One VT340 emulator that works quite well is the VT Lan 40. This was one
of the last terminals made by DEC. It ran Windows 3.1 from ROM and
used the LK411-AA keyboard (with the round PC keyboard connector)
displaying on a Super VGA LCD display (1024 x 768 x 16 colors)
It could connect to
On 2021-06-23 6:48 p.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Somewhat related to the point of compiling and executing mixed together is a very strange hack I saw in the
Electrologica assembler for the X8 (the company issue one, not one of the various ones built at various labs
for that machine). It
Hi Paul - the images are on-line, I blame my inept typing and editing
skills for not properly deleting that line. Originally I wrote that line as
they are not on-line via CHM. But, I thought to look on Al's site and of
course there they are. Which is the important thing - that people can get
On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 20:48 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> In other words, you can assemble some code, execute it, then go back
> to assembling the rest of the source text. Cute. Suppose you want
> to do something too hard for macros; just assemble its input data,
> followed by some code
Somewhat related to the point of compiling and executing mixed together is a
very strange hack I saw in the Electrologica assembler for the X8 (the company
issue one, not one of the various ones built at various labs for that machine).
It is essentially a "load and go" assembler, so the code
On 6/23/21 2:18 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> I meant "reduce to machine language" (give or take threaded code or library
> function calls). It really doesn't seem to be any particular problem.
> There's nothing about compilers that prevents them from being invoked in the
> middle of an
How you'd do such in Forth depends on the threading method. You have Indirect
threaded, direct threaded and call threaded. As you move to the right, they are
faster and easier to add optimization but harder to deal with some of the
higher level operations like Create Does> ( older Forth would
> On Jun 23, 2021, at 5:02 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>
> On 6/23/21 1:14 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> I don't remember the details at this point, but I assume the "execute TECO
>> macro" operation in the Stevens PDP-10 TECO compiler is done in that way.
>> And of course these could keep the
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:42:22AM -0700, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> I have a vague recollection of a story about a FORTH processor that put
> the addresses of the functions to be executed on the return-address stack
> (68000?) and then executed a RETURN instruction.
I was initially
On 6/23/21 1:14 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> I don't remember the details at this point, but I assume the "execute TECO
> macro" operation in the Stevens PDP-10 TECO compiler is done in that way.
> And of course these could keep the compiled code around to reuse if the
> source string hasn't
> On Jun 23, 2021, at 2:44 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> There are the languages that are otherwise nearly impossible to compile.
>
> Consider SNOBOL4 (although there is a compiled version called SPITBOL,
> but without several hard-to-implement features). One can construct
>
There are the languages that are otherwise nearly impossible to compile.
Consider SNOBOL4 (although there is a compiled version called SPITBOL,
but without several hard-to-implement features). One can construct
statements at run time and execute them. A bit unusual back then, but
not so much
On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:36 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> Typical FORTH implementations are neat in that respect, since they
> use a threaded code encoding that allows for fast and efficient
> switching between threaded code (subroutine calls) and straight
> machine code.
I have a vague
On 6/23/2021 10:25 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
On 6/23/21 10:17 AM, Lee Courtney via cctalk wrote:
Many years (decades?) ago Dave Babcock and I read all the cards as
part of
the original 1620 project at CHM.
There has been a steady stream of misinformation about CHM's 1620 in
the
> On Jun 23, 2021, at 1:22 PM, Stan Sieler via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Paul K got it right:
> "Any language can be interpreted or compiled. For some languages, like
> LISP and TECO, interpreting is a rather natural implementation techniques,
> while for others (C, ALGOL) compilation is the
> On Jun 23, 2021, at 1:17 PM, Lee Courtney via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> "A Purdue professor had a 20-drawer card file of 1620 software. The fire
> marshall insisted he had to get rid of it. I understand he gave it to
> CHM. Is it still there?"
>
> Yes. Catalog entry here:
>
On 6/23/21 10:17 AM, Lee Courtney via cctalk wrote:
Many years (decades?) ago Dave Babcock and I read all the cards as part of
the original 1620 project at CHM.
There has been a steady stream of misinformation about CHM's 1620 in the past
week. I had been staying out of making any comments
Paul K got it right:
"Any language can be interpreted or compiled. For some languages, like
LISP and TECO, interpreting is a rather natural implementation techniques,
while for others (C, ALGOL) compilation is the obvious answer. But either
is possible."
A few quick notes...
Back around 1973,
"A Purdue professor had a 20-drawer card file of 1620 software. The fire
marshall insisted he had to get rid of it. I understand he gave it to
CHM. Is it still there?"
Yes. Catalog entry here:
https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102710141
Many years (decades?) ago Dave Babcock
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:46:13PM -0700, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote:
> Is there a G-15 emulator?
I wrote a simulator yers ago. I don't think it is online ATM,
I will have to check.
Rob Kolstad is apparently also working on one. We keep meaning to
cross-check each others' work but
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021, Ethan Dicks wrote:
I would love some sample ReGIS files, color or B Anything, really.
You can use GNUplot with the terminal type set to ReGIS.
Christian
Steve Malikoff wrote:
> Douglas said
>> Someone already did this with a TEK4010 emulation: See
>> https://github.com/rricharz/Tek4010
>> Hmmm... You could use a Raspberry Pi to emulate a number of terminals.
>
> Interesting that that emulator covers the ARDS.
I collected some notes about ARDS as
Douglas said
> Someone already did this with a TEK4010 emulation: See
>
> https://github.com/rricharz/Tek4010
>
> Hmmm... You could use a Raspberry Pi to emulate a number of terminals.
Interesting that that emulator covers the ARDS.
Surely there can't have been too many graphics terminals for
On 6/22/2021 11:46 PM, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote:
| The same goes for Multics
I think the 80286 was a better platform than the original for Multics.
And, of course, the Pentium is even better. Is Multics available for
Intel systems?
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Intel's
On Tue, 2021-06-22 at 19:45 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>
> There's actually a surprising amount of preserved material Both
> in source form, and both run in emulation.
I re-created the Bendix G-15 Intercom 2000 from a manual. Not running,
of course, on a real G-15. Is there a
25 matches
Mail list logo
