On 2020-05-30 15:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2020, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
Oh, FORTRAN can do likewise--I suspect that most languages can be
coaxed
(perhaps with some assembly-language subroutines)to do something
nasty.
"A real programmer can write a FORTRAN program in any language."
But, a REAL programmer, such as Chuck, can write any language program
in FORTRAN.
Microsoft FORTRAN-80 was actually pretty decent. I wrote a utility to
transfer PDP-11 RX01-formatted floppy files to CP/M using it, but for
the disk access routines themselves, which were done in M80. I still
have the disk with the source code.
Because F80 was uncharacteristically decent, I assumed that it wasn't
really a Microsoft product.
Intel FORTRAN for ISIS-II was a massive undertaking, according to the
Intel folks I spoke with. Expensive, too.
In addition to GWBASIC, don't forget BASCOM, the Microsoft BASIC
compiler.
It's top two uses were
1) a small speed improvement
2) marketing a program written in BASIC without revealing the source
code.
Another indication that MS really didn't know how to write compilers.
At an NCC (I think; it may have been a COMDEX or WCCF--they all sort of
blur together after 40-some years), a few fellows took it on themselves
to benchmark BASIC compilers lurking about in the floor. Our
compile-to-pcode compiler consistently beat the trousers off of BASCOM.
You can see evidence of that on the web where various mini and micro
BASICs were benchmarked. The 80286 port of ours came in just below a
VAX 11/780 and ahead of the microprocessor crowd, including some NS32032
systems. And we were mult-user in addition.
I still have my original design document printed on greenbar
tractor-feed paper on a Teletype Model 40 line printer. Three of us
wrote the whole thing in four months, complete with math and runtime.
I have the t-shirt to prove it.
Please excuse the horn-tooting, but there are a few things that I'm
still proud of--and a lot of abominations that I don't want to talk
about.
--Chuck
