Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

I stand corrected. -- Eric Korpela korp...@ssl.berkeley.edu AST:7731^29u18e3

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > GCC supports legacy Fortran code, so I have filed PR fortran/95631 to > track this bug, at: . > Let's see what emerges. So the response from GCC Fortran experts is as follows: "[...] Yes,

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, 31 May 2020, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > C > C CHANGE THE VALUE OF 4 > C > > CALL INC(4) > WRITE (*, 30) 4 > 30FORMAT ('2+2=',I4) > END > > SUBROUTINE INC(I) > I = I + 1 > END > > OUTPUT > 2+2= 5 Hmm, as a matter of interest

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 03:52, Richard Cini via cctalk wrote: > > You know, reading about this made me dig out the info I had on the Character > Oriented Windows ("COW") library. I was reading some of the docs and it > occurred to me that it operated much like Windows (probably Windows 1), but

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

;cctalk" Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 11:40:10 PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 00:14, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > C > C CHANGE THE VALUE OF 4 > C > > CALL INC(4) > WRITE (*, 30) 4 > 30 FORMAT ('2+2=',I4) > END

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 00:14, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > C > C CHANGE THE VALUE OF 4 > C > > CALL INC(4) > WRITE (*, 30) 4 > 30FORMAT ('2+2=',I4) > END > > SUBROUTINE INC(I) > I = I + 1 > END > > OUTPUT > 2+2= 5 I had no idea, and I

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 01:57, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > A Tesla is a rather expensive electric car, a product of Elon Musk. > STARTING (minimal stripped down) at 40,000 pounds, and some models over > 80,000 pounds. > > Sell one of THOSE, and you can buy a car AND a lot of great computer >

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Had to fire up BasiliskII to find out what kind of Fortran I used on Mac in 1988. Turned out it was Absoft Fortran 2.4 and seemed a bit strange as I recall M$ was written on floppies that I got for it. Did a bit of digging on internet today and, surprisingly, Absoft still exists and

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 07:50:18PM -0400, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote: > Which is even funnier when you realize that the PL/M compiler > was written in Fortran. When all you have is a hammer ... mcl

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/31/20 3:13 PM, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > Most languages will give you some way to shoot yourself in the foot. The > question is how much work do you need to do? In FORTRAN the easiest method > was changing the value of a literal in a subroutine call. It is standard > compliant

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/31/20 3:13 PM, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > Most languages will give you some way to shoot yourself in the foot. The > question is how much work do you need to do? In FORTRAN the easiest method > was changing the value of a literal in a subroutine call. It is standard > compliant

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 2020-05-30 14:18, Boris Gimbarzevsky via cctech wrote: Chuck, your post just reminded me of how I used FORTRAN to interface with my PDP-11 ASM routines when I was doing data acquisition as fast as possible on a MINC system. Perused my FORTRAN code about 6 months ago and had common blocks and

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:50 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was > unrelated > > to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Sent from my iPhone. > On May 31, 2020, at 9:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon > wrote: > > On 5/31/20 8:35 PM, Mich.com wrote: >> Sent from my iPhone. On May 31, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >>> >>> On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On the

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/31/20 8:35 PM, Mich.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone. On May 31, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Sent from my iPhone. > On May 31, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > > On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: >> On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated >> to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

He amassed a huge collection, then sold the lot and bought a Tesla. :-) On Mon, 1 Jun 2020, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote: Assuming a 'Tesla' is an electric car, I'd rather be in the reverse position (selling said car and being able to buy some interesting old computers...)] A Tesla is a

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/31/20 2:24 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On the other hand, Intel also had a FORTRAN-80 product, which was unrelated to Microsoft FORTRAN-80. Intel FOTRAN-80 ran on their MDS development systems under the ISIS-II operating system, and the compiler was written in PL/M. Which is even

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:53 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 19:56, Tony Duell wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:24 PM Liam Proven via cctalk > > wrote: > > > > There were also some pretty high-spec British microcomputers, but they > > tended to flop owing to

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Most languages will give you some way to shoot yourself in the foot. The question is how much work do you need to do? In FORTRAN the easiest method was changing the value of a literal in a subroutine call. It is standard compliant behavior that goes back to at least FORTRAN IV. Current

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

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

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 19:56, Tony Duell wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:24 PM Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: > > There were also some pretty high-spec British microcomputers, but they > tended to flop owing to the price. Things like the HH Tiger (did it > ever go into production?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Chuck, your post just reminded me of how I used FORTRAN to interface with my PDP-11 ASM routines when I was doing data acquisition as fast as possible on a MINC system. Perused my FORTRAN code about 6 months ago and had common blocks and a routine which took "arrays" which were essential

RE: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote: -Original Message- From: cctalk On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: At the risk of fanning the language fire, C seems to be a smaller step up from native machine language than most other

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. It was written in Microsoft Pascal. On Sat, 30 May 2020, John Foust via cctalk wrote: Really! How does this connect to Microsoft's FORTRAN-80 for CP/M circa 1977?

Re: PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 3:27 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > >> One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first > >> version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. > >> It was written in Microsoft Pascal. > > On Sat, 30 May 2020, John Foust via cctalk wrote: > >

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

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

PC Fortran (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. It was written in Microsoft Pascal. On Sat, 30 May 2020, John Foust via cctalk wrote: Really! How does this connect to Microsoft's FORTRAN-80 for CP/M circa 1977?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

At 05:05 PM 5/29/2020, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first version of >Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. >It was written in Microsoft Pascal. Really! How does this connect to Microsoft's FORTRAN-80 for CP/M circa 1977?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

the value of 5 for all programs on the machine. 2) Naming a program with my first name (Norm) and having it go into an infinite loop when it did a floating point calculation. From: "cctalk" To: "cctalk" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 4:32:38 PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sourc

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On May 29, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk > wrote: > > On 5/29/2020 4:06 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> >>> On May 29, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk >>> wrote: >>> >>> C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. >>> It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/20 3:41 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Yes, a pointer to the PC Interrupt Vector Table could be problematic. > > C lets you do a lot of things that some other languages will protect you > from.  Accordingly, Allen Holub titled one of his books about C, "Enough > Rope To Shoot Yourself

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/2020 5:08 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: At the risk of fanning the language fire, C seems to be a smaller step up from native machine language than most other languages.  It's like 80% of the portability with 20% of the effort

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Yes. But the same is true for many languages. Fortran is a particularly good example, but there are plenty of portable languages (Algol, Basic, LISP, Python, COBOL, Ada, RPG, ...). Some more than C; for example, C doesn't like one's

RE: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon > via cctalk > Sent: 29 May 2020 23:09 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC > > On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > > > > At the risk o

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/20 5:24 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: At the risk of fanning the language fire, C seems to be a smaller step up from native machine language than most other languages.  It's like 80% of the portability with 20% of the effort of writing directly in ASM. PL/M? bill

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020, ben via cctalk wrote: BTW Microsoft also had Fortan, You don't hear much about that. Ben. One reaason why you don't hear much about that is because the first version of Microsoft Fortran for the PC wasn't real great. It was slow. A Sieve Of Erastothanes benchmark

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/2020 4:06 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: On May 29, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote: C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and it doesn't depend on Unix. Yes. But the same is true for many languages. Fortran is a

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> On May 29, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk > wrote: > > C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. > It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and it doesn't depend on Unix. Yes. But the same is true for many languages. Fortran is a particularly good example, but there are

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

C is portable by design and runs on many architectures. It doesn't need 512Kb of RAM and it doesn't depend on Unix. From: "cctalk" To: "cctalk" Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:20:56 PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC On 5/29/2020 12:42 PM, John Foust via cc

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/29/2020 12:42 PM, John Foust via cctalk wrote: At 10:59 AM 5/29/2020, Jecel Assumpcao Jr via cctech wrote: The modern variation of the Turing Tarpit. At least they come to this illusion honestly given that you even have people who think implementing Forth in C is the way to go. What, are

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

At 10:59 AM 5/29/2020, Jecel Assumpcao Jr via cctech wrote: >The modern variation of the Turing Tarpit. At least they come to this >illusion honestly given that you even have people who think implementing >Forth in C is the way to go. What, are you saying that someone couldn't write some Perl or

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:24 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > We had simple cheap low-spec computers because American high-end > computers were impossibly expensive. There were also some pretty high-spec British microcomputers, but they tended to flop owing to the price. Things like the HH

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 18:17, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > > > > And I have had earnest youngsters on Twitter and elsewhere very > > seriously tell me that _no_ language could even theoretically be > > immune to the problems of C, because _all_ languages are implemented > > in C at the lowest

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 2020-05-29 8:20 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 21:40, John Ames wrote: > >> Agreed. While I'm much more favorably disposed towards C than you are, >> the increasing homogeneity of almost all modern languages is >> discouraging ... > > Indeed so. > > And I have

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Liam Proven wrote on Fri, 29 May 2020 14:20:53 +0200 > And I have had earnest youngsters on Twitter and elsewhere very > seriously tell me that _no_ language could even theoretically be > immune to the problems of C, because _all_ languages are implemented > in C at the lowest level. The modern

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 21:40, John Ames wrote: > Agreed. While I'm much more favorably disposed towards C than you are, > the increasing homogeneity of almost all modern languages is > discouraging and, I think, detrimental to the field as a whole. Forth > and Smalltalk alike were eye-openers

Re: PRIVATE: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 21:47, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > On Tue, 26 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > >>> I do not know what a "sheering section" means. > >> Typo: "cheering". :-) > > > > Aha! I still didn't know, but that, I could Google. Gotcha. > > In USA urban slang, "sheep" is

Re: ZX81 killers (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:58 PM Jecel Assumpcao Jr via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Jim Brain wrote on Thu, 28 May 2020 18:15:19 -0500 > > On 5/28/2020 1:24 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > > > > >> . Evidently, there exists a lower bound of functionality > > >> of computing

ZX81 killers (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

Jim Brain wrote on Thu, 28 May 2020 18:15:19 -0500 > On 5/28/2020 1:24 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > > >> . Evidently, there exists a lower bound of functionality > >> of computing capability in the US, and the little wedge just didn't make > >> it. > > No no. It wasn't that. It was

Re: TRS80s and TRSDOS (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

PREVIOUS POST: > It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at > the bottom, and RAM at the top. > FMG marketed a "relocated" CP/M for it, but that never caught on. > numerous incompatabilities, and few commercial programs were happy > with the TPA having been moved. >

Re: TRS80s and TRSDOS (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/28/20 6:15 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: TRS80 base model had 4K of RAM (upgradable to 16K), and "Level 1 BASIC" in ROM at the bottom (preventing easy use of CP/M), KiloBaud Microcomputing April 1979 Page 148: FMG Corporation -- CP/M for the TRS-80 That wasn't the one I used but

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote: Is nobody going to mention the cute little MC-10 (the only R-S computer I ever owned, briefly, aside from the M100), purportedly the cheapest colour-capable computer at the time ? The QUESTION (which has been dropped from the quoting chain)

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> Is nobody going to mention the cute little MC-10 (the only R-S computer > I ever owned, briefly, aside from the M100), purportedly the cheapest > colour-capable computer at the time ? The one that Creative Computing infamously referred to as the "poor man's CoCo"? ;) --

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

[NON-CP/M home computers] What IS a "home" computer? I say that an unexpanded TRS80 is a home computer. EXPANDED, it can have other uses. If you take total number sold, MINUS sales of the expansion interface, then you will have the number. Although it was not Z80, the original ads for the

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

PM Subject: Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC > On 5/28/2020 12:38 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: >> >>> Yes. TRS80. >>> >>> It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at the >>> bottom, and RAM at the top. >> Which one?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/28/2020 1:24 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: . Evidently, there exists a lower bound of functionality of computing capability in the US, and the little wedge just didn't make it. No no. It wasn't that. It was _money_. I think we're saying the same thing, but... I agree all things

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/28/2020 4:50 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: I see the 16A and the 12/16B as different sublines, as the II/16A used a passive backplane with cards, while the 12/16B/6000 had a motherboard with the z80 on it, and the card cage

TRS80s and TRSDOS (Was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> > Outside of CP/M were *any* mainstream American home computers Z80 > > based before the C128? Yes. TRS80. It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at the bottom, and RAM at the top. On Thu, 28 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: Which one? "TRS80" was

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > I see the 16A and the 12/16B as different sublines, as the II/16A used a > passive backplane with cards, while the 12/16B/6000 had a motherboard > with the z80 on it, and the card cage was for extensions (and the 68K > card). > > Both

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Jim Brain wrote on Thu, 28 May 2020 15:54:10 -0500 > On 5/28/2020 12:38 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > ? TRS-80 Colour, AKA CoCo -- 6809 > Started life as a farming-related Videotex terminal.  Pics will show the > amazing similarity.  Was a joint venture between Motorola and Tandy, and

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/28/2020 12:38 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: Yes. TRS80. It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at the bottom, and RAM at the top. Which one? As they're purely a theoretical concept to me and AFAIK I've never actually touched one, the profusion of models

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

For want of a POP, Tandy Radio Shack computers became relegated to the scrape heap. Their word processing program, SCRIPSIT, had a bug in the block text copy/move command that garbled large documents. I was able to buy a bunch of Model III/IV from a law firm that switched to MSDOS machines

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 28-05-2020 19:38, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > Now, the *nix weenies who know nothing else thing you could learn > Python in a week. Yeah right. Well, I did... Julf

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 21:11, geneb wrote: CP/M was huge in the US, especially among the S-100 system users. It was a pretty narrow window though - from probably 1978-1982. Kaypro had a good portion of the market as well, but like pretty

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 21:11, geneb wrote: > > CP/M was huge in the US, especially among the S-100 system users. It was > a pretty narrow window though - from probably 1978-1982. Kaypro had a > good portion of the market as well, but like pretty much all the other > manufacturers of CP/M

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, 28 May 2020, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: I guess I am realising that CP/M was a much bigger deal there than here. CP/M was huge in the US, especially among the S-100 system users. It was a pretty narrow window though - from probably 1978-1982. Kaypro had a good portion of the

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 06:01, ben via cctalk wrote: > What keyboard are you using to get the fancy arrows? Unmodified IBM Model M from 1991 in my case. ⇒ is compose, equals, greater-than Snag is, I can't get one going the other way... I get less-than-or-equal-to etc: ≤ ≥ -- Liam Proven –

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 21:52, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > > Well, *I've* heard of them, but I enjoy knowing about such things. Most > in the US do not. *Nod* Shame but it's fair enough. I think there is at the least an article (and possibly an entire university course module) comparing

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:38 PM Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > Americans were oblivious to anything that wasn't in USA. > > Yes. :-( > > > Yes. TRS80. > > > > It had a memory map that was incompatible with CP/M. BASIC in ROM at the > > bottom, and RAM at the top. > > Which one? The Model 1

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 21:35, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > Well, there were some products whose role was to SHEAR THE SHEEP. > The Apple3 belonged in a shearing section. Maybe even the Lisa, although > that wasn't its intended role. (?) > When I taught C, we gave the course a prerequisite

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 2020-05-28 12:01 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 5/27/2020 8:43 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > >>> At the moment I have no wish to fight a web site,to find what should be >>> simple information. >> >> It's a picture. They can be useful. > > That is why clicking with my mouse did nothing. >

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

The fancy arrows in Fira Code are ligatures. (Yuk! I'm not yet a convert) https://www.hanselman.com/blog/MonospacedProgrammingFontsWithLigatures.aspx ASCII-63 had a backward-arrow that disappeared in later revisions of the standard, replaced with underscore (and also an upward-arrow which was

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

> On May 28, 2020, at 12:01 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > ... > What keyboard are you using to get the fancy arrows? A Unicode keyboard? My Mac will happily produce those characters and thousands more. paul

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 5/27/2020 8:43 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: At the moment I have no wish to fight a web site,to find what should be simple information. It's a picture. They can be useful. That is why clicking with my mouse did nothing. I like if eif else fi for if statements. What keyboard are you

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 2020-05-27 9:19 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 5/27/2020 5:47 PM, Toby Thain wrote: >> On 2020-05-27 6:56 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >>> On 5/27/2020 2:42 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: >>> It's easily worked around. This is how a lot of people code today in relatively modern

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 5/27/2020 5:47 PM, Toby Thain wrote: On 2020-05-27 6:56 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: On 5/27/2020 2:42 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: It's easily worked around. This is how a lot of people code today in relatively modern languages: https://imgur.com/ESMFgNb Arg a web page! I'm sorry if

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 2020-05-27 6:56 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 5/27/2020 2:42 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > >> It's easily worked around. This is how a lot of people code today in >> relatively modern languages: >> >> https://imgur.com/ESMFgNb > > Arg a web page! I'm sorry if the sight of a URL is

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 5/27/2020 2:42 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: It's easily worked around. This is how a lot of people code today in relatively modern languages: https://imgur.com/ESMFgNb Arg a web page! The first thing that comes to mind is "How many terrabytes" for "hello World". This might mean

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On May 27, 2020, at 4:59 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > > >> On May 27, 2020, at 4:25 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >> >> On 5/27/2020 1:45 PM, Paul McJones via cctalk wrote: >> >>> Gogol is a simple, integer arithmetic language used under the PDP-1 time >>> sharing system at Stanford.

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

> On May 27, 2020, at 4:25 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > On 5/27/2020 1:45 PM, Paul McJones via cctalk wrote: > >> Gogol is a simple, integer arithmetic language used under the PDP-1 time >> sharing system at Stanford. This memorandum includes the syntactical >> definition of the language

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 2020-05-27 4:25 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 5/27/2020 1:45 PM, Paul McJones via cctalk wrote: > >> Gogol is a simple, integer arithmetic language used under the PDP-1 >> time sharing system at Stanford. This memorandum includes the >> syntactical definition of the language and a number of

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 5/27/2020 1:45 PM, Paul McJones via cctalk wrote: Gogol is a simple, integer arithmetic language used under the PDP-1 time sharing system at Stanford. This memorandum includes the syntactical definition of the language and a number of sample programs as well as a brief description of the

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On 5/27/2020 1:45 PM, Paul McJones via cctalk wrote: And here’s a 1964 Stanford TimeSharing Project Memo by McKeeman and Wirth on Gogol: Gogol is a simple, integer arithmetic language used under the PDP-1 time sharing system at Stanford. This memorandum includes the syntactical definition

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

On May 27, 2020, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > Al Kossow wrote: >>> Algol W was from Eroupe? >> Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there > > I wonder if there's any connection to Stanford's SAIL language? Good question. I believe the answer is “Wirth was initially involved with

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Liam Proven wrote: > I don't know. There is a huge amount of tradition and culture in > computing now, and as a result, few people seem to have informed, > relatively unbiased opinions. There hasn't been much real diversity in > decades. > > 25 or 30y ago, people discussed the merits of Smalltalk

Re: Algol W [was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC]

> On May 26, 2020, Al Kossow wrote: > > On 5/26/20 6:39 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: >> >> >>> Algol W was from Eroupe? >> >> Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there > > Actually, by Dick Sites > >

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/20 9:24 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: On 5/26/2020 1:35 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: Of course, COBOL is even older and also had structures. Not everybody had access to power computing, some had to make do with a PDP 7 and write Unix. You seem to place very high needs on COBOL.

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 27/05/2020 11:55, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: It's better now, though. Price differences can be explained by delivery costs, import duties, and VAT/sales tax. And in the case of 1977, middlemen who exploit the difficulty in importing stuff oneself. The USA is some sort of gravity well

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:19:41PM -0700, Yeechang Lee via cctalk wrote: [...] > Longstanding tradition in the British computers market. > "*New Scientist* stated in 1977 that 'the price of an American kit in dollars > rapidly translates into the same figure in pounds sterling by the time it has

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Fred Cisin says: > But, instead, it looked as though they just replaced the dollar sign > with pound sign, and ignored the exchange rate! So, you paid about > twice as much for the machines. I have heard prices of PET: 600 > pounds (V $600), Apple: 1200 pounds (V$1200), and TRS80: 500 pounds >

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Al Kossow wrote: >> Algol W was from Eroupe? > Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there I wonder if there's any connection to Stanford's SAIL language?

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/20 6:39 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: Algol W was from Eroupe? Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there Actually, by Dick Sites http://bitsavers.org/pdf/stanford/cs_techReports/STAN-CS-71-230_Algol_W_Reference_Manual_Feb72.pdf

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

Algol W was from Eroupe? Algol W was from Stanford, written by Wirth when he was there

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 1:35 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: "did O/S's change" in what way? You had ample memory to run your programs without swapping providing only a few users were online. The IBM PL/I F compiler was available in 1966 and PL/I has structures. It was usable on all "real" System/360

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 6:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > Outside of CP/M were *any* mainstream American home computers Z80 > > based before the C128? Yes.  TRS80. I guess that I just have the wrong definition of "home computer". It is subjective, and I will concede that MY definition may not

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> > Outside of CP/M were *any* mainstream American home computers Z80 > > based before the C128? Yes.?? TRS80. Should we include Murray's Adam? (what percentage of Adam owners bought the add-on disk drives?) Even the 5150 was a home computer with cassette, and no drives. How many people

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

> FOlks know about IBM, > but most don't know they still make mainframes and midrange (OS400 or > whatever it is called now) machines, and Burroughs, Funny thing is that even many IBMers I come across do not realize that Unisys is still in the mainframe business, and still actively develops

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:52 PM Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > FOlks know about IBM, > but most don't know they still make mainframes and midrange (OS400 or > whatever it is called now) machines, and Burroughs, Wang, Amdahl, > Hitachi are missed. , Super computer is forever linked with Cray, but

Re: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC

On 5/26/2020 2:34 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Yes.  TRS80. Hmm, I always thought of the Model 1,3,4 (and the II/12/16/6000) as business machines, like the Kaypro and such, not home computers, but I guess I consider the PET a non home computer as well. Jim

  1   2   >