On 1/15/2013 12:45 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
All of that's already up. I just need to get python working. I even installed GNV as I had the disk space...
Get python working and install the pexpect module and you'll be my hero.
Then fix my blasted system. :)
-brian
On 15 Jan 2013, at 12:42, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 12:39 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013, at 12:37, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 12:15 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Sure you don't want to play with an account on my Alpha?;)
Yeah, I might just take you up on that at some point, but for now I'd really like to get something that I can haul around with me on my laptop.
Let me know. The box is going to stay on for awhile. ;)
If you set me something up I wouldn't complain. I'll need ssh/scp, vim (although that's optional) and python. :)
All of that's already up. I just need to get python working. I even installed GNV as I had the disk space...
What's the host NIC?
I'm noe of using VMware's "host only" network adapters which I believe is just a loopback adapter.
I'm tempted to spin up a loopback adapter for this, however, just to be sure.
Probably best. I didn't notice any reliability issues attaching it to a physical interface on my system.
You know what? I take that all back. I'm already using a loopback for IP connectivity. Forgot about that.
Bah.
-brian
On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:15 PM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
wrote:
There was a port of the Burroughs Large Systems algol compiler for RT11.
I have one on a DECtape I.
It compiled test programs that I had written for, and copied from the B7700. Burroughs Extended Algol beats C Bliss hands down as tool to write compilers and os's in.
The same one, give or take some edits, I believe. Originally by Barry Folsom, modified by Greg Hosler. RSTS port by Terry Grieb and myself. And yes, originally for RT11 sounds familiar, that would certainly explain why the RSTS port was straightforward.
Burroughs Algol is nice for lots of work. For operating systems, there was Espol, which was kept more or less secret because getting access to the compiler meant you could break the OS security... (There is an Espol manual on Bitsavers.)
paul
On 1/15/2013 12:39 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013, at 12:37, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 12:15 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Sure you don't want to play with an account on my Alpha?;)
Yeah, I might just take you up on that at some point, but for now I'd really like to get something that I can haul around with me on my laptop.
Let me know. The box is going to stay on for awhile. ;)
If you set me something up I wouldn't complain. I'll need ssh/scp, vim (although that's optional) and python. :)
What's the host NIC?
I'm noe of using VMware's "host only" network adapters which I believe is just a loopback adapter.
I'm tempted to spin up a loopback adapter for this, however, just to be sure.
Probably best. I didn't notice any reliability issues attaching it to a physical interface on my system.
You know what? I take that all back. I'm already using a loopback for IP connectivity. Forgot about that.
Bah.
-brian
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM, <Paul_Koning at dell.com> wrote:
I don't remember PL/360, but PL/M has nothing to do with PL/I.
PL/M was attempt at Intel to create a language for the 8080 and absolutely was a sub-set compiler. The language was designed to be a simple as possible, but to try to bring much of the PL/1 ideas into the microprocessor, without bringing in the whole language.
I was developed at Intel on their IBM mainframe originally as a cross compiler. I believe that it would eventually be able to self host on some of their development systems.
Cory Smelosky wrote:
Has anybody tried to set this up? I think it'd be nifty if we had say Hercules with MVS connected to HECnet..
If I ever get off my ass and get on HECnet, I might even be able to hook a real mainframe (at least part of the time) to the network.
Oooooh! What mainframe? ;)
IBM S/390 G5.
Peace... Sridhar
On 1/15/2013 12:21 PM, G. wrote:
Never been a := or :== fan, I've always used = or == with double quotes, but
it should work the same both ways.
e.g. FOO == "BAR" instead of FOO :== BAR (that extends to end of line).
I'm just following the directions in the vim docs. :)
But it isn't working.
First of all I would check that everything is in place:
$ SHO LOG VIM
$ SHO LOG VIM
%SHOW-S-NOTRAN, no translation for logical name VIM
$ SHO LOG TMP
$ SHO LOG TMP
%SHOW-S-NOTRAN, no translation for logical name TMP
$ SHO SYM VIM (with and without /GLOBAL)
$ SHO SYM VIM
%DCL-W-UNDSYM, undefined symbol - check validity and spelling
$ sho sym/glo vim
%DCL-W-UNDSYM, undefined symbol - check validity and spelling
Obviously things aren't getting setup correctly. I wonder if I put it all in the correct spots.
-brian
On 15 Jan 2013, at 12:37, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 12:15 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Sure you don't want to play with an account on my Alpha?;)
Yeah, I might just take you up on that at some point, but for now I'd really like to get something that I can haul around with me on my laptop.
Let me know. The box is going to stay on for awhile. ;)
What's the host NIC?
I'm noe of using VMware's "host only" network adapters which I believe is just a loopback adapter.
I'm tempted to spin up a loopback adapter for this, however, just to be sure.
Probably best. I didn't notice any reliability issues attaching it to a physical interface on my system.
-brian
On 1/15/2013 12:15 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Sure you don't want to play with an account on my Alpha?;)
Yeah, I might just take you up on that at some point, but for now I'd really like to get something that I can haul around with me on my laptop.
What's the host NIC?
I'm noe of using VMware's "host only" network adapters which I believe is just a loopback adapter.
I'm tempted to spin up a loopback adapter for this, however, just to be sure.
-brian
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Right. I'm sure that with enough work, you can always do it, but I'm curious on how much work. I have a feeling that compilers written in high level languages rapidly expand their requirements...
Its not that actually - IMHO. You can always use overlays and thunks to write code that works on a small address machines, like the PDP-11. I think the problem is that people that used / wanted the language did not need all of the features and frankly time moved on. The languages themselves were just too heavy not the compiler per say - the compilers became heavy to support the language features people wanted.
If PL/M or PL/360 had not lost to C (BCPL et al), it might have been different in the case of PL/1. If you note sub-set C compilers for the 8 and 16 bit machines exist or often exist as cross compilers from larger systems.
The issue is that 16-bits of data space is >>very<< limiting for a programmer, the code space can be swapped in and out with automatic or managed overlays - but data space is much harder to do.
Clem
