating somewhere around 1 volt. I was determined, so I
shorted it out again and left it shorted all night. The next day after
removing the short the voltmeter said the battery was still alive and
well - perhaps a bit diminished (it's been 50 years after all). I kept
one of those shorted out on my workbench for months and measured it
periodically. It never did run down completely. I wish now I'd had the
presence of mind to measure the effective series resistance of the
"capattery", but I did not think of that at the time. I think I read an
explanation of the chemistry/process that causes this a few years ago,
but I've since forgotten the explanation. Though I did not understand
the phenomenon at the time (still don't) I think it was a very good
practical lesson in learning not to assume too much, as well as learning
to sometimes expect the unexpected.
Later,
Charlie C.
On 11 May 2010
at 21:52, Tony Duell wrote:
Sure. i never actually saw the original post... It would be interesting
to measure the votlages across the various bulbs in the OP's circuit.
Since they are in series, they are both passing
the same current.
Therefore the power disipated is porportional to the resistance. A 40W
bulb will have a higher resistance than a 100W bulb, so, making
reasonable assumptions about the bulbs, the 40W one will be brighter.
Yes, I was
sort of hinting at a possible solution to the original problem--in fact, the resistance difference
becomes much larger as
the 40W lamp begins to glow. If you put the series-connected lamps
on a variac and slowly inch the voltage up, it's surprising how the
positive temperature coefficient of resistance starts kicking in.
That is something I am going to have to try (having never done it).
But most people will, without thinking, say
"Oh, a 100W bulb is
brighter than a 40W, so the answer is obvious." And wrong.
These are the same people that think you _have_ to draw 13A from a 13A
mains socket, i guess ;-)
[A buyl disipating 100W is likely to be righter than one disipating 40W.
But in this circuit, the buls are not disipating their rated powers]
But then we learn more when something doesn't
work the way it's
"supposed to", than when it does, don't we? That's one issue I have
Of course. I can't rememebr who said it, but there's a quote something
like "The words that come before the greatest progresses in science are
not "Eureka" but "Hey, that's curious"'
with a lot of secondary-school laboratory
courses. You do the
experiment, can pretty much guess from the course material what's
going to happen and it does. Time for lunch.
One thing that I learnt very early on (from my parents, not at school, I
hasten to add) is that if something does not do wht you expect, you stop
and investigate. Most of the time it will be because you've done
something silly. Just occasionally it's because there's something
interesting going on. Back when I was taking a course in numerical
methods, I had a teacher
who'd assign seemingly easy programs. You had a week to code it up;
just about any text would have the method documented. He'd post the
data set the day before the assignment was due.
Of course, after about the first two assignments, you learned that
his data were going to be pathological and destined to break any "out
of the book" method. In a previous life, he'd worked for NASA and I
suspect, learned things the hard way.
That's the sort of teacher I would like...
-tony
10 May
10 May
3:28 p.m.
New subject: School (Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
As I have said
many times before, I leant nothing useful at school. The
fact that I didn;t have one clueful mathementics of physics teacher may
have something to do with that. That $deity I had access to interesting
books...
You don't want to get me started on what they are trying to do to the
library. ""Kernighan & Ritchie" and "Knuth" are more than
five years old, they should be replaced with something more
current!" I used to use
Oh, I love it when they do that _provided I get to go to the library
sale. I've got so interesting books that way for peanuts...
astronomy as a counter argument, but now they think
that ALL of those must
be replaced to reflect Pluto's "demotion".
Argh! FWIW, I still routinely use books on electronics written 70 or more
years ago. And I wouldn't want to be without K&R.
I am not an astronomer, but can you please explain to me how what you
call a particular object (wheter Pluto is a planet or not) has any effect
on things like planetary motion? Last time I looked Newton's laws didn't
depend on the name you gave to the object ...
[Oh, I learnt plenty of things while I was at
school. Like how to pick a
lock, how to make a master key, how to design state machines, and the
like. But that was not what I was supposed to be learning).
"supposed to be"??
A good teacher doesn't REALLY mind deviating a little from the lesson
plan. Too much
emphassis is placed on paper qualifications these days... It's a
problem for me, since I don't have any particularly relevant ones. Lack
of these bits of paper does not mean you can't do the job, conversely
having them doesn't mean you can... Oh well...
College administrators who know that they will be laid off someday assign
THEMSELVES credentials! Then they can be re-assigned to teach when nobody
above them has the guts to fire them! REALLY! I agree with the statemetn that 'every child
should learn to program. Not
because they will become programmer,s but becuase programming teaches you
to think logically about solving problems and to break up problems into
simple steps'/ Or something like that anyway...
I also see way too many students who were never handed a bulb, a battery,
a nail, and some pieces of wire, . . .
2:53 p.m.
New subject: Education in Latin^Wprogramming [was RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN]
From: Tony Duell
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 9:57 AM
I agree with the statemetn that 'every child
should learn to program.
Not because they will become programmer,s but becuase programming
teaches you to think logically about solving problems and to break up
problems into simple steps'/ Or something like that anyway...
Hmm. Much the same thing used to be said of the teaching of Latin to
grammar school students.
There's always *something* that we ought to be teaching children, in
order to let/make them "think logically about solving problems". There
is no such magic formula. Humans are not logical, no matter what they
may think of themselves, and there is nothing to be done about that.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
4:07 p.m.
New subject: Education in Latin^Wprogramming [was RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN]
From: Tony Duell
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 9:57 AM
FWIW I spent several years learning Latin, and while I can't rememebr
much of it, I'm darn glad I did.
I agree with the statemetn that 'every child
should learn to program.
Not because they will become programmer,s but becuase programming
teaches you to think logically about solving problems and to break up
problems into simple steps'/ Or something like that anyway...
Hmm. Much the same thing used to be said of the teaching of Latin to
grammar school students. There's always *something* that we ought to be
teaching children, in
order to let/make them "think logically about solving problems". There
is no such magic formula. Humans are not logical, no matter what they
may think of themselves, and there is nothing to be done about that.
I stil lbeleive that most people can think logicially, and should be
taught to do so. I wonder how else you can solve complex problems.
I also wonder just hwat the point of a 'school' is, other than to
discourage people from thinking...
-tony
4:17 p.m.
New subject: Education in Latin^Wprogramming [was RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN]
On 5/10/10 4:07 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
Well here's where I've got to disagree. I took three years of Latin,
and I found it to be a complete waste of time. "Latin is a dead
language, it's plain enough to see. It's killed a hundred thousand men
and now it's killing me!" ;)
From: Tony Duell
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 9:57 AM
FWIW I spent several years learning Latin, and while I can't rememebr
much of it, I'm darn glad I did. I agree with the statemetn that 'every child
should learn to program.
Not because they will become programmer,s but becuase programming
teaches you to think logically about solving problems and to break up
problems into simple steps'/ Or something like that anyway...
Hmm. Much the same thing used to be said of the teaching of Latin to
grammar school students. I stil lbeleive that most people can think logicially,
and should be
taught to do so. I wonder how else you can solve complex problems.
In my country, we don't solve complex problems. We go to the store
and buy things that we can't afford, and we sit on the couch and watch
other people play games.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
7:03 p.m.
New subject: Education in Latin^Wprogramming [was RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN]
On 10 May 2010 21:17, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
In my country, we don't solve complex problems.
We go to the store and
buy things that we can't afford, and we sit on the couch and watch other
people play games.
... a predominant human behaviour (well at least in bit where I live) of the
21st century summed up in 31 words. Nicely done.
I was going to say I never got any benefit from learning some latin (which
has now all completely atrophied), but I am very fond of pizza.
There's not much hope for children learning to solve complex problems when
it's completely beyond their teachers :(
I despair when I see 'ICT' in the school curriculum reduced to bloody pie
charts created with you-know-what.
--
Pete Edwards
"It looks just like a Telefunken U-47" - Frank Zappa
4:42 p.m.
New subject: Education in Latin^Wprogramming [was RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN]
Tony Duell wrote:
I stil lbeleive that most people can think logicially,
and should be
taught to do so. I wonder how else you can solve complex problems.
The Monte Carlo method - although one can argue there is a logicality to it too.
6 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Series 37 Front Panel Key
I posted a note on the MPE Newsgroup, but its pretty dead these days. Anyone here have an
idea where I might a) find a front panel key for an HP3000 Series 37 or b) what key I
could ask a locksmith for? TIA!
Lee Courtney
11 May
11 May
12:21 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Series 37 Front Panel Key
Lee,
I've got a micro 37 and the key is like nothing I've ever seen before. It's
a flat bar about 3/16" of an inch wide and 7/16" long. There are a series of
holes drilled in the sides of the key of varying depth. If that's the same
one you computer needs, I've got no idea where you'de find one :-(
If however, anyone wants to make an offer on a complete working 3000 micro
37, let me know. It'll probably go on ebay in the next few weeks.
See yas,
SteveRob
steerex[at]ccvn[dot]com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Courtney (ACM)" <lee_courtney at acm.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 6:00 PM
Subject: HP3000 Series 37 Front Panel Key
I posted a note on the MPE Newsgroup, but its pretty
dead these days.
Anyone here have an idea where I might a) find a front panel key
for an
HP3000 Series 37 or b) what key I could ask a locksmith for? TIA!
Lee Courtney
12 May
12 May
1:43 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Series 37 Front Panel Key
Lee,
I've got a micro 37 and the key is like nothing I've ever seen before. It's
a flat bar about 3/16" of an inch wide and 7/16" long. There are a series of
holes drilled in the sides of the key of varying depth. If that's the same
one you computer needs, I've got no idea where you'de find one :-(
If I am understanding the description correctly, this sounds like a
smaller version of the keys used on some VAG (Volkswagen, etc) cars. As
you imply, it's the hole depth that varies from key to key.
If you van get the lock off the machine, it's often possible to carefully
dismanrle it and make measurements so as to be able to make a key
Unfortunately, locksmiths tend to be a secretive bunch (they claim it's
for 'security', but I suspect the number of crimes committed by
dismantling a lock and uynderstanding how it works is vanishingly small)
so you probably won't get much help from talking to one.
If however, anyone wants to make an offer on a complete working 3000 micro
37, let me know. It'll probably go on ebay in the next few weeks.
No, I am not interested, but I have to ask the obviosu question : Where
is it?
-tony
3:25 p.m.
New subject: HP3000 Series 37 Front Panel Key
> If however, anyone wants to make an offer on a
complete working 3000
micro
37, let me
know. It'll probably go on ebay in the next few weeks.
No, I am not interested, but I have to ask the obviosu question : Where
is it?
-tony 
10 May
10 May
9:06 a.m.
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
How can BASIC not be taught? Every computer has it's own version of BASIC,
whereas (as I understand it) Visual Basic is only available for modern
computers.
Visual Basic 1.0 is for DOS and Microsoft PDS 7.1 and QuickBASIC 4.5 can
be found on various abandonware sites. Interesting note - QB45 is
available via the MSDN, but PDS71 isn't.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
3:12 p.m.
New subject: Teaching(Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
> How can BASIC not be taught? Every computer has
it's own version of BASIC,
> whereas (as I understand it) Visual Basic is only available for modern
> computers.
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Gene Buckle wrote:
Visual Basic 1.0 is for DOS and Microsoft PDS 7.1 and
QuickBASIC 4.5 can
be found on various abandonware sites. Interesting note - QB45 is
available via the MSDN, but PDS71 isn't.
The curriculum committee is rather hostile to the idea of teaching stuff
"found on various abandonware sites". Besides, what's wrong with GWBASIC?
I used to be able to get K&R past them by calling it "a classic work", and
by declaring it to be one of two texts for the class (the other being some
modern POS that we never bothered to open)
For a FIRST class in C, the commonly used textbooks are Deitel (600p, of
which 300 are about C, plus discussion of C++, Java, etc.), and "C Primer
Plus". Both are pretty good for beginners, but neither prepares the
student for what will happen when scanf is fed unformatted/sloppy data.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
4:09 p.m.
New subject: Teaching(Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Fred Cisin wrote:
I was addressing his comment that VB was only available on "modern"
machines. AFAIK, VB1 will work even with an XT. GWBASIC is also one of
those things found on abandonware sites. :)
> How can
BASIC not be taught? Every computer has it's own version of BASIC,
> whereas (as I understand it) Visual Basic is only available for modern
> computers.
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Gene Buckle wrote:
Visual Basic 1.0 is for DOS and Microsoft PDS 7.1
and QuickBASIC 4.5 can
be found on various abandonware sites. Interesting note - QB45 is
available via the MSDN, but PDS71 isn't.
The curriculum committee is rather hostile to the idea of teaching stuff
"found on various abandonware sites". Besides, what's wrong with GWBASIC?
I used to be able to get K&R past them by calling
it "a classic work", and
by declaring it to be one of two texts for the class (the other being some
modern POS that we never bothered to open)
Turbo C is a good choice for students, but won't teach much about the tool
chain. (make, link, lib, etc)
Plus". Both are pretty good for beginners, but
neither prepares the
student for what will happen when scanf is fed unformatted/sloppy data.
Well for that, you need _users_. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
8:17 p.m.
New subject: Teaching(Was: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Gene Buckle wrote:
a few simple demonstrations, and then using gets() and writing their own
atoi(), etc.
Turbo C is a good choice for students, but won't
teach much about the tool
chain. (make, link, lib, etc)
Yes
I required MY students to write some programs using any command-line
compiler, and some with any IDE.
I provided "Personal-C" (downloadable version of DeSmet) and Turbo-C (was
downloadable from Borland!) for those who didn't have any compilers
(such as GCC or Microsoft Max-Bloat C/C++) already.
Some students stuck with GCC, most stuck with Turbo-C.
Plus".
Both are pretty good for beginners, but neither prepares the
student for what will happen when scanf is fed unformatted/sloppy data.
Well for
that, you need _users_. :)
3:36 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Buckle" <geneb at deltasoft.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
If it was originally for DOS, why is it called Visual BASIC? Every BASIC
form (I know of) has visual elements to it (e.g. PRINT, PLOT, CIRCLE, FILL
etc.)
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
>
> How can BASIC not be taught? Every computer has it's own version of
BASIC,
whereas (as I
understand it) Visual Basic is only available for modern
computers.
Visual Basic 1.0 is for DOS and Microsoft PDS 7.1 and QuickBASIC 4.5 can
be found on various abandonware sites. Interesting note - QB45 is
available via the MSDN, but PDS71 isn't.
g.
4:49 p.m.
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
If it was originally for DOS, why is it called Visual BASIC? Every BASIC
form (I know of) has visual elements to it (e.g. PRINT, PLOT, CIRCLE, FILL
etc.)
It actually has a text windowing library. It's pretty neat for what it
is.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
> How can
BASIC not be taught? Every computer has it's own version of
BASIC,
whereas
(as I understand it) Visual Basic is only available for modern
computers.
Visual Basic 1.0 is for DOS and Microsoft PDS 7.1 and QuickBASIC 4.5 can
be found on various abandonware sites. Interesting note - QB45 is
available via the MSDN, but PDS71 isn't.
g.
7 May
7 May
4:52 p.m.
If you actually READ the email instead of making immature remarks, maybe you'd learn
something.
I didn't say apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN or even implied
anything like that. (that would be quite impossible). Don't make stupid comments
especially if you don't read the mssage.
You say my 1980s experiences with Valtrep were long after Fortran was well established and
into the decline?
Say it isn't so batman! what is this alternate universe we live in!?
oh, and your comment that Valtrep had some nice improvements on the original creation of
Fortran is just plain stupid.
Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran, or didn't you read my message so you could
understand that. Guess not.
Fortran may have been in heavy use since the 1960s (actually it's probably more like
the mid to late 70s, but whatever),
but Valtrep was actually developed and used long before that.
Just because some company was still using Valtrep in the 1980s doesn't make it newer
you know.
Many companies use products and technologies that haven't been developed or wide use
in decades...
I have no idea who this "transnet" guy is, maybe you can ask him, maybe
he'll be nicer than I am.
In any case, the predecessor to Fortran was Valtrep. Not all such technology has
survived.
Someone months ago on this list talked about reviving a Cyber/Prime, but we never did hear
about the result if it ever got finished...
Dan.
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:10:00 -0700
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Dating: Find someone special. Start now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729707
Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
WOW!
Are you saying that Apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN?
Or are you saying that the earliest versions of FORTRAN were based on
Valtrep? If so, you should be aware that FORTRAN was in heavy active use
in the 1960s, rather long before your 1980s experiences with Valtrep.
NO. Valtrep may have made some nice improvements, but they were never
part of the original creation of FORTRAN.
I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in
Valtrep back in the 80s
yes, this was after fortran was already quite established.
Yes, RATHER.
FORTRAN was well on to its DECLINE in usage by then.
it's very like fortran - if you can write
fortran, you can do valtrep.
Interestingly perhaps, googling for valtrep is quite useless it seems...
Oh, I don't know, that guy "transnet" has some interesting ideas :-)
5:21 p.m.
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
If you actually READ the email instead of making
immature remarks, maybe
you'd learn something.
I was far from the only one to notice multiple possible interpretations of
the meaning of your statement. See Rich Alderson's post, where he
advances points disputing both your and my posts.
I asked for a clarification; is that immature in your judgement?
What is the cause of your ad-hominem attacks? Are you insecure about
requests for clarification?
Or are you still mad about some people saying that email was NOT invented
in the 1980s?
I didn't say apple contracted with Valtrep for
their Lisa FORTRAN or
even implied anything like that. (that would be quite impossible). Don't
make stupid comments especially if you don't read the mssage.
Again, I was not the only one to notice that possible interpretation of
your remarks.
You say my 1980s experiences with Valtrep were long
after Fortran was
well established and into the decline?
Say it isn't so batman! what is this alternate universe we live in!?
The PEAK usage of FORTRAN was in the mid to late 1970s.
By the mid 1980s, FORTRAN was arguably in a decline of USAGE (I certainly
did NOT say that there was any decline in usability!), having
passed its peak usage, but was certainly the system of choice for many
important works. It was, however, by that time, being used less for
things for which it was not the most appropriate, since there were more
choices available, and many who had used FORTRAN when it was not the best
for the task had switched to APL, BASIC, C, Pascal, etc. as being more
specific for their paerticular needs. FORTRAN remained the tool of choice
for scientific programming, and its total USAGE had declined as business,
calculator, interactive, and systems programming added other tools.
oh, and your comment that Valtrep had some nice
improvements on the
original creation of Fortran is just plain stupid.
Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran, or didn't you read my message so
you could understand that. Guess not.
Are you equally upset with EVERYBODY who mininterpreted your ambiguous
message? Such as Rich Alderson.
Fortran may have been in heavy use since the 1960s
(actually it's
probably more like the mid to late 70s, but whatever),
FORTRAN was in heavy usage in the late 1960s, even if you weren't involved
at that point. That was before it started having significant
amounts of competition from APL, BASIC, etc.
I didn't get involved with FORTRAN until 1965, so I missed the early days.
but Valtrep was actually developed and used long
before that.
Just because some company was still using Valtrep in the 1980s doesn't make it newer
you know.
Many companies use products and technologies that haven't been developed or wide use
in decades...
I have no idea who this "transnet" guy is, maybe you can ask him, maybe
he'll be nicer than I am.
http://www.keyongtech.com/4601529-anyone-for-help-with-dec/2
"I was using Valtrep in 1986 on a Sentry-70. Valtrep has been called the
predecessor to Fortran."
Strange. A fellow with the same first name as yours working at some of
the sme places, doing the same things, and you never met him?
Which one of you wrote "Castle"?
In any case, the predecessor to Fortran was Valtrep.
Not all such
technology has survived.
Why are so few people aware of Valtrep's role as
"the predecessor to
FORTRAN"
Someone months ago on this list talked about reviving
a Cyber/Prime, but
we never did hear about the result if it ever got finished...
Dan.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
[The following is left untrimmed, due to accusation of misquoting]
Date: Fri, 7
May 2010 13:10:00 -0700
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Dating: Find someone special. Start now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729707 Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
WOW!
Are you saying that Apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN?
Or are you saying that the earliest versions of FORTRAN were based on
Valtrep? If so, you should be aware that FORTRAN was in heavy active use
in the 1960s, rather long before your 1980s experiences with Valtrep.
NO. Valtrep may have made some nice improvements, but they were never
part of the original creation of FORTRAN.
I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in
Valtrep back in the 80s
yes, this was after fortran was already quite established.
Yes, RATHER.
FORTRAN was well on to its DECLINE in usage by then.
it's very like fortran - if you can write
fortran, you can do valtrep.
Interestingly perhaps, googling for valtrep is quite useless it seems...
Oh, I don't know, that guy "transnet" has some interesting ideas :-)
5:57 p.m.
I can't say I have ever heard of Valtrep before and my attempts at searching
the web do not reveal any definitive information. What definitive
information do you have on Valtrep to say that it predates FORTRAN? FORTRAN
dates back to the 1950s.
Regards
Rob
PS I think personal attacks have no place on this list. If someone has
misinterpreted what you say, then explain what you meant, because it is
always possible that you might not have been clear the first time.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Dan Gahlinger
Sent: 07 May 2010 21:53
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
If you actually READ the email instead of making immature remarks,
maybe you'd learn something.
I didn't say apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN or
even implied anything like that. (that would be quite impossible).
Don't make stupid comments especially if you don't read the mssage.
You say my 1980s experiences with Valtrep were long after Fortran was
well established and into the decline?
Say it isn't so batman! what is this alternate universe we live in!?
oh, and your comment that Valtrep had some nice improvements on the
original creation of Fortran is just plain stupid.
Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran, or didn't you read my message so
you could understand that. Guess not.
Fortran may have been in heavy use since the 1960s (actually it's
probably more like the mid to late 70s, but whatever),
but Valtrep was actually developed and used long before that.
Just because some company was still using Valtrep in the 1980s doesn't
make it newer you know.
Many companies use products and technologies that haven't been
developed or wide use in decades...
I have no idea who this "transnet" guy is, maybe you can ask him, maybe
he'll be nicer than I am.
In any case, the predecessor to Fortran was Valtrep. Not all such
technology has survived.
Someone months ago on this list talked about reviving a Cyber/Prime,
but we never did hear about the result if it ever got finished...
Dan.
valtrep.
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:10:00 -0700
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
FORTRAN?
Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
WOW!
Are you saying that Apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa
Or are you saying that the earliest versions of FORTRAN were based on
Valtrep? If so, you should be aware that FORTRAN was in heavy active
use
in the 1960s, rather long before your 1980s
experiences with Valtrep.
NO. Valtrep may have made some nice improvements, but they were
never
part of the original creation of FORTRAN.
> I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in Valtrep back in the
80s
yes, this
was after fortran was already quite established.
Yes, RATHER.
FORTRAN was well on to its DECLINE in usage by then.
> it's very like fortran - if you can write fortran, you can do > Interestingly perhaps, googling for valtrep
is quite useless it
seems...
Oh, I don't know, that guy "transnet" has some interesting ideas :-)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Dating: Find someone special. Start now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729707= 
6:08 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On 5/7/10 1:52 PM, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran
Would you please point me to documentation for this language prior to the
Fortran document of November, 1954
http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/
10:48 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
I would if I could. I can find NO trace of it anywhere online.
I can't even find the COMPUTER system it ran on- not a trace of it!
the computer was a "Sentry-70", and no, it's not the earliest system that
ran Valtrep,
just the only one I ever worked with.
Again, I'm willing to cede the point if provided evidence to the contrary,
this is certainly strong, but not binding.
If we could even find a hint about the computer itself, it might lead to information about
Valtrep.
Dan.
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 15:08:02 -0700
From: aek at bitsavers.org
To:
Subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On 5/7/10 1:52 PM, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes to be won with Hotmail. Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729709
Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran
Would you please point me to documentation for this language prior to the
Fortran document of November, 1954
http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/
8 May
8 May
12:14 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
put valtrep in quotes on your google search. This cuts back on the offending valtrex
hits.
Its there, but in recent history, nowhere near the genesis of FORTRAN.
Randy
From: dgahling at hotmail.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 22:48:07 -0400
I would if I could. I can find NO trace of it anywhere online.
I can't even find the COMPUTER system it ran on- not a trace of it!
the computer was a "Sentry-70", and no, it's not the earliest system that
ran Valtrep,
just the only one I ever worked with.
Again, I'm willing to cede the point if provided evidence to the contrary,
this is certainly strong, but not binding.
If we could even find a hint about the computer itself, it might lead to information
about Valtrep.
Dan.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 15:08:02 -0700
From: aek at bitsavers.org
To:
Subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On 5/7/10 1:52 PM, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes to be won with Hotmail. Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729709 Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran
Would you please point me to documentation for this language prior to the
Fortran document of November, 1954
http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/FORTRAN/
12:38 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Randy Dawson wrote:
put valtrep in quotes on your google search. This
cuts back on the
offending valtrex hits.
Its there, but in recent history, nowhere near the genesis of FORTRAN.
When I did, I got 28 hits. Other than "Valtrep Optical Scanning
Software", the only computer related ones were message posts by somebody
with a username of "transnet", who "used a Sentry-70 with Valtrep in
1986", and signed some of his posts with "Dan."
(complete with the period, similar to our "Dan.")
Did you get some hits that I didn't?
10 May
10 May
5:16 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Randy Dawson wrote:
I wonder why nobody has offered a suggestion for the name yet?
Anyway, here is mine (based purely on speculation, no facts involved):
VALTREP - "validation of test reports", or perhaps "values from test
reports"
:-)
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
put valtrep in quotes on your google search.
This cuts back on the
offending valtrex hits.
Its there, but in recent history, nowhere near the genesis of FORTRAN.
When I did, I got 28 hits. Other than "Valtrep Optical Scanning
Software", the only computer related ones were message posts by somebody
with a username of "transnet", who "used a Sentry-70 with Valtrep in
1986", and signed some of his posts with "Dan."
(complete with the period, similar to our "Dan.")
Did you get some hits that I didn't?
11 May
11 May
9:38 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
oooh, that's not bad.
but it still doesnt explain it as a programming language or how it's related to
fortran.
someone else also mentioned "value translation with extra precision" but I
thought that was a bit of a stretch.
Dan.
I wonder why nobody has offered a suggestion for the
name yet?
Anyway, here is mine (based purely on speculation, no facts involved):
VALTREP - "validation of test reports", or perhaps "values from test
reports"
:-)
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
_________________________________________________________________
Win a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729711
9:42 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 09:38 -0400, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
oooh, that's not bad.
but it still doesnt explain it as a programming language or how it's related to
fortran.
They both have 7 letters in their name. Other than that, I suspect
there's no relationship at all.
someone else also mentioned "value translation
with extra precision" but I thought that was a bit of a stretch.
Dan.
I wonder why nobody has offered a suggestion for
the name yet?
Anyway, here is mine (based purely on speculation, no facts involved):
VALTREP - "validation of test reports", or perhaps "values from test
reports"
:-)
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
_________________________________________________________________
Win a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729711
10:06 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
well that's definitely not true.
the structure, functions, reserved words, etc are all almost identical.
That's why i'm looking for a sample of some code.
a few (dozen) replies back someone supplied a link to some message threads that contained
some limited code samples.
but there wasn't enough there to really say anything except it was very fortran-like
Subject: RE: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran
(was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
From: bdwheele at indiana.edu
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:42:06 -0400
CC: cctech at classiccmp.org
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 09:38 -0400, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes: Hotmail makes your day easier! Enter Now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729710
oooh, that's not bad.
but it still doesnt explain it as a programming language or how it's related to
fortran.
They both have 7 letters in their name. Other than that, I suspect
there's no relationship at all.
someone else also mentioned "value
translation with extra precision" but I thought that was a bit of a stretch.
Dan.
I wonder why nobody has offered a suggestion for
the name yet?
Anyway, here is mine (based purely on speculation, no facts involved):
VALTREP - "validation of test reports", or perhaps "values from test
reports"
:-)
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
_________________________________________________________________
Win a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729711
10:39 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On 11 May 2010 15:06, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
well that's definitely not true.
the structure, functions, reserved words, etc are all almost identical.
That's why i'm looking for a sample of some code.
a few (dozen) replies back someone supplied a link to some message threads
that contained some limited code samples.
but there wasn't enough there to really say anything except it was very
fortran-like
Has it not yet occurred to you that this language/tool/product may have been
based on Fortran, rather than the other way round?
--
Pete Edwards
"It looks just like a Telefunken U-47" - Frank Zappa
10:50 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
yes it has actually, since some of those pages came to light.
it's entirely possible that valtrep was "purpose-built" for the systems it
ran on.
even the dates I can find of 1970 still push it back newer than fortran from the 50s
havent seen direct links from ieee etc on any excess verbage.
there's almost no historical information on it at all, or on the computers it ran it
(at least not much).
the world may never know, I'm ok with that, but Fred will probably raise a fuss...
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes to be won with Hotmail. Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729709
a few (dozen)
replies back someone supplied a link to some message threads
that contained some limited code samples.
but there wasn't enough there to really say anything except it was very
fortran-like
Has it not yet occurred to you that this language/tool/product may have been
based on Fortran, rather than the other way round? 
11:02 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
yes it has actually, since some of those pages came to light.
it's entirely possible that valtrep was "purpose-built" for the systems it
ran on.
even the dates I can find of 1970 still push it back newer than fortran from the 50s
havent seen direct links from ieee etc on any excess verbage.
there's almost no historical information on it at all, or on the computers it ran it
(at least not much).
the world may never know, I'm ok with that, but Fred will probably raise a fuss...
What I'm not getting is how or why you feel that something that you
dimly remember from the 1970s is in any way an ancestor to something
that was in wide use some twenty years earlier. I don't follow your
reasoning here.
What it sounds like to me is that you saw some kind of programmable
marking software, not a true programming language, on an electronic
optical mark reading system, not an actual computer /per se/, and you
have parlayed this into being the first high-level programming
language. Yes, it's entirely possible it was based on Fortran, but
lots of things were based on Fortran, including BASIC.
And that you stick to this even when lots of people who know a great
deal more about the subject than you tell you that you are incorrect.
I find that very odd and irrational behaviour.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
7:53 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
Hi
Maybe someone told him it was a preprocessor to
FORTAN and he misunderstood it. It could even
have been the person he heard it from that misunderstood
it.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
9:31 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
At 06:53 PM 5/11/2010, dwight elvey wrote:
Maybe someone told him it was a preprocessor to
FORTRAN and he misunderstood it. It could even
have been the person he heard it from that misunderstood it.
A most excellent possibility.
- John
11:13 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
it is possible that someone at the university was wrong about that
and communicated that incorrect information to me. I'm big enough to admit that.
the other theory fits with this as well...
that someone purpose-built valtrep based on fortran for these specific machines.
that's the trouble with language etymology sometimes,
is the language (natural or otherwise) the predecessor (mother/root language) or is it
a more modern [sic] purpose-built or customized to a specific region or culture...
linguists have trouble with this sort of thing on a daily basis,
and yet a percentage of people on the list expect me to get it right the first time, right
out of the gate.
and they don't do it in a very nice way
the difference is, I'm not pretending to be smarter than everyone else, or know more
than everyone else,
or shove my knowledge in peoples faces. and I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, and
move on.
you learn more from your mistakes than your successes.
ps: I mistakenly used the word "epidemiology" in my previous message instead of
"etymology", my bad.
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:31:48 -0500
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
From: jfoust at threedee.com
Subject: RE: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
At 06:53 PM 5/11/2010, dwight elvey wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes to be won with Hotmail. Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729709
Maybe someone told him it was a preprocessor to
FORTRAN and he misunderstood it. It could even
have been the person he heard it from that misunderstood it.
A most excellent possibility.
- John
12 May
12 May
2:20 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
From: Dan Gahlinger
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:13 PM
Oh, I just know I'm going to regret this.
that's the trouble with language etymology
sometimes,
is the language (natural or otherwise) the predecessor (mother/root
language) or is it a more modern [sic] purpose-built or customized to
a specific region or culture...
linguists have trouble with this sort of thing on a
daily basis,
[snip]
No. We don't.
I'm saying this as someone with degrees in historical linguistics, more
particularly specializing in the Indo-European family of languages but
with work in Kartvelian, Algonquian, Siouan, Finno-Ugric and Semitic as
well.
Rich
11 May
11 May
9:32 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:53 AM, dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi
?Maybe someone told him it was a preprocessor to
FORTAN and he misunderstood it. It could even
have been the person he heard it from that misunderstood
it.
Dwight
That sounds highly plausible, actually. Well spotted.
Between the completely-forgotten-and-unrecorded forerunner of FORTRAN
that fell through a timewarp and appeared 2 decades later, the
legendary Sun workstation that sent the first ever email a decade or
so after email was invented, and the stealth port of OS/2 from Intel's
1985 80286 chip to DEC's 1970 PDP-11 minicomputer, forgive me if I am
now just a tad skeptical. :?D
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
11:02 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
you know, you trolls have to find better ways to take things out of context, this is
pretty lame.
I never said it was an os/2 port. All I said was:
"Hey, i've got a TK50 in a PDP11 that happens to have OS/2 on it, this is very
strange... I wonder what this is?"
and about the sun workstation, the guy that wrote the first email protocol did it on that
station,
or at least finished it there. You can ask him yourself, but he doesn't respond to
twits.
and i have said since the beginning i was willing to be proven wrong.
but instead of constructive criticism or converse, or even any proof at all to speak of,
what do we have, mindless personal attacks, insults and non-constructive comments.
I like the other explanation of valtrep better, it fits better.
that was that it was fortran specially repurposed for the system it was on.
but, that's barring any real hard evidence either way which no one has yet produced.
yes, excerpts from ieee journal or whatever, no company history,
no language epidemiology.
no, just more internet trolls. Somehow I thought this list was better than that, oops,
wrong again...
Dan.
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 02:32:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
From: lproven at gmail.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:53 AM, dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Win a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729711
Hi
Maybe someone told him it was a preprocessor to
FORTAN and he misunderstood it. It could even
have been the person he heard it from that misunderstood
it.
Dwight
That sounds highly plausible, actually. Well spotted.
Between the completely-forgotten-and-unrecorded forerunner of FORTRAN
that fell through a timewarp and appeared 2 decades later, the
legendary Sun workstation that sent the first ever email a decade or
so after email was invented, and the stealth port of OS/2 from Intel's
1985 80286 chip to DEC's 1970 PDP-11 minicomputer, forgive me if I am
now just a tad skeptical. :?D
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
12 May
12 May
8:43 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
you know, you trolls have to find better ways to take things out of context, this is
pretty lame.
I never said it was an os/2 port. All I said was:
?"Hey, i've got a TK50 in a PDP11 that happens to have OS/2 on it, this is very
strange... I wonder what this is?"
and about the sun workstation, the guy that wrote the first email protocol did it on that
station,
or at least finished it there. You can ask him yourself, but he doesn't respond to
twits.
and i have said since the beginning i was willing to be proven wrong.
but instead of constructive criticism or converse, or even any proof at all to speak of,
what do we have, mindless personal attacks, insults and non-constructive comments.
I like the other explanation of valtrep better, it fits better.
that was that it was fortran specially repurposed for the system it was on.
but, that's barring any real hard evidence either way which no one has yet produced.
yes, excerpts from ieee journal or whatever, no company history,
no language epidemiology.
no, just more internet trolls. Somehow I thought this list was better than that, oops,
wrong again...
No, Dan, we're not trolls and we're not trolling. That's not what the
word means in this context. A troll is someone who pops up in a public
forum and says provocative things, such as claims that are outrageous,
offensive or blatantly false, in the hope of provoking people into
intemperate reactions - such as swearing, foul language, or long
pointless threads trying to explain why something is wrong.
If someone disagrees with you, that does not make them a troll. But if
you pop up and claim things that are fairly manifestly not true, then
that may well make *you* a troll.
When you're discussing things with a group of experts, and they all
say you're wrong, the reasonable response is not to get agitated and
start being insistent or calling them names, it is to consider that
perhaps *you* are wrong. Perhaps someone in good faith told you
something wrong, or perhaps you misunderstood a word - say
"preprocessor" for "predecessor", or "etymology" for
"epidemiology" to
use your own example.
For instance, your "first machine on the internet" and "machine email
was created on".
Email was a feature of some of the fairly early multi-user computer
systems of the beginning of the 1960s. It was widespread by the days
of minis such as the DEC VAX by the 1970s.
SUN (initialism for Stanford Universal Network) was founded in 1982
and its workstations became common in the early- to mid-1980s.
Therefore it is simply not possible that the first email, or email
client or email message or email protocol, was designed on a SUN
workstation, because email was around *twenty years* before SUN
workstations existed.
If someone personally told you this, either you did not understand or
he lied to you. What you are claiming is simply not possible.
You also claimed it was the first machine on the Internet, which dates
from the mid-1970s, again, nearly a decade before SUN
was founded. It
is just not possible. In fact SUN was set up to build
Internet-compatible Unix workstations, pretty much; SUN is a /result/
of the Internet, not the other way round.
Next, your forgotten "ancestor of Fortran" from the '70s.
FORTRAN dates from the early 1950s, so again, no 1970s language from
20Y later was any kind of ancestor of it.
If someone told you anything different, either they were wrong, they
were lying, you misunderstood or you remember what you were told
incorrectly.
Then there's your PDP-11 port of OS/2.
The PDP-11 was a 1970s computer. By the 1980s it was being replaced by
VAXen. OS/2 1.0 was released in 1987, long after the PDP-11's time;
OS/2 was designed in 1985 for Intel's 1982 80286 chip.
DEC's TK50 cartridges were an ancestor of what became the Digital
Linear Tape standard which is still around today. It is now used on
many PC-based servers and has been used on many non-PDP systems over
the years, including VAXes, which were sometimes used as fileservers
on PC networks using DEC's implementation of LAN Manager for VMS:
PathWorks. I administered such systems in the 1990s, and it was a
bloody awful dog-slow server, but the bundle of stuff with it was
useful and companies with a DEC VAX backbone and PC clients found it
useful.
However, in those days, DLT type drives were rarely found on PCs. This
really started in the mid to late 1990s when OS/2 was really a fading
memory.
It's possible that someone might have put OS/2 files on a Pathworks
server that got backed up onto DLT cartridges - but that would just be
a volume of a VAX backup set, and so unlikely to be labelled with the
specific contents.
The thing is, your claims are, to be charitable and polite, just ridiculous.
Sorry, dude, I'm not trying to be mean or nasty here, but the reason
that people are making fun of your claims is that they do not even
remotely stack up, and you're making them in a place which is
specifically filled with people with loads of specialist knowledge
about the subjects you're making claims about.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
11:13 a.m.
New subject: assorted historical claims / was Re: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran
Dan Gahlinger wrote:
you know, you trolls have to find better ways to take things out of context, this is
pretty lame.
I never said it was an os/2 port. All I said was:
"Hey, i've got a TK50 in a PDP11 that happens to have OS/2 on it, this is very
strange... I wonder what this is?"
Following is the original message.
Note especially "or just run it and have the most unique PDP on the planet".
=============
Subject: offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11
From: Dan Gahlinger dgahling at hotmail.com
Date: Tue Jan 1 03:02:54 CST 2008
Yes, you read that correctly.
I have in my possession a TK-50 tape for the PDP-11 system which contains none
other than
OS/2 operating system.
Many people have claimed this never existed. But I have the tape!
I had done a directory dump of it and can supply it.
One other person who's checked the directory listing has said it is authentic.
I'm not sure what to do with it, and I believe IBM made OS/2 open source, so
technically it should be "free"
of it's chains
maybe someone can turn it into something useful, or just run it and have the
most unique PDP on the planet, I don't know... whatever :)
anyhow, it's a really weird bit of computing history, and I'd hate for it to be
lost. it should be in a museum :)
Dan.
=============
and about the sun workstation, the guy that wrote the
first email protocol did it on that station,
or at least finished it there. You can ask him yourself, but he doesn't respond to
twits.
and i have said since the beginning i was willing to be proven wrong.
When you make a claim about some historical event, esp. a claim which counters
long-established historical accounts, it is not the obligation of the rest of
the world to prove you wrong, it is your obligation to support your claim with
something more than 'I say so'.
but instead of constructive criticism or converse, or
even any proof at all to speak of,
what do we have, mindless personal attacks, insults and non-constructive comments.
6:16 p.m.
New subject: assorted historical claims / was Re: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran
=============
Subject: offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11
From: Dan Gahlinger dgahling at hotmail.com
Date: Tue Jan 1 03:02:54 CST 2008
Yes, you read that correctly.
I have in my possession a TK-50 tape for the PDP-11 system which contains none
other than
OS/2 operating system.
Many people have claimed this never existed. But I have the tape!
I had done a directory dump of it and can supply it.
I, and many others on the list would still love to see the directory dump.
It would provide many necessary clues as to whether that tape is
1) a hitherto unknown (and denied by many involved and/or knowledgeable)
port of OS/2(written in VALTREP :-)
2) a backup being done on a PDP tape of PC operating system files
3) a backup of miscellaneous files from an OS/2 PC
4) some other OS with unfortunate similarity of names
?
13 May
13 May
8:27 p.m.
New subject: assorted historical claims / was Re: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran
When you make a claim about some historical event,
esp. a claim which counters
long-established historical accounts, it is not the obligation of the rest of
the world to prove you wrong, it is your obligation to support your claim with
something more than 'I say so'.
On the other hand, we do tend to learn a few things in the process of
research to refute Dan's claims.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ("a Socrates gone mad") cisin at xenosoft.com
12 May
12 May
2:58 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
From: Dan Gahlinger
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:02 PM
you know, you trolls have to find better ways to take
things out of
context, this is pretty lame.
PCKBF at 11.
and about the sun workstation, the guy that wrote the
first email
protocol did it on that station, or at least finished it there. You
can ask him yourself, but he doesn't respond to twits.
More time travel. The first e-mail protocol was a specialization of
FTP, adopted while the entirety of the file transfer protocol was in
development (see, for example, RFC 463, February 1973, bottom of page 2).
The SUN workstation was not created until the early 1980s, conceived as
a 3M (1 million bytes of memory, 1 million instructions per second, 1
million pixels on the screen) device by Ralph Gorin of Stanford
University. (Remember that "SUN" originated as "Stanford University
Network". Andy Bechtolsheim worked for Ralph when he built the first
SUN workstation.) The earliest write-up I have in my collection is dated
1981.
Rich
3:34 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
It was thus said that the Great Rich Alderson once stated:
From: Dan Gahlinger
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:02 PM
To be charitable to Dan, perhaps he's talking about sendmail, which was
written in 1981, althought the only person that can definitively state one
way or the other is Allman.
-spc (And I could see a tape labeled OS/2 without having anything to do
with IBM's OS/2---perhaps it's the OS tape #2 of 2 ... )
and about the sun workstation, the guy that wrote
the first email
protocol did it on that station, or at least finished it there. You
can ask him yourself, but he doesn't respond to twits.
More time travel. The first e-mail protocol was a specialization of
FTP, adopted while the entirety of the file transfer protocol was in
development (see, for example, RFC 463, February 1973, bottom of page 2).
6:37 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Sean Conner wrote:
To be charitable to Dan, perhaps he's talking
about sendmail, which was
written in 1981, althought the only person that can definitively state one
way or the other is Allman.
There was a LOT of email software developed (often on Sun computers) in
the mid 1980s, mostly for the purpose of making it easy for a spammer to
be able to send out unwanted email that is hard to trace, without having
to learn much of the details of the computer, OS, or mail protocol.
6:44 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
From: Fred Cisin
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:37 PM
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Sean Conner wrote:
> To be charitable to Dan, perhaps he's
talking about sendmail, which was
> written in 1981, althought the only person that can definitively state one
> way or the other is Allman.
There was a LOT of email software developed (often on
Sun computers) in
the mid 1980s, mostly for the purpose of making it easy for a spammer to
be able to send out unwanted email that is hard to trace, without having
to learn much of the details of the computer, OS, or mail protocol.
ITYM "mid 1990s". There was very little spam in the mid 1980s, and the
'Net
was still a friendly place to live.
(Cantor & Siegel was c. 1993, and spam as an advertising mode postdates that.)
Rich
6:56 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
> There was a LOT of email software developed
(often on Sun computers) in
> the mid 1980s, mostly for the purpose of making it easy for a spammer to
> be able to send out unwanted email that is hard to trace, without having
> to learn much of the details of the computer, OS, or mail protocol.
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Rich Alderson wrote:
ITYM "mid 1990s". There was very little
spam in the mid 1980s, and the 'Net
was still a friendly place to live.
(Cantor & Siegel was c. 1993, and spam as an advertising mode postdates that.)
You are right. I was off by a decade.
So, a Sun computer in the 1980s COULD have been used to write some of the
earliest SPAM software!
11 May
11 May
6:32 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
well that's definitely not true.
the structure, functions, reserved words, etc are all almost identical.
So someone used a general programming language (or its syntax) as a way to
make a data collecting and transformation package customizable.
Big deal.
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
8 May
8 May
1:25 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
Dan Gahlinger wrote:
I would if I could. I can find NO trace of it anywhere online.
I can't even find the COMPUTER system it ran on- not a trace of it!
the computer was a "Sentry-70", and no, it's not the earliest system that
ran Valtrep,
just the only one I ever worked with.
Again, I'm willing to cede the point if provided evidence to the contrary,
this is certainly strong, but not binding.
If we could even find a hint about the computer itself, it might lead to information
about Valtrep.
I will humbly mention for consideration that RCA produced the "Spectra 70" line
of computer systems starting in the mid/late-60's.
"valtrep" (which, I too, have never previously heard of) might have been one
of many things: an in-house development to avoid paying for a FORTRAN compiler,
somebody's idea of a paired-down FORTRAN to reduce system requirements, some
proprietary language developed by the system manufacturer, etc.
Also for consideration, the period brochure about the Spectra 70 from:
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/RCA/RCA.SPECTRA70.1965.10…
states on page 21:
...
A case in point might be when your programmers cannot express
the solution to a problem concisely in one of the standard languages
such as COBOL or Fortran. The extended assember "meta language"
- as it is sometimes identified - is a powerful tool that permits
the expression of unique application-oriented languages by your
programmers.
Might be just marketing-speak for a macro-assembler, and I'm not suggesting
this was "valtrep", but if the computer was a Spectra 70, this may have been an
available tool to inspire some in-house language development.
--
Others have addressed the notion of "valtrep" predating FORTRAN, I'll try
to
refrain from commenting further on that topic.
1:28 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
Sorry, not the right one. wasn't "Spectra 70".
I think we found the right one with the IEEE someone else provided.
Dan.
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 10:25:23 -0700
From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca
To: General at invalid.domain
Subject: Re: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
I will humbly mention for consideration that RCA produced the "Spectra 70"
line
of computer systems starting in the mid/late-60's.
"valtrep" (which, I too, have never previously heard of) might have been one
of many things: an in-house development to avoid paying for a FORTRAN compiler,
somebody's idea of a paired-down FORTRAN to reduce system requirements, some
proprietary language developed by the system manufacturer, etc.
Also for consideration, the period brochure about the Spectra 70 from:
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/RCA/RCA.SPECTRA70.1965.10…
states on page 21:
...
A case in point might be when your programmers cannot express
the solution to a problem concisely in one of the standard languages
such as COBOL or Fortran. The extended assember "meta language"
- as it is sometimes identified - is a powerful tool that permits
the expression of unique application-oriented languages by your
programmers.
Might be just marketing-speak for a macro-assembler, and I'm not suggesting
this was "valtrep", but if the computer was a Spectra 70, this may have been
an
available tool to inspire some in-house language development.
_________________________________________________________________
Win $10,000 from Hotmail! Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729708
1:58 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
On 8 May 2010 at 10:25, Brent Hilpert wrote:
I will humbly mention for consideration that RCA
produced the "Spectra
70" line of computer systems starting in the mid/late-60's.
Otherwise known as the "Spectrola". (You've got to be fairly ancient
to appreciate that one).
--Chuck
2:06 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 8 May 2010 at 10:25, Brent Hilpert wrote:
I'm getting older but I don't think I qualify as ancient quite yet.
None-the-less, I do appreciate the humor in that one (due to antique radio
experience, for those who need a further hint).
I will humbly mention for consideration that RCA
produced the "Spectra
70" line of computer systems starting in the mid/late-60's.
Otherwise known as the "Spectrola". (You've got to be fairly ancient
to appreciate that one).
2:40 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
I have a Radiola 26 ;)
Dwight
From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca
Chuck Guzis wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
On 8 May 2010 at 10:25, Brent Hilpert wrote:
I'm getting older but I don't think I qualify as ancient quite yet.
None-the-less, I do appreciate the humor in that one (due to antique radio
experience, for those who need a further hint). I will humbly mention for consideration that RCA
produced the "Spectra
70" line of computer systems starting in the mid/late-60's.
Otherwise known as the "Spectrola". (You've got to be fairly ancient
to appreciate that one).
4:14 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
From: cclist at sydex.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 10:58:44 -0700
Subject: Re: Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran (was Lisa C and LisaFORTRAN)
On 8 May 2010 at 10:25, Brent Hilpert wrote:
And I think NIPPER was the language processor...
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=P…
I will humbly mention for consideration that RCA
produced the "Spectra
70" line of computer systems starting in the mid/late-60's.
Otherwise known as the "Spectrola". (You've got to be fairly ancient
to appreciate that one).
--Chuck
7 May
7 May
8:19 p.m.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
If you actually READ the email instead of making immature remarks, maybe you'd learn
something.
I didn't say apple contracted with Valtrep for their Lisa FORTRAN or even implied
anything like that. (that would be quite impossible). Don't make stupid comments
especially if you don't read the mssage.
You say my 1980s experiences with Valtrep were long after Fortran was well established
and into the decline?
Say it isn't so batman! what is this alternate universe we live in!?
oh, and your comment that Valtrep had some nice improvements on the original creation of
Fortran is just plain stupid.
Valtrep is the PREDECESSOR to Fortran, or didn't you read my message so you could
understand that. Guess not.
Fortran may have been in heavy use since the 1960s (actually it's probably more like
the mid to late 70s, but whatever),
but Valtrep was actually developed and used long before that.
Just because some company was still using Valtrep in the 1980s doesn't make it newer
you know.
Many companies use products and technologies that haven't been developed or wide use
in decades...
I have no idea who this "transnet" guy is, maybe you can ask him, maybe
he'll be nicer than I am.
In any case, the predecessor to Fortran was Valtrep. Not all such technology has
survived.
Someone months ago on this list talked about reviving a Cyber/Prime, but we never did
hear about the result if it ever got finished...
Dan.
I've read this, and the rest of the thread, and I'm sorry, but subject
to you presenting us with some pretty remarkable evidence, I think
that you don't know what you're talking about.
Apart from some very primitive assembler-style systems, FORTRAN was
the world's first high-level programming language of any kind,
followed some years later by COBOL. FORTRAN's planning dates back to
the early 1950s and it was implemented and running by the late 1950s.
It *had* no significant predecessors in a form that would really be
recognised as a high-level programming language today; before FORTRAN,
the best there was were some coding systems for simplifying the
representation of mathematical or arithmetical operations for input
into the primitive computers of the time.
*You*, Dan, may have first met FORTRAN in the 1970s, and maybe the
systems you were using had a predecessor called Valtrep that virtually
nobody else has ever heard about - but in computer terms, FORTRAN was
already a venerable grey-bearded ancient by then.
Sir, you are wrong. Completely and utterly plain dead wrong.
If you can present evidence that you are not mistaken, then you will
re-write the history of computing and of the development of
programming languages, so I urge you to do so if you can.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
11:03 p.m.
I've read this, and the rest of the thread, and
I'm sorry, but subject
to you presenting us with some pretty remarkable evidence, I think
that you don't know what you're talking about.
Apart from some very primitive assembler-style systems, FORTRAN was
the world's first high-level programming language of any kind,
followed some years later by COBOL. FORTRAN's planning dates back to
the early 1950s and it was implemented and running by the late 1950s.
It *had* no significant predecessors in a form that would really be
recognised as a high-level programming language today; before FORTRAN,
the best there was were some coding systems for simplifying the
representation of mathematical or arithmetical operations for input
into the primitive computers of the time.
*You*, Dan, may have first met FORTRAN in the 1970s, and maybe the
systems you were using had a predecessor called Valtrep that virtually
nobody else has ever heard about - but in computer terms, FORTRAN was
already a venerable grey-bearded ancient by then.
Sir, you are wrong. Completely and utterly plain dead wrong.
If you can present evidence that you are not mistaken, then you will
re-write the history of computing and of the development of
programming languages, so I urge you to do so if you can.
I was almost going to say "prove it isn't correct", but I won't.
it's not fair.
But I don't think your statements are "fair" either.
Fortran the first high-level language, I think that would be open to debate.
Indeed, wikipedia says otherwise... and I quote:
The first high-level programming language to be designed for a computer was Plankalk?l,
developed for the German Z3 by Konrad Zuse between 1943 and 1945.
LISP, COBOL and Algol are also mentioned during the 1950s, so "first" is perhaps
debateable. Do we count the programmable "Looms" ?
There are questions I can't answer at this time. I can just say, from memory, Valtrep
was more "primitive" than Fortran, and yet, very "fortran-like", as I
said, if you could program Fortran, Valtrep would be easy to pick up.
I can't find any information on it, nor can I find any information on the computer
system it ran on (that's bad).
so to be fair, I'll mark this and file it as
"questionable"/"suspect" until some evidence can be shown either way.
Dan.
_________________________________________________________________
Win a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729711
8 May
8 May
3 a.m.
Dan Gahlinger wrote:
Fortran the first high-level language, I think that
would be open to
debate. Indeed, wikipedia says otherwise... and I quote:
The first high-level programming language to be designed for a
computer was Plankalk?l, developed for the German Z3 by Konrad Zuse
between 1943 and 1945.
LISP, COBOL and Algol are also mentioned during the 1950s, so "first"
is perhaps debateable. Do we count the programmable "Looms" ?
Only if they can count. :)
There are questions I can't answer at this time. I
can just say, from
memory, Valtrep was more "primitive" than Fortran, and yet, very
"fortran-like", as I said, if you could program Fortran, Valtrep
would be easy to pick up.
It seems to me unlikely, that you would have any other
high level
programs other than a possible assembler and link loader with a few
odd utility closed subroutines.
I can't find any information on it, nor can I find
any information on
the computer system it ran on (that's bad).
so to be fair, I'll mark this and file it as
"questionable"/"suspect"
until some evidence can be shown either way.
Dan.
_________________________________________________________________ Win
a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729711
1:26 p.m.
technically, looms count, they have to, to know how many times to do a particular
pattern.
that would make such programming language back into the 17th century at least ;)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 01:00:14 -0600
From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca
To:
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
Dan Gahlinger wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Win $10,000 from Hotmail! Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729708
Fortran the first high-level language, I think
that would be open to
debate. Indeed, wikipedia says otherwise... and I quote:
The first high-level programming language to be designed for a
computer was Plankalk?l, developed for the German Z3 by Konrad Zuse
between 1943 and 1945.
LISP, COBOL and Algol are also mentioned during the 1950s, so "first"
is perhaps debateable. Do we count the programmable "Looms" ?
Only if they can count. :)
There are questions I can't answer at this
time. I can just say, from
memory, Valtrep was more "primitive" than Fortran, and yet, very
"fortran-like", as I said, if you could program Fortran, Valtrep
would be easy to pick up.
It seems to me unlikely, that you would have any other
high level
programs other than a possible assembler and link loader with a few
odd utility closed subroutines.
I can't find any information on it, nor can I
find any information on
the computer system it ran on (that's bad).
so to be fair, I'll mark this and file it as
"questionable"/"suspect"
until some evidence can be shown either way.
Dan.
_________________________________________________________________ Win
a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729711
10 May
10 May
2:46 p.m.
From: Dan Gahlinger
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 8:04 PM
Fortran the first high-level language, I think that
would be open to debate.
Indeed, wikipedia says otherwise... and I quote:
Oh, brother. Wikipedia? Really? A place where any moron with an id?e fixe
can spout nonsense and remove the contributions of experts in the field?
The first high-level programming language to be
designed for a computer was
Plankalk?l, developed for the German Z3 by Konrad Zuse between 1943 and 1945.
OK, let's call FORTRAN the first *successful* high-level programming language
for multiple machine architectures.
Not that that will make any difference.
LISP, COBOL and Algol are also mentioned during the
1950s, so "first" is
perhaps debateable. Do we count the programmable "Looms" ?
LISP 1: 1958.
COBOL: 1957.
Algol: 1958 (presentation language),
1960 (first implementations on computer).
FORTRAN: 1954.
What's your problem?
Oh, I know, I know, "Don't feed the trolls."
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.PDPplanet.org/
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
7 May
7 May
11:04 p.m.
I've read this, and the rest of the thread, and
I'm sorry, but subject
to you presenting us with some pretty remarkable evidence, I think
that you don't know what you're talking about.
Apart from some very primitive assembler-style systems, FORTRAN was
the world's first high-level programming language of any kind,
followed some years later by COBOL. FORTRAN's planning dates back to
the early 1950s and it was implemented and running by the late 1950s.
It *had* no significant predecessors in a form that would really be
recognised as a high-level programming language today; before FORTRAN,
the best there was were some coding systems for simplifying the
representation of mathematical or arithmetical operations for input
into the primitive computers of the time.
*You*, Dan, may have first met FORTRAN in the 1970s, and maybe the
systems you were using had a predecessor called Valtrep that virtually
nobody else has ever heard about - but in computer terms, FORTRAN was
already a venerable grey-bearded ancient by then.
Sir, you are wrong. Completely and utterly plain dead wrong.
If you can present evidence that you are not mistaken, then you will
re-write the history of computing and of the development of
programming languages, so I urge you to do so if you can.
I was almost going to say "prove it isn't correct", but I won't.
it's not fair.
But I don't think your statements are "fair" either.
Fortran the first high-level language, I think that would be open to debate.
Indeed, wikipedia says otherwise... and I quote:
The first high-level programming language to be designed for a computer was Plankalk?l,
developed for the German Z3 by Konrad Zuse between 1943 and 1945.
LISP, COBOL and Algol are also mentioned during the 1950s, so "first" is perhaps
debateable. Do we count the programmable "Looms" ?
There are questions I can't answer at this time. I can just say, from memory, Valtrep
was more "primitive" than Fortran, and yet, very "fortran-like", as I
said, if you could program Fortran, Valtrep would be easy to pick up.
I can't find any information on it, nor can I find any information on the computer
system it ran on (that's bad).
so to be fair, I'll mark this and file it as
"questionable"/"suspect" until some evidence can be shown either way.
Dan.
_________________________________________________________________
Win $10,000 from Hotmail! Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729708
11:08 p.m.
I've read this, and the rest of the thread, and
I'm sorry, but subject
to you presenting us with some pretty remarkable evidence, I think
that you don't know what you're talking about.
Apart from some very primitive assembler-style systems, FORTRAN was
the world's first high-level programming language of any kind,
followed some years later by COBOL. FORTRAN's planning dates back to
the early 1950s and it was implemented and running by the late 1950s.
It *had* no significant predecessors in a form that would really be
recognised as a high-level programming language today; before FORTRAN,
the best there was were some coding systems for simplifying the
representation of mathematical or arithmetical operations for input
into the primitive computers of the time.
*You*, Dan, may have first met FORTRAN in the 1970s, and maybe the
systems you were using had a predecessor called Valtrep that virtually
nobody else has ever heard about - but in computer terms, FORTRAN was
already a venerable grey-bearded ancient by then.
Sir, you are wrong. Completely and utterly plain dead wrong.
If you can present evidence that you are not mistaken, then you will
re-write the history of computing and of the development of
programming languages, so I urge you to do so if you can.
I was almost going to say "prove it isn't correct", but I won't.
it's not fair.
But I don't think your statements are "fair" either.
Fortran the first high-level language, I think that would be open to debate.
Indeed, wikipedia says otherwise... and I quote:
The first high-level programming language to be designed for a computer was Plankalk?l,
developed for the German Z3 by Konrad Zuse between 1943 and 1945.
LISP, COBOL and Algol are also mentioned during the 1950s, so "first" is perhaps
debateable. Do we count the programmable "Looms" ?
There are questions I can't answer at this time. I can just say, from memory, Valtrep
was more "primitive" than Fortran, and yet, very "fortran-like", as I
said, if you could program Fortran, Valtrep would be easy to pick up.
I can't find any information on it, nor can I find any information on the computer
system it ran on (that's bad).
so to be fair, I'll mark this and file it as
"questionable"/"suspect" until some evidence can be shown either way.
Dan.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Dating: Find someone special. Start now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729707
5158
days inactive
5164
days old
90 comments
30 participants
participants (30)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk -
als＠thangorodrim.de -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bdwheele＠indiana.edu -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
brad＠heeltoe.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
csquared3＠tx.rr.com -
dgahling＠hotmail.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
lee_courtney＠acm.org -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
nigel.d.williams＠gmail.com -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
pinball＠telus.net -
rdawson16＠hotmail.com -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
robert.jarratt＠ntlworld.com -
spc＠conman.org -
steerex＠ccvn.com -
stimpy.u.idiot＠gmail.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
tingox＠gmail.com