Christopherson via cctalk
> 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 v
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
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
So, whence APL today?
Still live
At SMECC we have a very curious laptop with a little tape drive in it
that seems to take small dictation size tapes. The little laptop has a
rounded top to it. Mfr name on tip of tongue ... but ...
It live in one of the Glass chasses .. wonder how scarce they are?
only seen the one
__
From: cctalk on behalf of Eric Christopherson
via cctalk
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 Thai
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
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> ...
>> ...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?
>
> Stil
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 08:05:39AM -0500, Eric Christopherson via cctalk wrote:
>> 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 tute
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> 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
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
On 4/13/2017 7:42 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
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.
L
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
> > On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> > > So, whence APL today?
> >
> > Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
> > cha
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> 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 w
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 t
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:
> > So, whence APL today?
>
> Still lives on -- Dyalog, J, K, etc. Recently discovered the #jsoftware
> channel on Freenode for APL fans.
I consider Matlab and Julia to be spirit
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 04/13/2017 12:30 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
>> 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
On 2017-04-13 6:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
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
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.
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:
>> 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.
>>
>> Be
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, geneb via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
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 offer
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, geneb via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
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 offer
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
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
privat
On 04/13/2017 12:30 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
> 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
>
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
I've always said a bad programmer can write bad code in any language.
That said, language features that help a good programmer write better code
go a long way.
- Diane
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:04:22AM -0400, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
> > From: Rod Smallwood
>
> > All computer com
> From: Rod Smallwood
> All computer computer languages are only as good or bad as the person
> using them.
True words. I'd rather work on a program written in assembly language,
done by a _really good_ programmer, than a program written in _anything_,
done by a bad one. (My classic e
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt via cctalk once stated:
>
>> 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 was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt once stated:
>It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via cctalk once stated:
>> > From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>>
>> > No even the following program:
>> > int main (void) { return 0; }
>>
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
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@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
>> should be:
>>
>> #include
>> int main(void) { return EXIT
languages fault but most programming languages
don't make it any easier.
Dwight
From: cctalk on behalf of Eric Smith via cctalk
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:33:38 PM
To: Sean Conner; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: If C
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Sean Conner via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I mean, pedantically, it
> should be:
>
> #include
> int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
>
> where EXIT_SUCCESS is 0 on every plaform except
On 4/12/2017 10:15 AM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote:
All computer computer languages are only as good or bad as the person
using them.
I suspect today that few people map any computer langauges to real
hardware other than virtual machines.
Rod
Ben.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk
wrote:
> 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:
>>> > From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>>>
>>> > No even the following program:
>>
On 4/12/2017 9:08 AM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote:
Assembler is a sports car kit.
More like the VW BUG. It gets you there, but needs more
...
I suspect C was successful just because the 11 could handle
characters cleanly.
Ben.
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:
>> > From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>>
>> > No even the following program:
>> > int main (void) { return 0; }
>> > is guaranteed to
It was thus said that the Great Alfred M. Szmidt via cctalk once stated:
>
>> 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 pedant
I think a better question is "Why do you choose to write C (or any other
language)?"
I can speak for myself--I can't say for sure, but I've written at least
hundreds of thousands of line of assembly (not "assembler", please!)
language, much of it on mainframes, back when mainframes were fairly
slo
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via cctalk once stated:
> > From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>
> > No even the following program:
> > int main (void) { return 0; }
> > is guaranteed to work
>
> I'm missing something: why not?
Yeah, I'm having a h
> 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 implementat
ons 2017-04-12 klockan 10:57 -0400 skrev Noel Chiappa via cctalk:
> > 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
>
If the compiler doesn't have ANS
>
>
> On 12/04/2017 16:08, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote:
>
>> Assembler is a sports car kit.
>>
>> From: "cctalk"
>> To: "cctalk"
>> Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:57:07 AM
>> Subject: R
On 12/04/2017 16:08, Norman Jaffe via cctalk wrote:
Assembler is a sports car kit.
From: "cctalk"
To: "cctalk"
Cc: j...@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 t
It was thus said that the Great Noel Chiappa via cctalk once stated:
> > From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>
> > No even the following program:
> > int main (void) { return 0; }
> > is guaranteed to work
>
> I'm missing something: why not?
Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too. I
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 Wils
Assembler is a sports car kit.
From: "cctalk"
To: "cctalk"
Cc: j...@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 ma
> 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! :-) Inter
On 2017-04-12 12:11, Tor Arntsen via cctalk wrote:
>> C is like sports cars: A lot of people want them, some can afford them
>> but very few can actually drive them.
>
> I completely disagree. That is just a made-up comparision. E.g.: C
> compilers are for the most part free (as in 'gratis') the
“C” is successful because it is evil.
It is so easy to write a piece of dirty code that will do the job in hand, on
the current platform, that is devoid of error checking but which gets the jobs
done.
It becomes evil when the code is re-purposed from a one off into production
code.
> C is like sports cars: A lot of people want them, some can afford them
> but very few can actually drive them.
I completely disagree. That is just a made-up comparision. E.g.: C
compilers are for the most part free (as in 'gratis') these days. And
there a probably more competent C programmers ar
> if it's not portable then it might as well be assembly and get the
> benefits that come with that.
Sorry, I don't agree. It _is_ possible to write portable code, but even
ignoring that, the benfits of writing in a higher-level language (good
control structures, complex exp
> > if it's not portable then it might as well be assembly and get the
> > benefits that come with that.
>
> Sorry, I don't agree. It _is_ possible to write portable code, but even
> ignoring that, the benfits of writing in a higher-level language (good
> control structures, complex expre
> From: John Wilson
> It would have been nice if it had stolen FORTRAN-77's idea of declaring
> a variable in the size that you want (I'm talking about INTEGER*2 vs.
> INTEGER*4 etc.), instead of just "knowing" what the difference is
> between int and long
Back in the late 70'
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:38:22PM -0400, Charles Dickman via cctalk wrote:
>Subject: If C is so evil why is it so successful?
Seriously, I think the #1 reason is that K&R was fantasically well-written.
If you barely skim that book, you know C.
It's *almost* a good low(-ish)-level language, but u
On 2017-04-11 8:38 PM, Charles Dickman via cctalk wrote:
Google "worse is better". Richard P. Gabriel's phrase, I think.
--T
Because "evil" and "successful" are not mutually exclusive.
I would suggest that the premise (“C is so evil”) of your question (“why is {C}
so successful?”) is incorrect.
No C is not evil, yes it is wildly successful.
Now the ++ in C++…. THAT is evil ;)
J
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Charles
Dickman via cct
> On Apr 11, 2017, at 5:38 PM, Charles Dickman via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>
Because people are too lazy to use Ada.
Zane
57 matches
Mail list logo
