There was the Algol derivative used mainly by the British armed
forces. Coral66 was the name. I have a manual for it.
The /780 where I cut my VMS teeth (VMS 3.3 or so) had help for CORAL66,
but I don't recall it being installed. Did DEC have a compiler as a
product for a while? It's not on the earliest SPL I have.
I'd love to find a copy of a VMS CORAL66 compiler somewhere. Would be
interesting to find a JOVIAL compiler as well.
De
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
Interesting. I just connected to there via ftp looks like only Modula-3 is up there now. ;)
Yep - the DEC Mod compiler morphed into Mod3 (aka "Red" or CMU's "Tartan") for the history bufs among us,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM, <Paul_Koning at dell.com> wrote:
BTW, please note that Algol 60 and Algol 68 are entirely different languages. Algol 68 is at least as distant from Algol 60 as Modula-2 is. The similarity in names is quite misleading.
Amen - which is why if all you want is Algol, I mentioned the awe compiler. Algol-W was Wirth's attempt at a teaching compiler when he was at Stanford and was originally in PL/360. It's a very simple language, just does Algol60 plus some small extras. From that experience he wanted a "better Algol." He would return to Europe and end up on a CDC box, which is why the original Pascal report is funky 6 bit based language. Since both Algol-W and Pascal were design to be teaching tools, not production tools, they lack support for things like separate compilation (i.e. modules and libraries).
Try three was Modula and was short lived. Second systems effect of the Pascal issues, and it was not until Modula 2 that he finally got it down to a reasonable language. Modula-3 was a tuning of Mod2 in reaction to what we become Ada.
Clem
On 2013-04-05 20:10, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Ooo. I have almost all the parts of the PDP-11 implementation. Missing
one file or two... You don't happen to have more of this stuff, do you?
I don't have the PDP-11 version, no. Sorry.
Well, the one or two files missing are modula files that might not be that different for the VAX, if I'm lucky....
Could you share what you do have?
Johnny
On 5 Apr 2013, at 14:26, "Clem Cole" <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
>Mod2 and Mod3 were done in DEC research group, mostly by from ex-PARC folks
that had done Cedar et al
ftp:/gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/dec/modula-2/m2.tar.z
Interesting. I just connected to there via ftp looks like only Modula-3 is up there now. ;)
Was the version I was referring.
The MVCompiler is of course the version from ETH
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
>Mod2 and Mod3 were done in DEC research group, mostly by from ex-PARC folks
that had done Cedar et al
ftp:/gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/dec/modula-2/m2.tar.z
Was the version I was referring.
The MVCompiler is of course the version from ETH
Call by name shouldn't be that hard. Basically it means constructing the implied function, and passing a reference to that function. Incidentally, Algol 68 does not have call by name, that's one of the Algol 60 oddities that it dropped (just as everyone else did).
If you want BEA, you could start with PDP-11 Algol -- which is basically a 16 bit subset of BEA.
paul
On Apr 5, 2013, at 2:20 PM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
wrote:
How difficult is it to implement call by name? I've always assumed that call by reference got popular because it's easier. Call by name may be rather powerful (or complex :) like Jensen's device.
Once you got that, would it be possible to grow it into a Burroughs Extended Algol compiler :-) ?
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:11:48
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] Algol compiler for VAX/VMS?
On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Mark Wickens wrote:
On 05/04/2013 17:36, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
Bob There is also a full Algol68 compiler called algol68g http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol.html-- but that one is targeted to Intel CPUs. I suppose you could write a new back end... paul
This might be worth a look - isn't it an interpreter rather than a compiler? You chuck an .a68 file at it and it runs it.
Otherwise, I might be wrong ;)
Regards, Mark.
It's described as a compiler, I haven't tried it yet.
BTW, please note that Algol 60 and Algol 68 are entirely different languages. Algol 68 is at least as distant from Algol 60 as Modula-2 is. The similarity in names is quite misleading.
Not only are the languages very different, but so is the implementation complexity. An Algol 60 compiler is not all that hard. One could easily imagine trimming down the Pascal front end for GCC to do Algol 60 instead. There are one or two oddball things to cope with (like call by name) but apart from that, it's not difficult to parse and introduces no great complexities. Algol 68 is a very different matter. The ALgol 68 G page talks about its context sensitive grammar and various other things that might explain why algol68g is a separate implementation rather than a GCC front end. (Too bad it isn't, then you'd have a VAX port at the cost of a build, give or take the GCC VAX code generation bugs.)
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE]
On Behalf Of Paul_Koning at Dell.com
Sent: 05 April 2013 19:12
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] Algol compiler for VAX/VMS?
On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Mark Wickens wrote:
On 05/04/2013 17:36, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
Bob There is also a full Algol68 compiler called algol68g
http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol.html-- but that one is targeted to
Intel
CPUs. I suppose you could write a new back end... paul
This might be worth a look - isn't it an interpreter rather than a
compiler?
You chuck an .a68 file at it and it runs it.
Otherwise, I might be wrong ;)
Regards, Mark.
It's described as a compiler, I haven't tried it yet.
BTW, please note that Algol 60 and Algol 68 are entirely different
languages. Algol 68 is at least as distant from Algol 60 as Modula-2 is.
The
similarity in names is quite misleading.
Not only are the languages very different, but so is the implementation
complexity. An Algol 60 compiler is not all that hard. One could easily
imagine trimming down the Pascal front end for GCC to do Algol 60 instead.
There are one or two oddball things to cope with (like call by name) but
apart from that, it's not difficult to parse and introduces no great
complexities. Algol 68 is a very different matter. The ALgol 68 G page
talks
about its context sensitive grammar and various other things that might
explain why algol68g is a separate implementation rather than a GCC front
end. (Too bad it isn't, then you'd have a VAX port at the cost of a
build, give
or take the GCC VAX code generation bugs.)
paul
[Rob Jarratt]
I used to mess about with Algol 68, a really interesting language. I used to
use Algol68C on a DECSYSTEM-20. I have often looked to see if I could find a
copy but have never succeeded. If anyone knows where a copy might be found
that would be amazing!
Regards
Rob
How difficult is it to implement call by name? I've always assumed that call by reference got popular because it's easier. Call by name may be rather powerful (or complex :) like Jensen's device.
Once you got that, would it be possible to grow it into a Burroughs Extended Algol compiler :-) ?
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:11:48
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] Algol compiler for VAX/VMS?
On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Mark Wickens wrote:
On 05/04/2013 17:36, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
Bob There is also a full Algol68 compiler called algol68g http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol.html-- but that one is targeted to Intel CPUs. I suppose you could write a new back end... paul
This might be worth a look - isn't it an interpreter rather than a compiler? You chuck an .a68 file at it and it runs it.
Otherwise, I might be wrong ;)
Regards, Mark.
It's described as a compiler, I haven't tried it yet.
BTW, please note that Algol 60 and Algol 68 are entirely different languages. Algol 68 is at least as distant from Algol 60 as Modula-2 is. The similarity in names is quite misleading.
Not only are the languages very different, but so is the implementation complexity. An Algol 60 compiler is not all that hard. One could easily imagine trimming down the Pascal front end for GCC to do Algol 60 instead. There are one or two oddball things to cope with (like call by name) but apart from that, it's not difficult to parse and introduces no great complexities. Algol 68 is a very different matter. The ALgol 68 G page talks about its context sensitive grammar and various other things that might explain why algol68g is a separate implementation rather than a GCC front end. (Too bad it isn't, then you'd have a VAX port at the cost of a build, give or take the GCC VAX code generation bugs.)
paul
On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Mark Wickens wrote:
On 05/04/2013 17:36, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
Bob There is also a full Algol68 compiler called algol68g http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol.html-- but that one is targeted to Intel CPUs. I suppose you could write a new back end... paul
This might be worth a look - isn't it an interpreter rather than a compiler? You chuck an .a68 file at it and it runs it.
Otherwise, I might be wrong ;)
Regards, Mark.
It's described as a compiler, I haven't tried it yet.
BTW, please note that Algol 60 and Algol 68 are entirely different languages. Algol 68 is at least as distant from Algol 60 as Modula-2 is. The similarity in names is quite misleading.
Not only are the languages very different, but so is the implementation complexity. An Algol 60 compiler is not all that hard. One could easily imagine trimming down the Pascal front end for GCC to do Algol 60 instead. There are one or two oddball things to cope with (like call by name) but apart from that, it's not difficult to parse and introduces no great complexities. Algol 68 is a very different matter. The ALgol 68 G page talks about its context sensitive grammar and various other things that might explain why algol68g is a separate implementation rather than a GCC front end. (Too bad it isn't, then you'd have a VAX port at the cost of a build, give or take the GCC VAX code generation bugs.)
paul
