12 Apr
2017
12 Apr
'17
10:57 a.m.
From: Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
Noel
PS: There probably is something to the sports car analogy, but I'm not going
to take a position on that one! :-) Interesting side-question though: is
assembler more or less like a sports car than C? :-)
12 Apr
12 Apr
11:08 a.m.
Assembler is a sports car kit.
From: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:57:07 AM
Subject: Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
From: Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
Noel
PS: There probably is something to the sports car analogy, but I'm not going
to take a position on that one! :-) Interesting side-question though: is
assembler more or less like a sports car than C? :-)
11:22 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:08:53AM -0600, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote:
Assembler is a sports car kit.
I'd say it's more like a motorcycle -- it does the most with the least
and it's SO FUN to ride. But if you don't know how, it seems impossible,
and safety is entirely your problem.
John Wilson
D Bit
12:15 p.m.
On 12/04/2017 16:08, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote:
Assembler is a sports car kit.
From: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:57:07 AM
Subject: Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
All computer computer
languages are only as good or bad as the person
using them.
Rod
--
There is no wrong or right
Nor black and white.
Just darkness and light
From: Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
Noel
PS: There probably is something to the sports car analogy, but I'm not going
to take a position on that one! :-) Interesting side-question though: is
assembler more or less like a sports car than C? :-) 
12:24 p.m.
Weighing in on the C vs. assembler subthread: modern processors are like
exotic sportscars, in that pretty much anyone can drive the thing to the
corner grocery but it takes a lot of skill to get the best performance out
of it. Load/store superscalar architectures benefit enormously from
various tricks that optimizing compilers do. Sure, you can code those
tricksk in assembler, but for any program other than the most trivial it
becomes a daunting task.
Compiled C also supports writing sustainable code. Use as many
intermediate variables as you like to clarify what your code is trying to
do - the compiler will optimize them out of existence. This can make
troubleshooting more difficult, but that's why you turn off the
optimization for debug builds.
C vs. anything else? I think John Wilson was spot on, it's like a
motorcycle and if you don't know what you're doing you can hurt yourself.
Personally, I usually use Python for application code and C if I'm doing
something down 'on the metal' that has to be performant (e.g., device
drivers). -- Ian
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 12/04/2017 16:08, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote:
--
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School <http://ischool.uw.edu>
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens
Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal <http://tribunalvoices.org>
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab <http://vsdesign.org>
University of Washington
There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
Assembler is a sports car kit.
From: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:57:07 AM
Subject: Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
From: Alfred M. Szmidt
All computer computer languages are only as good or bad as the person
using them.
Rod
--
There is no wrong or right
Nor black and white.
Just darkness and light
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
Noel
PS: There probably is something to the sports car analogy, but I'm not
going
to take a position on that one! :-) Interesting side-question though: is
assembler more or less like a sports car than C? :-)
11:55 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via cctalk once stated:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
where EXIT_SUCCESS is 0 on every plaform except for some obscure system no
one has heard of but managed to influence the C committee back in the late
80s.
From: Alfred
M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not? PS: There probably is something to the sports car
analogy, but I'm not going
to take a position on that one! :-) Interesting side-question though: is
assembler more or less like a sports car than C? :-)
One thing for sure---assembly langauge (for a given architecture) is
probably better defined (less undefined/underspecified behavior) than C.
-spc
1:26 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via cctalk once stated:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
Pedantically, it does not matter -- a return from main is equivalent
to an exit(), and exit(0) is sensibly defined, and EXIT_SUCCESS can
also be different from 0 (even though I don't think such a platform
exists).
Similiarly for EXIT_FAILURE ...
From: Alfred
M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
2:43 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt once stated:
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via
cctalk once stated:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
Pedantically, it does not matter -- a return from main is equivalent
to an exit(), and exit(0) is sensibly defined, and EXIT_SUCCESS can
also be different from 0 (even though I don't think such a platform
exists).
Similiarly for EXIT_FAILURE ...
There's this
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8867871/should-i-return-exit-success-or-…):
Somebody asked about OpenVMS. I haven't used it in a long time, but
as I recall odd status values generally denote success while even
values denote failure. The C implementation maps 0 to 1, so that
return 0; indicates successful termination. Other values are passed
unchanged, so return 1; also indicates successful termination.
EXIT_FAILURE would have a non-zero even value.
And certainly VMS is on topic for this list.
-spc (So ... pedantically speaking, who's correct?)
From:
Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not? 
2:52 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt once
stated:
The answer is 'it depends' on VMS. I can't recall if it was the C
runtime that was part of VMS, or that was installed by the compiler,
but this was version dependent. The earliest versions of the compiler
that we had, running on 4.4 didn't do the mapping. By the time we'd
upgraded to 4.7 and to a newer compiler, the mapping did happen.
Before exit was a thin wrapper on sys$exit(), but after it wasn't.
This was across both the DEC CC compiler, and the version of gcc
available back in the late 1980's. Interestingly, the old version of
the manual/help file didn't have EXIT_SUCCESS in it, but the new
version did, if memory isn't failing me today. There were a lot of
programs that printed the same message when exit(0) happened, which is
why DEC had to fix it. There was just too many of them. It's my
recollection that it mapped values < 256 in some way that was special,
and values > 256 it passed to sys$exit since all the facilities you'd
create would have high bits set.
But that was coming up on like 30 years ago, so maybe the exact
details fail me. I do know that it change from one version to the
next.
Warner
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa
via cctalk once stated:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
Pedantically, it does not matter -- a return from main is equivalent
to an exit(), and exit(0) is sensibly defined, and EXIT_SUCCESS can
also be different from 0 (even though I don't think such a platform
exists).
Similiarly for EXIT_FAILURE ...
There's this
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8867871/should-i-return-exit-success-or-…):
Somebody asked about OpenVMS. I haven't used it in a long time, but
as I recall odd status values generally denote success while even
values denote failure. The C implementation maps 0 to 1, so that
return 0; indicates successful termination. Other values are passed
unchanged, so return 1; also indicates successful termination.
EXIT_FAILURE would have a non-zero even value.
And certainly VMS is on topic for this list. From:
Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
13 Apr
13 Apr
2:48 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt once stated:
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via
cctalk once stated:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
Pedantically, it does not matter -- a return from main is equivalent
to an exit(), and exit(0) is sensibly defined, and EXIT_SUCCESS can
also be different from 0 (even though I don't think such a platform
exists).
Similiarly for EXIT_FAILURE ...
There's this
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8867871/should-i-return-exit-success-or-…):
Somebody asked about OpenVMS. I haven't used it in a long time, but
as I recall odd status values generally denote success while even
values denote failure. The C implementation maps 0 to 1, so that
return 0; indicates successful termination. Other values are passed
unchanged, so return 1; also indicates successful termination.
EXIT_FAILURE would have a non-zero even value.
And certainly VMS is on topic for this list.
-spc (So ... pedantically speaking, who's correct?)
The standard, from 7.20.4.3:
Finally, control is returned to the host environment. If the value
of status is zero or EXIT_SUCCESS, an implementation-defined form of
the status successful termination is returned. If the value of
status is EXIT_FAILURE, an implementation-defined form of the status
unsuccessful termination is returned. Otherwise the status returned
is implementation-defined.
From:
Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not? 
12 Apr
12 Apr
5:33 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Sean Conner via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I
mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
where EXIT_SUCCESS is 0 on every plaform except for some obscure system no
one has heard of but managed to influence the C committee back in the late
80s.
Returning zero from main to indicate success is perfectly valid according
to the most recent three C standards. ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) ?7.10.4.3,
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) ?7.20.4.3 ?5 and ISO/IEC 9899:2011(E) ?7.22.4.4 ?5
both requires that either 0 or EXIT_SUCCESS as an argument to exit() be
considered success. EXIT_SUCCESS may or may not be zero, but zero is
considered success regardless of that.
One annoyance with the way the standard defines the EXIT_x macros is that
if you use other exit status values, including those from sysexits.h (not
part of the C standard), it's possible that an intended failure status
value might happen to match EXIT_SUCCESS on some standard-compliant
implementation.
?5.1.2.2.3 ?1 of both :1999 and :2011 state that if execution reaches the
closing brace of main without a return statement, that it is equivalent to
returning zero, so even the return statement in this alleged non-portable
example is unnecessary.
On the other hand, the earlier ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) ?5.1.2.2.3 says that
main returning with no value yields an undefined termination status.
-- Eric "not a language lawyer but I play one on the internet" Smith
6:17 p.m.
On 04/12/2017 05:33 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Sean Conner via
cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
What the heck its religion. So here's my stir...
BASIC, why is that the most universal language implemented on nearly every
micro and many other systems.
Seriously it is a suck language but it gets work done.
The yabut, is its THE only language that is somewhat portable and
generally implemented
on most everything can be named. Regardless of the CPU there basic on
it or for it.
Its been stuffed into 1k or EPROM if you can live with integers. Can't
say that with
C until recently with cross compilers, or Fortran, Pascal, Java, or
Perl. The only
exception is maybe assembly but porting a program from say 6502 to z80 is a
major pain.
C isn't perfect. Come to think of most of the languages are pretty much
in that boat.
Me, Assembly the native machine knows it and if need be I can crank a
small program
by hand. C is nice what you want some structure and still get close but
not quite
married to the iron. Pascal is good, it will typecheck you sensless.
Never saw Java,
Ruby, or python with anything under 32 bits. LUA is cool if you have
at least a meg
of ram. The list goes and the problems go on. In the end you use what
you know
and what is available.
So I have a Tandy M100 with an 80C85, and 32K of ram... Pick BASIC,
peak and poke
assembly (from inside basic) or out of choices. Same for the PX-8 but
that runs a
Z80 and OS (CP/M) but even it is space constrained enough that without a
disk
C or any other compiler will not fit (even with the 120K ramdisk wedge)
but BASIC
is in ROM.
Sure the S100 machines run it well with lots of ram and disk. Even
compilers
like BDS-C. But with two floppys around 240 or 360K your in tight spaces
for that.
So from a long term STAB (Society To Abolish Basic, down with GOTO!) member
its often the only choice to get something done.
In the end its about getting something done. If your being paid more so
and less
choice.
Allison
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too.
I mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
where EXIT_SUCCESS is 0 on every plaform except for some obscure system no
one has heard of but managed to influence the C committee back in the late
80s.
Returning zero from main to indicate success is perfectly valid according
to the most recent three C standards. ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) ?7.10.4.3,
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) ?7.20.4.3 ?5 and ISO/IEC 9899:2011(E) ?7.22.4.4 ?5
both requires that either 0 or EXIT_SUCCESS as an argument to exit() be
considered success. EXIT_SUCCESS may or may not be zero, but zero is
considered success regardless of that.
One annoyance with the way the standard defines the EXIT_x macros is that
if you use other exit status values, including those from sysexits.h (not
part of the C standard), it's possible that an intended failure status
value might happen to match EXIT_SUCCESS on some standard-compliant
implementation.
?5.1.2.2.3 ?1 of both :1999 and :2011 state that if execution reaches the
closing brace of main without a return statement, that it is equivalent to
returning zero, so even the return statement in this alleged non-portable
example is unnecessary.
On the other hand, the earlier ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) ?5.1.2.2.3 says that
main returning with no value yields an undefined termination status.
-- Eric "not a language lawyer but I play one on the internet" Smith 
13 Apr
13 Apr
2:27 a.m.
On 04/12/2017 03:17 PM, allison via cctalk wrote:
What the heck its religion. So here's my stir...
BASIC, why is that the most universal language implemented on nearly
every micro and many other systems.
Seriously it is a suck language but it gets work done.
No kidding. I'm sure that most here are familiar with the Pick
system--or at least you should be.
There are numerous other examples.
Although I've seen screen editors and system utilities written in it, I
don't think it's a suitable vehicle for OS implementation.
--Chuck
3:30 p.m.
From: allison
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:18 PM
BASIC, why is that the most universal language
implemented on nearly every
micro and many other systems.
Because it was the language offered on the GEIS timesharing system when a
private boys' school in Seattle decided to teach programming in 1969? And
on the systems at HP where a young technician was working in 1975?
It's pretty much all down to my boss and his friend, and that guy from the
Bay Area.
Rich
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134
mailto:RichA at LivingComputers.org
http://www.LivingComputers.org/
4:24 p.m.
On 04/13/2017 12:30 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
From: allison Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:18 PM
Not forgetting that writing a BASIC interpreter that resides in 4KB is a
relatively simple task.
There were other interpreted BASIC-like languages before that; e.g. IITRAN.
--Chuck
BASIC, why is that the most universal language
implemented on
nearly every micro and many other systems.
Because it was the language offered on the GEIS timesharing system
when a private boys' school in Seattle decided to teach programming
in 1969? And on the systems at HP where a young technician was
working in 1975? 
5:19 p.m.
On 2017-Apr-13, at 1:24 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 04/13/2017 12:30 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk
wrote:
While one might argue the proliferation of BASIC on micros followed from BG/PA &
SW/SJ, I'd say their implementations were following a trend rather than initiating
it.
BASIC was gaining prominence prior to their implementations of it.
It was in all 3 of the pre-microproc personal computers: HP9830, Wang2200, IBM5100.
It was becoming popular and spreading in the small-business world through the Pick-based
systems (albeit an extended version of the language).
It had gained awareness through the educational system and timesharing systems.
All prior to MS & Apple.
As bad as it was, it was present in the right place (small, easy to implement,
interpretable & easy to use) at the right time (the nascent small-system and personal
computer era).
From: allison Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017
3:18 PM
Not forgetting that writing a BASIC interpreter that resides in 4KB is a
relatively simple task.
There were other interpreted BASIC-like languages before that; e.g. IITRAN. BASIC, why is that the most universal language
implemented on
nearly every micro and many other systems.
Because it was the language offered on the GEIS timesharing system
when a private boys' school in Seattle decided to teach programming
in 1969? And on the systems at HP where a young technician was
working in 1975?
6:54 p.m.
On 04/13/2017 02:19 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:
While one might argue the proliferation of BASIC on
micros followed
from BG/PA & SW/SJ, I'd say their implementations were following a
trend rather than initiating it. BASIC was gaining prominence prior
to their implementations of it. It was in all 3 of the pre-microproc
personal computers: HP9830, Wang2200, IBM5100. It was becoming
popular and spreading in the small-business world through the
Pick-based systems (albeit an extended version of the language). It
had gained awareness through the educational system and timesharing
systems. All prior to MS & Apple.
As bad as it was, it was present in the right place (small, easy to
implement, interpretable & easy to use) at the right time (the
nascent small-system and personal computer era).
...or that Iverson language, APL, present on the 5100 and what was
probably one of the the first microcomputers, the MCM/70.
So, whence APL today?
--Chuck
7:34 p.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 04/13/2017 02:19 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk
wrote:
Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
channel on Freenode for APL fans.
--Toby
While one might argue the proliferation of BASIC
on micros followed
from BG/PA & SW/SJ, I'd say their implementations were following a
trend rather than initiating it. BASIC was gaining prominence prior
to their implementations of it. It was in all 3 of the pre-microproc
personal computers: HP9830, Wang2200, IBM5100. It was becoming
popular and spreading in the small-business world through the
Pick-based systems (albeit an extended version of the language). It
had gained awareness through the educational system and timesharing
systems. All prior to MS & Apple.
As bad as it was, it was present in the right place (small, easy to
implement, interpretable & easy to use) at the right time (the
nascent small-system and personal computer era).
...or that Iverson language, APL, present on the 5100 and what was
probably one of the the first microcomputers, the MCM/70.
So, whence APL today?
--Chuck
9:32 p.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
Toby Thain via cctalk wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:34:08 -0400
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
I consider Matlab and Julia to be spiritual descendents of APL.
One thing that hurt APL in early microcomputers was that they used text
mode with the wrong font. I would also have guessed that Basic could
work better in really limited hardware, but some early APL
implementations were impressively frugal.
-- Jecel
So, whence APL today?
Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
channel on Freenode for APL fans. 
11:22 p.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
Toby Thain via cctalk wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2017
19:34:08 -0400
The VideoBrain home computer had something called APL/S, but I can't
find any information on how it differs from APL. Does anyone know?
--
Eric Christopherson
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
I consider Matlab and Julia to be spiritual descendents of APL.
One thing that hurt APL in early microcomputers was that they used text
mode with the wrong font. I would also have guessed that Basic could
work better in really limited hardware, but some early APL
implementations were impressively frugal. So, whence APL today?
Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
channel on Freenode for APL fans. 
14 Apr
14 Apr
5:02 p.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
To my knowledge, there is only one person that claims to
have a cartridge for the APL on the VideoBrain. He considers it
more valuable than gold and won't let anyone look at it or
dump its contents.
Such code running on a VideoBrain would surely warrant the /S
label for "Small".
Without some form of bank switching the resources of the VideoBrain
are minimal.
It has almost no RAM and the decoding has mirrored images through
the address space.
The F8 was clearly intended as an embedded controller similar to
the Rockwell PPS4.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Eric Christopherson via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:22:32 PM
To: Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk
Subject: Re: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
Toby Thain via cctalk wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2017
19:34:08 -0400
The VideoBrain home computer had something called APL/S, but I can't
find any information on how it differs from APL. Does anyone know?
--
Eric Christopherson
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
I consider Matlab and Julia to be spiritual descendents of APL.
One thing that hurt APL in early microcomputers was that they used text
mode with the wrong font. I would also have guessed that Basic could
work better in really limited hardware, but some early APL
implementations were impressively frugal. So, whence APL today?
Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
channel on Freenode for APL fans. 
5:13 p.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
Love to have my Selectric in a desk APL terminal again.
-pete
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:02 PM, dwight via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
To my knowledge, there is only one person that claims
to
have a cartridge for the APL on the VideoBrain. He considers it
more valuable than gold and won't let anyone look at it or
dump its contents.
Such code running on a VideoBrain would surely warrant the /S
label for "Small".
Without some form of bank switching the resources of the VideoBrain
are minimal.
It has almost no RAM and the decoding has mirrored images through
the address space.
The F8 was clearly intended as an embedded controller similar to
the Rockwell PPS4.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Eric
Christopherson via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:22:32 PM
To: Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk
Subject: Re: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so
successful?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
Toby Thain via cctalk wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2017
19:34:08 -0400
The VideoBrain home computer had something called APL/S, but I can't
find any information on how it differs from APL. Does anyone know?
--
Eric Christopherson
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
I consider Matlab and Julia to be spiritual descendents of APL.
One thing that hurt APL in early microcomputers was that they used text
mode with the wrong font. I would also have guessed that Basic could
work better in really limited hardware, but some early APL
implementations were impressively frugal. So, whence APL today?
Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
channel on Freenode for APL fans.
10:47 p.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On 2017-04-14 5:02 PM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
To my knowledge, there is only one person that claims
to
have a cartridge for the APL on the VideoBrain. He considers it
more valuable than gold and won't let anyone look at it or
dump its contents.
I never understood this self-defeating attitude. What's supposed to
happen when they pass on?
--T
Such code running on a VideoBrain would surely warrant the /S
label for "Small".
Without some form of bank switching the resources of the VideoBrain
are minimal.
It has almost no RAM and the decoding has mirrored images through
the address space.
The F8 was clearly intended as an embedded controller similar to
the Rockwell PPS4.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Eric Christopherson
via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:22:32 PM
To: Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk
Subject: Re: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
Toby Thain via cctalk wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2017
19:34:08 -0400
The VideoBrain home computer had something called APL/S, but I can't
find any information on how it differs from APL. Does anyone know?
--
Eric Christopherson
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
I consider Matlab and Julia to be spiritual descendents of APL.
One thing that hurt APL in early microcomputers was that they used text
mode with the wrong font. I would also have guessed that Basic could
work better in really limited hardware, but some early APL
implementations were impressively frugal. So, whence APL today?
Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
channel on Freenode for APL fans. 
11:04 p.m.
New subject: Pass on (Was: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why
> have a cartridge for the APL on the VideoBrain. He
considers it
> more valuable than gold and won't let anyone look at it or
> dump its contents.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
I never understood this self-defeating attitude.
What's supposed to happen
when they pass on?
Those handling the estate might make a good-faith effort to follow
explicitly stated wishes.
Then the rest of "that crap" gets dumpstered and sent to landfill.
Stuff like that ridiculous "APL" game cartridge that won't even fit any
current game machine.
And ALL of those obsolete computers that won't even run Windows 10 NOR
current Apple OS.
Remember what happened to Don Maslin's projects?
I've made a will, with a bunch of specific bequests. For the rest, . . .
When I go, my sister will gladly let anybody who is willing to do a dump
run have all of my stuff, if they act quickly. Otherwise, she will hire a
hauling outfit that WILL work quickly. She will gripe long and loud about
how much it costs and how long it takes to throw away all of my stuff.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:20 p.m.
New subject: Pass on (Was: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why
On Apr 14, 2017 11:04 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
wrote:
happen
when they pass on?
>
> have a cartridge for the APL on the VideoBrain. He considers it
> more valuable than gold and won't let anyone look at it or
> dump its contents.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
>
> I never understood this self-defeating attitude. What's supposed to
Those handling the estate might make a good-faith effort to follow
explicitly
stated wishes.
Then the rest of "that crap" gets dumpstered
and sent to landfill.
Stuff like that ridiculous "APL" game cartridge that won't even fit any
current game machine.
And ALL of those obsolete computers that won't
even run Windows 10 NOR
current Apple OS.
Remember what happened to Don Maslin's projects?
I've made a will, with a bunch of specific bequests. For the rest, . . .
When
I go, my sister will gladly let anybody who is willing to do a dump
run have all of my stuff, if they act quickly. Otherwise, she will hire a
hauling outfit that WILL work quickly. She will gripe long and loud about
how much it costs and how long it takes to throw away all of my stuff.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
AM I correct, APL on my tektronix 4015?
Bill Degnan
twitter: billdeg
vintagecomputer.net
11:49 p.m.
New subject: Pass on (Was: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why
On 4/14/2017 8:20 PM, william degnan via cctalk wrote:
I've made a will, with a bunch of specific
bequests.
No will, but at this point, the wife knows who to call. Already trying
to figure out how to get things into longer term collections if they
will stay there, and not get ebay-ed immediately. Hope it is far into
the future before that happens to any of us, but it happens.
15 Apr
15 Apr
1:05 a.m.
New subject: Pass on (Was: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why
I have a tiny APL that was written for the 8080 someplace.
It has input that use ASCII keyboard input instead of the
funny characters.
I played with it a little on my IMSAI. The fellow had hand
written and assembled it by hand.
Not something I'd ever like to do.
I make to many simple mistakes and I don't have any interest
in erasure companies.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of jim stephens via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 8:49:38 PM
To: william degnan; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Pass on (Was: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why
On 4/14/2017 8:20 PM, william degnan via cctalk wrote:
I've made a will, with a bunch of specific
bequests.
No will, but at this point, the wife knows who to call. Already trying
to figure out how to get things into longer term collections if they
will stay there, and not get ebay-ed immediately. Hope it is far into
the future before that happens to any of us, but it happens.
16 Apr
16 Apr
9:05 a.m.
New subject: VideoBrain APL/S (Was: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why
Dwight said
I have a tiny APL that was written for the 8080
someplace.
It has input that use ASCII keyboard input instead of the
funny characters.
I played with it a little on my IMSAI. The fellow had hand
written and assembled it by hand.
Not something I'd ever like to do.
I make to many simple mistakes and I don't have any interest
in erasure companies.
Dwight
I'm guessing the Videobrain APL/S was a port of EMPL, a tiny APL for the 8080 by
Eric Mueller written in 1977 https://archive.org/details/ddj-1997-04-EMPL-Micro-APL-8080
that fitted in < 6Kb (and thanks to Dwight for disassembling the original code for
this,
given his extremely modest comment above.)
Regarding porting 8080 code to the F8, this was mentioned by Jerry Fox in his article
'Tiny
BASIC for the F8' from DDJ Vol 4 #39 October 1979
http://6502.org/documents/publications/dr_dobbs_journal/ where he said "Herewith is
documentation and the source for a tiny BASIC Interpreter written for the F8
microcomputer.
The structure of the program is copied from Palo Alto tiny BASIC written by Dr. Li-Chen
Wang. It is to Dr. Wang?s credit that he wrote such an elegant program that it was fairly
easy to convert to F8 from 8080 assembly language."
Steve.
14 Apr
14 Apr
11:09 a.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
For that matter, APL itself also still exists, the OpenAPL open source implementation for
example. Works nicely.
paul
...
...or that Iverson language, APL, present on the 5100 and what was
probably one of the the first microcomputers, the MCM/70.
So, whence APL today?
Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware channel on
Freenode for APL fans.
12:29 p.m.
New subject: APL and descendants - was Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On 04/14/2017 08:09 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
For that matter, APL itself also still exists, the
OpenAPL open
source implementation for example. Works nicely.
...but reduced to a marginal language. I wonder if there's any JOVIAL
still in use...
--Chuck
13 Apr
13 Apr
8:47 p.m.
On Apr 13, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 04/13/2017 12:30 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
IITRAN That?s one I haven?t heard of in quite some time.
In the late 60?s early 70?s, I first started with BASIC on a GEIS system that my
BSA Explorer Post had access to. About the same time my
Long Island (NY) high school had access to the
BOCES LIRICS system with more BASIC and then Fortran.
Then my dad got transferred to Chicago and that
high school had ?access? to IITRAN. By access, that
meant punching cards, and waiting for the teacher to
load in batch and waiting for the results.
Losing the interactive aspect overshadowed the language features.
Jerry WB9MRI
From: allison Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017
3:18 PM
Not forgetting that writing a BASIC interpreter that resides in 4KB is a
relatively simple task.
There were other interpreted BASIC-like languages before that; e.g. IITRAN.
--Chuck
BASIC, why is that the most universal language
implemented on
nearly every micro and many other systems.
Because it was the language offered on the GEIS timesharing system
when a private boys' school in Seattle decided to teach programming
in 1969? And on the systems at HP where a young technician was
working in 1975?
10:42 p.m.
On 04/13/2017 05:47 PM, Jerry Weiss wrote:
Then my dad got transferred to Chicago and that high
school had
?access? to IITRAN. By access, that meant punching cards, and
waiting for the teacher to load in batch and waiting for the results.
Losing the interactive aspect overshadowed the language features.
To be fair, many Chicago-area high schools did have interactive (TTY)
access in the 60s to IITRAN. IITRAN TTY access extended far beyond the
Chicago area.
http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-iitran-1899.html
Not a bad language for the time. Probably better than BASIC.
--Chuck
11:05 p.m.
On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 04/13/2017 05:47 PM, Jerry Weiss wrote:
Oh the high-school had a nice ASR-33, which was used to manage our IITRAN jobs.
But they never let the students use it interactively (during my tenure!), possibly
due to the costs for CPU or IO.
The other HS in the district had their own PDP-8. Some of my (new) friends got
to play with that one.
Jerry
Then my dad got transferred to Chicago and that
high school had
?access? to IITRAN. By access, that meant punching cards, and
waiting for the teacher to load in batch and waiting for the results.
Losing the interactive aspect overshadowed the language features.
To be fair, many Chicago-area high schools did have interactive (TTY)
access in the 60s to IITRAN. IITRAN TTY access extended far beyond the
Chicago area.
http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-iitran-1899.html
Not a bad language for the time. Probably better than BASIC.
--Chuck 
14 Apr
14 Apr
12:05 a.m.
On 4/13/2017 7:42 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 04/13/2017 05:47 PM, Jerry Weiss wrote:
I especially liked the Spanish language version of IITRAN:
http://www.ak6dn.com/stuff/spantran.pdf
Don
Then my dad got transferred to Chicago and that
high school had
?access? to IITRAN. By access, that meant punching cards, and
waiting for the teacher to load in batch and waiting for the results.
Losing the interactive aspect overshadowed the language features.
To be fair, many Chicago-area high schools did have interactive (TTY)
access in the 60s to IITRAN. IITRAN TTY access extended far beyond the
Chicago area.
http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-iitran-1899.html
Not a bad language for the time. Probably better than BASIC.
--Chuck
1:23 a.m.
On 04/13/2017 09:05 PM, Don North wrote:
I especially liked the Spanish language version of
IITRAN:
http://www.ak6dn.com/stuff/spantran.pdf
That does look like a TTY session. But the use of "hacer" (infinitive)
for "DO" is puzzling. I would have made it the imperitive "haga".
--Chuck
9:05 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 04/13/2017 09:05 PM, Don North wrote:
The usted form, eh? I would have thought computers would warrant tuteo...
--
Eric Christopherson
I especially liked the Spanish language version
of IITRAN:
http://www.ak6dn.com/stuff/spantran.pdf
That does look like a TTY session. But the use of "hacer" (infinitive)
for "DO" is puzzling. I would have made it the imperitive "haga".
9:34 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 08:05:39AM -0500, Eric Christopherson via cctalk wrote:
I've always wondered about this kind of thing. Haz for micros, haga for
mainframes?
John Wilson
D Bit
That does look
like a TTY session. But the use of "hacer" (infinitive)
for "DO" is puzzling. I would have made it the imperitive "haga".
The usted form, eh? I would have thought computers would warrant tuteo... 
13 Apr
13 Apr
4:27 p.m.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
From: allison
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:18 PM
The most wonderfully worked root-cause analysis award goes to..... :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
BASIC, why is that the most universal language
implemented on nearly every
micro and many other systems.
Because it was the language offered on the GEIS timesharing system when a
private boys' school in Seattle decided to teach programming in 1969? And
on the systems at HP where a young technician was working in 1975?
It's pretty much all down to my boss and his friend, and that guy from the
Bay Area.
4:29 p.m.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, geneb via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
s/worked/worked
:wq
:)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
From: allison
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:18 PM
The most wonderfully worked root-cause analysis award goes to..... :)
BASIC, why is that the most universal language
implemented on nearly every
micro and many other systems.
Because it was the language offered on the GEIS timesharing system when a
private boys' school in Seattle decided to teach programming in 1969? And
on the systems at HP where a young technician was working in 1975?
It's pretty much all down to my boss and his friend, and that guy from the
Bay Area.
4:30 p.m.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, geneb via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
:(
s/worked/worded
:wq
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
From: allison
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:18 PM
The most wonderfully worked root-cause analysis award goes to..... :)
BASIC, why is that the most universal language
implemented on nearly every
micro and many other systems.
Because it was the language offered on the GEIS timesharing system when a
private boys' school in Seattle decided to teach programming in 1969? And
on the systems at HP where a young technician was working in 1975?
It's pretty much all down to my boss and his friend, and that guy from the
Bay Area.
12:37 a.m.
I know most don't get it but I like Forth because it is easy to follow the program
flow and easy to test. C has too much boilerplate to solve the problem of not being able
to use white space to keep things organized.
One uses Forth like a combination assembler and high level language. Most all the stack
fiddle faddle is hidden at the lower assembly like levels. The high level code is like
reading sentences. It always seems to me to be the most straight forward way to tell the
computer what to do.
The order is left to right, top to bottom.
Testing can be done at any level, solving the complexity problem of proper testing.
I see too many programmers testing a program at the top level with something like 20
decision points to navigate through. When it seems to work, they call it tested. No wonder
things are getting too complex to fix.
It isn't really the programming languages fault but most programming languages
don't make it any easier.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Eric Smith via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:33:38 PM
To: Sean Conner; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Sean Conner via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I
mean, pedantically, it
should be:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
where EXIT_SUCCESS is 0 on every plaform except for some obscure system no
one has heard of but managed to influence the C committee back in the late
80s.
Returning zero from main to indicate success is perfectly valid according
to the most recent three C standards. ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) ?7.10.4.3,
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) ?7.20.4.3 ?5 and ISO/IEC 9899:2011(E) ?7.22.4.4 ?5
both requires that either 0 or EXIT_SUCCESS as an argument to exit() be
considered success. EXIT_SUCCESS may or may not be zero, but zero is
considered success regardless of that.
One annoyance with the way the standard defines the EXIT_x macros is that
if you use other exit status values, including those from sysexits.h (not
part of the C standard), it's possible that an intended failure status
value might happen to match EXIT_SUCCESS on some standard-compliant
implementation.
?5.1.2.2.3 ?1 of both :1999 and :2011 state that if execution reaches the
closing brace of main without a return statement, that it is equivalent to
returning zero, so even the return statement in this alleged non-portable
example is unnecessary.
On the other hand, the earlier ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) ?5.1.2.2.3 says that
main returning with no value yields an undefined termination status.
-- Eric "not a language lawyer but I play one on the internet" Smith
12 Apr
12 Apr
12:41 p.m.
ons 2017-04-12 klockan 10:57 -0400 skrev Noel Chiappa via cctalk:
If the compiler doesn't have ANSI C prototypes.
What is the meaning of '0' (and the return call itself) on different
platforms ?
C is special because so much of a program's behaviour is 'undefined' and
so everything which goes is ok and so inherently non-portable.
From: Alfred
M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
Noel
1:26 p.m.
From: Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
It boils down to pedantism. The encoding of the above is ASCII, and
the encoding type of a C program is implementation defined. The other
thing is that the abstract machine defined in C can be utterly bogus,
i.e. not capable of executing anything due to various implementation
specified environment limitations.
Ofcourse, this is all academic ... and I don't know any such idiotic
implementation.
2:28 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt via cctalk once stated:
Name *ONE* computer langauge where this *ISN'T* the case. Until then,
I'll consider this a completely bogus claim. Meanwhile, is *this* better?
??=include <stdlib.h>
int main(void)
??<
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
??>
So that it might be possible to convert this obviously ASCII rendition of a
C progran into EBCDIC?
From: Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
It boils down to pedantism. The encoding of the above is ASCII, and
the encoding type of a C program is implementation defined. The other
thing is that the abstract machine defined in C can be utterly bogus,
i.e. not capable of executing anything due to various implementation
specified environment limitations.
Citation required. Plus a real-world example. Because otherwise I think
you're skirting very close to Troll Territory here ...
Ofcourse, this is all academic ... and I don't
know any such idiotic
implementation.
Or an annoying level of pedanticism here ...
-spc (Seriously, citation required ... )
13 Apr
13 Apr
2:48 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt via cctalk once stated:
Name *ONE* computer langauge where this *ISN'T* the case. Until then,
I'll consider this a completely bogus claim. Meanwhile, is *this* better?
The input alphabet is implementation defined, if you want portable you
cannot depend on implementation defined behaviour. But you clearly
haven't bothered reading the C standard, so you probobly should do
that now.
From: Alfred M. Szmidt
No even the following program:
int main (void) { return 0; }
is guaranteed to work
I'm missing something: why not?
It boils down to pedantism. The encoding of the above is ASCII, and
the encoding type of a C program is implementation defined.
2655
days inactive
2659
days old
47 comments
28 participants
participants (28)
-
allisonportable＠gmail.com -
ams＠gnu.org -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bhilpert＠shaw.ca -
billdegnan＠gmail.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
echristopherson＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
imp＠bsdimp.com -
isking＠uw.edu -
jecel＠merlintec.com -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
jsw＠ieee.org -
jwsmail＠jwsss.com -
north＠alum.mit.edu -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
pete＠petelancashire.com -
RichA＠livingcomputers.org -
rodsmallwood52＠btinternet.com -
spacewar＠gmail.com -
spc＠conman.org -
stefan.skoglund＠agj.net -
steven＠malikoff.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au -
turing＠shaw.ca -
wilson＠dbit.com