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
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.
Bob
On 2013-04-05 19:32, Bob Armstrong wrote:
Mod2 and Mod3 were done in DEC research group, mostly by from ex-PARC folks
that had done Cedar et al
I can't say for sure, but I think the one I have (which I posted to this
group a while ago) descends from Niklaus himself.
From the MVCOMPILER.MOD file -
(****************************************
* *
* MODULA-2 Multi-Pass Compiler *
* **************************** *
* *
* VAX/VMS Implementation *
* *
* *
* MVCompiler: *
* *
* private part of the common base *
* of the Modula-2 compiler *
* *
* Version 3.1 of 1-FEB-1983 *
* *
* *
* *
* Based on PDP11 Implementation: *
* Version M22 of 17.03.81 *
* *
* Institut fuer Informatik *
* ETH-Zuerich *
* CH-8092 Zuerich *
* *
****************************************)
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?
Johnny
On 2013-04-05 18:26, Bob Armstrong wrote:
*>*Coral66 was the name. I have a manual for it.
I have to admit that I d never heard of Coral before, but I did some
reading and although it looks like Algol, I suspect that it s not close
enough to be useful. Sounds like Coral was intended for embedded
systems and real time use and, in besides other syntactic differences,
it lacks any kind of standard I/O library.
FWIW, the Wikipedia article has a link to the source for a Coral
compiler if anybody is interested. It s written in BCPL, so good luck :-)
I seem to remember that I have BCPL for RSX... Ah, yes... It's installed on MIM::, all the stuff sits in MIM::DU:[BCPL]
Johnny
Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Bob Armstrong" <bob at jfcl.com <mailto:bob at jfcl.com>>
*Sender: *owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
*Date: *Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:57:11 -0700
*To: *<hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE>>
*ReplyTo: *hecnet at Update.UU.SE <mailto:hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
*Subject: *[HECnet] Algol compiler for VAX/VMS?
Is there an Algol (probably the Algol68 dialect, but I m flexible)
for VAX/VMS?
Thanks,
Bob
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
According to the documentation:
a68g - Algol 68 Genie, an Algol 68 compiler-interpreter
Not sure what that concludes, if anything.
DESCRIPTION
Algol 68 Genie (Algol68G) is an Algol 68 compiler-interpreter. It can be used for executing Algol 68 programs or
scripts. Algol 68 is a rather lean orthogonal general-purpose language that is a beautiful means for denoting
algorithms. Algol 68 was designed as a general-purpose programming language by IFIP Working Group 2.1 (Algorith
mic Languages and Calculi) that has continuing responsibility for Algol 60 and Algol 68.
Algol 68 Genie and its documentation can be obtained from
http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/
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.
