🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-02-15, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gazing at my bookcase and noting a 1971 copy of the
> PDP8's Small Computer Handbook.
>
> That was 47 years ago, and then 47 years before then
> takes us back to 1924, well before the days of any
> working programmable machines (pace the Jacquard Loom)
>
> Now that the Raspberry Pi 3 gives us a quadcore 64 bit
> processor with 1GB of RAM for only a few £ / $, I realise that a lot of
> our nostalgia and folklore of those days is for something
> very primitive compare to today's offerings

All the Raspberry needs is a largeish laptop case, in a corner of
which it could nestle. Still, the old golden rule, Garbage in,
Garbage out.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:

> Gazing at my bookcase and noting a 1971 copy of the
> PDP8's Small Computer Handbook.
> 
> That was 47 years ago, and then 47 years before then
> takes us back to 1924, well before the days of any
> working programmable machines (pace the Jacquard Loom)
> 
> Now that the Raspberry Pi 3 gives us a quadcore 64 bit
> processor with 1GB of RAM for only a few £ / $, I realise that a lot of
> our nostalgia and folklore of those days is for something
> very primitive compare to today's offerings
Oh, yeah!  I started out working on 12-bit discrete transistor minis like 
the PDP-5 and LINC, and even fiddled a bit with a Bendix G-15 (vacuum tube 
and drum memory).  And, took programming classes on the univerity's IBM 
360/50, editing programs on punch cards.  BLECH!!

Even the uVAX-II I put together in 1986 and ran for about 21 years was some 
1000 X slower than an ordinary desktop PC.

Jon

On 15/02/2018 19:47, Jon Elson wrote:
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> 
>> Gazing at my bookcase and noting a 1971 copy of the
>> PDP8's Small Computer Handbook.
>>
>> That was 47 years ago, and then 47 years before then
>> takes us back to 1924, well before the days of any
>> working programmable machines (pace the Jacquard Loom)
>>
>> Now that the Raspberry Pi 3 gives us a quadcore 64 bit
>> processor with 1GB of RAM for only a few £ / $, I realise that a lot of
>> our nostalgia and folklore of those days is for something
>> very primitive compare to today's offerings
> Oh, yeah!  I started out working on 12-bit discrete transistor minis like
> the PDP-5 and LINC, and even fiddled a bit with a Bendix G-15 (vacuum tube
> and drum memory).  And, took programming classes on the univerity's IBM
> 360/50, editing programs on punch cards.  BLECH!!
> 
> Even the uVAX-II I put together in 1986 and ran for about 21 years was some
> 1000 X slower than an ordinary desktop PC.
> 

ISTR some very slow instructions on the PDP11-20; my first hands-on
experience as a paid university vacation intern in 1971 in
the Scientific Services Department sited at Portishead Power Station ...

HALT  indefinite!
RESET 20 milliSecs
BICB @(REG)+ , @(REG)+   18uSecs.

Jon Elson <jme...@wustl.edu> wrote:
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
> 
>> Gazing at my bookcase and noting a 1971 copy of the
>> PDP8's Small Computer Handbook.
>> 
>> That was 47 years ago, and then 47 years before then
>> takes us back to 1924, well before the days of any
>> working programmable machines (pace the Jacquard Loom)
>> 
>> Now that the Raspberry Pi 3 gives us a quadcore 64 bit
>> processor with 1GB of RAM for only a few £ / $, I realise that a lot of
>> our nostalgia and folklore of those days is for something
>> very primitive compare to today's offerings
> Oh, yeah!  I started out working on 12-bit discrete transistor minis like 
> the PDP-5 and LINC, and even fiddled a bit with a Bendix G-15 (vacuum tube 
> and drum memory).  And, took programming classes on the univerity's IBM 
> 360/50, editing programs on punch cards.  BLECH!!
> 
> Even the uVAX-II I put together in 1986 and ran for about 21 years was some 
> 1000 X slower than an ordinary desktop PC.
> 

The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago. If I
still wanted to play with an 1130 I could use an emulator, but it wouldn't
be fun anymore. I'd have to be crazy to want to get involved with ancient
hardware. 

-- 
Pete

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:14:16 PM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:

> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days.

That is a part of it.

However, there is more to it.

One sight, the blinking lights of a computer front panel, for example, has a 
practical value - theoretically, it lets you see everything the computer is 
doing. What a great idea for security!

As computers got more powerful, though, front panels became less practical.

And when a computer terminal could cost over $1,000, since the computer itself 
cost millions, naturally it would have a high-quality keyboard.

And when computers communicated to the user by typing back... not with a 
graphical interface, computer programs were simpler to write.

As computers have become more powerful, we have lost certain positive things we 
had when they were much weaker. Having those things while retaining the much 
greater power and economy of today's computers, though, isn't an easy puzzle to 
solve.

John Savard

On 2018-02-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> As computers have become more powerful, we have lost certain positive
> things we had when they were much weaker.

Like knowing how not to create bloated, incomprehensible systems.
Nowadays, good design has been replaced by brute force.
"Who cares if it's a bubble sort?  I have a fast processor."
The worst part is that there's now enough power to make
payroll sytems even more convoluted than ever; it's a
bureaucrat's wet dream but everyone else's nightmare.

There are so many horror stories about hundreds of millions of dollars
spent on computer systems that don't work.  I dream about a day when
people get so fed up about things like not getting paid (e.g. the
Canadian government's Phoenix payroll system, which only fulfils
the first half of the legend by going down in flames) that the
KISS principle will one day re-emerge.

> Having those things while retaining the much greater power and economy
> of today's computers, though, isn't an easy puzzle to solve.

The worst part is that some people don't want it solved.
See Lynn's posts about the success of failure.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 15 Feb 2018 22:02:39 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2018-02-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> As computers have become more powerful, we have lost certain positive
>> things we had when they were much weaker.
>
>Like knowing how not to create bloated, incomprehensible systems.
>Nowadays, good design has been replaced by brute force.
>"Who cares if it's a bubble sort?  I have a fast processor."
>The worst part is that there's now enough power to make
>payroll sytems even more convoluted than ever; it's a
>bureaucrat's wet dream but everyone else's nightmare.
>
>There are so many horror stories about hundreds of millions of dollars
>spent on computer systems that don't work.  I dream about a day when
>people get so fed up about things like not getting paid (e.g. the
>Canadian government's Phoenix payroll system, which only fulfils
>the first half of the legend by going down in flames) that the
>KISS principle will one day re-emerge.
>
>> Having those things while retaining the much greater power and economy
>> of today's computers, though, isn't an easy puzzle to solve.
>
>The worst part is that some people don't want it solved.
>See Lynn's posts about the success of failure.

Today they do ridiculous things like have a "robot" read and OCR the
entire display to figure out where a Telnet session is so that it can
then read the data off the green screen and type commands into it,
where identifying the underlying database and writing a few lines of
COBOL would likely product the same result at thousands of times the
speed.

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2018 22:02:39 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> As computers have become more powerful, we have lost certain positive
>>> things we had when they were much weaker.
>> 
>> Like knowing how not to create bloated, incomprehensible systems.
>> Nowadays, good design has been replaced by brute force.
>> "Who cares if it's a bubble sort?  I have a fast processor."
>> The worst part is that there's now enough power to make
>> payroll sytems even more convoluted than ever; it's a
>> bureaucrat's wet dream but everyone else's nightmare.
>> 
>> There are so many horror stories about hundreds of millions of dollars
>> spent on computer systems that don't work.  I dream about a day when
>> people get so fed up about things like not getting paid (e.g. the
>> Canadian government's Phoenix payroll system, which only fulfils
>> the first half of the legend by going down in flames) that the
>> KISS principle will one day re-emerge.
>> 
>>> Having those things while retaining the much greater power and economy
>>> of today's computers, though, isn't an easy puzzle to solve.
>> 
>> The worst part is that some people don't want it solved.
>> See Lynn's posts about the success of failure.
> 
> Today they do ridiculous things like have a "robot" read and OCR the
> entire display to figure out where a Telnet session is so that it can
> then read the data off the green screen and type commands into it,
> where identifying the underlying database and writing a few lines of
> COBOL would likely product the same result at thousands of times the
> speed.
> 

Sure, now. A lot of robotics is still in the experimental "playing" 
stages. Just wait.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [22 lines snipped]
>
>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago. 
>
> I consider that unlikely.

Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.

Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
simply because he knows how to click a mouse.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 16/02/2018 16:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [22 lines snipped]
>>
>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago.
>>
>> I consider that unlikely.
> 
> Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
> as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.
> 
> Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
> simply because he knows how to click a mouse.
> 

I once contrated in a company where the meme that kids were
ace on computers was held. The son of one of the directors had
produced their first computerised product, all in machine code,
and all typed in manually into a "Softy" PROM programmer.

On 2018-02-16, Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 16/02/2018 16:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago.
>>>
>>> I consider that unlikely.
>> 
>> Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
>> as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.
>> 
>> Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
>> simply because he knows how to click a mouse.
>> 
>
> I once contrated in a company where the meme that kids were
> ace on computers was held. The son of one of the directors had
> produced their first computerised product, all in machine code,
> and all typed in manually into a "Softy" PROM programmer.
>

I think it was a 'Far Side' cartoon, Mom and Pop are admiring sonny, and
are saying "They told us there is a big future in Gaming", while sonny
taps away.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> And when computers communicated to the user by typing back... not
> with a graphical interface, computer programs were simpler to write.

Somewhat awkward to use when trying to design (e.g.) a power station's 
steelwork & piping.  Still, that's how we started using CAD.


Mike

On 16/02/2018 19:46, Mike Causer wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:25:33 -0800 (PST)
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
>> And when computers communicated to the user by typing back... not
>> with a graphical interface, computer programs were simpler to write.
> 
> Somewhat awkward to use when trying to design (e.g.) a power station's
> steelwork & piping.  Still, that's how we started using CAD.
> 

GD & CD Barnwood?

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 4:14:16 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago. If I
> still wanted to play with an 1130 I could use an emulator, but it wouldn't
> be fun anymore. I'd have to be crazy to want to get involved with ancient
> hardware. 

Did you ever get your printout?<g>  The 1132 was so S L O W !  

I think our nostalgia is not as much for the "sights and sounds", 
but rather "first acquaintance with the wonders of computers".

I well remember writing my first BASIC program that did a bunch
of calculations.  In those days we didn't have calculators, and it
was amazing to see (a) writing a very simple statement with a
few LET statements do all the work and (b) seeing the answers
print out fast.

On 2018-02-16, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 16/02/2018 16:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago.
>>>
>>> I consider that unlikely.
>> 
>> Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
>> as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.
>> 
>> Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
>> simply because he knows how to click a mouse.
>
> I once contrated in a company where the meme that kids were
> ace on computers was held. The son of one of the directors had
> produced their first computerised product, all in machine code,
> and all typed in manually into a "Softy" PROM programmer.

Well, don't keep us in suspense.  Did it work?  Did it work well?

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 21:10:52 +0000
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Somewhat awkward to use when trying to design (e.g.) a power
> > station's steelwork & piping.  Still, that's how we started using
> > CAD. 
> 
> GD & CD Barnwood?

CADCentre Cambridge.  Portishead rings a bell from my British Steel days
on the drawing board though.   Don't recollect involvement but Pembroke 
was my major [how shall we put it] on the drawing board pre-CAD. I hope
it stood up ....

.... but I was off to a different industry before anyone cut steel 
rather than putting ink on mylar.


Mike

On 16/02/2018 23:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-02-16, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 16/02/2018 16:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> I consider that unlikely.
>>>
>>> Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
>>> as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.
>>>
>>> Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
>>> simply because he knows how to click a mouse.
>>
>> I once contrated in a company where the meme that kids were
>> ace on computers was held. The son of one of the directors had
>> produced their first computerised product, all in machine code,
>> and all typed in manually into a "Softy" PROM programmer.
> 
> Well, don't keep us in suspense.  Did it work?  Did it work well?
> 

Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!

I was contracted to work on a range of PID controllers for fermentation
vessels (Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, etc) and when I said that
they should let it be done in C because of all the maths involved they
declined, so I spent much time developing 32 bit arithmetic in 8 bit
assembler, which took longer to do (and was thus more expensive) than
had C been permitted.

The division routine was faultless, but took several days to debug
because I was doing easy to follow divisions such as 300,000,000 (hex)
divided by 3 and using an early hex-capable pocket calculator with
only 7 segment displays, was misreading the B in a hex answer as a 6.

Live and learn!

On 17/02/2018 01:49, Mike Causer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 21:10:52 +0000
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Somewhat awkward to use when trying to design (e.g.) a power
>>> station's steelwork & piping.  Still, that's how we started using
>>> CAD.
>>
>> GD & CD Barnwood?
> 
> CADCentre Cambridge.  Portishead rings a bell from my British Steel days
> on the drawing board though.   Don't recollect involvement but Pembroke
> was my major [how shall we put it] on the drawing board pre-CAD. I hope
> it stood up ....
> 
> .... but I was off to a different industry before anyone cut steel
> rather than putting ink on mylar.

The head of my department, Control Techology, Peter J Brown had
started his career at British Steel. I think he was 31 years olf
in 1971.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 4:14:16 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago. If I
>> still wanted to play with an 1130 I could use an emulator, but it wouldn't
>> be fun anymore. I'd have to be crazy to want to get involved with ancient
>> hardware.
>
> Did you ever get your printout?<g>  The 1132 was so S L O W !
>
> I think our nostalgia is not as much for the "sights and sounds",
> but rather "first acquaintance with the wonders of computers".
>
> I well remember writing my first BASIC program that did a bunch
> of calculations.  In those days we didn't have calculators, and it
> was amazing to see (a) writing a very simple statement with a
> few LET statements do all the work and (b) seeing the answers
> print out fast.
>
I still use sounds to determine if I'm going to get a "good"
dial-up connection.  I used to use lights to determine if something
was trying to fool around with my computer (modem lights).

/BAH

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 4:14:16 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago. If I
>> still wanted to play with an 1130 I could use an emulator, but it wouldn't
>> be fun anymore. I'd have to be crazy to want to get involved with ancient
>> hardware. 
> 
> Did you ever get your printout?<g>  The 1132 was so S L O W !  

300lpm, not that slow. We gave it a workout, since we were doing program
development.

> 
> I think our nostalgia is not as much for the "sights and sounds", 
> but rather "first acquaintance with the wonders of computers".
> 
> I well remember writing my first BASIC program that did a bunch
> of calculations.  In those days we didn't have calculators, and it
> was amazing to see (a) writing a very simple statement with a
> few LET statements do all the work and (b) seeing the answers
> print out fast.
> 
> 



-- 
Pete

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 16/02/2018 23:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-02-16, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16/02/2018 16:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>>>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>>>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>>>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I consider that unlikely.
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
>>>> as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.
>>>> 
>>>> Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
>>>> simply because he knows how to click a mouse.
>>> 
>>> I once contrated in a company where the meme that kids were
>>> ace on computers was held. The son of one of the directors had
>>> produced their first computerised product, all in machine code,
>>> and all typed in manually into a "Softy" PROM programmer.
>> 
>> Well, don't keep us in suspense.  Did it work?  Did it work well?
>> 
> 
> Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
> they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
> experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!

I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code. When
you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly enough
that you usually don't forget how it's working C) keypunched/typed by you
D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience that's the biggest step from
student programming assignments to production work-the code may be complex
and had to be understood by lots of people, perhaps years later.

> 
> I was contracted to work on a range of PID controllers for fermentation
> vessels (Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, etc) and when I said that
> they should let it be done in C because of all the maths involved they
> declined, so I spent much time developing 32 bit arithmetic in 8 bit
> assembler, which took longer to do (and was thus more expensive) than
> had C been permitted.

So use assembler, but call routines from the C library ;-)

> 
> The division routine was faultless, but took several days to debug
> because I was doing easy to follow divisions such as 300,000,000 (hex)
> divided by 3 and using an early hex-capable pocket calculator with
> only 7 segment displays, was misreading the B in a hex answer as a 6.
> 
> Live and learn!

Amen! Still learning.




-- 
Pete

On 17/02/2018 14:59, Peter Flass wrote:
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2018 23:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-16, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/02/2018 16:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>>>>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>>>>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>>>>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider that unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
>>>>> as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
>>>>> simply because he knows how to click a mouse.
>>>>
>>>> I once contrated in a company where the meme that kids were
>>>> ace on computers was held. The son of one of the directors had
>>>> produced their first computerised product, all in machine code,
>>>> and all typed in manually into a "Softy" PROM programmer.
>>>
>>> Well, don't keep us in suspense.  Did it work?  Did it work well?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
>> they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
>> experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!
> 
> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code. When
> you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly enough
> that you usually don't forget how it's working C) keypunched/typed by you
> D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience that's the biggest step from
> student programming assignments to production work-the code may be complex
> and had to be understood by lots of people, perhaps years later.
> 
>>
>> I was contracted to work on a range of PID controllers for fermentation
>> vessels (Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, etc) and when I said that
>> they should let it be done in C because of all the maths involved they
>> declined, so I spent much time developing 32 bit arithmetic in 8 bit
>> assembler, which took longer to do (and was thus more expensive) than
>> had C been permitted.
> 
> So use assembler, but call routines from the C library ;-)
> 

A refusal to buy the C compiler resulted in the lack of the C library.

It was ISTR a Hitachi 6303

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 17/02/2018 14:59, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2018 23:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2018-02-16, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 16/02/2018 16:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2018-02-16, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2018-02-15, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>>>>>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>>>>>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>>>>>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I consider that unlikely.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agreed.  I can't accept that the creators of the Internet don't know
>>>>>> as much as the script kiddie who abuses it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Too many doting parents think their kid is a computer genius
>>>>>> simply because he knows how to click a mouse.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I once contrated in a company where the meme that kids were
>>>>> ace on computers was held. The son of one of the directors had
>>>>> produced their first computerised product, all in machine code,
>>>>> and all typed in manually into a "Softy" PROM programmer.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, don't keep us in suspense.  Did it work?  Did it work well?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
>>> they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
>>> experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!
>> 
>> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code. When
>> you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly enough
>> that you usually don't forget how it's working C) keypunched/typed by you
>> D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience that's the biggest step from
>> student programming assignments to production work-the code may be complex
>> and had to be understood by lots of people, perhaps years later.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I was contracted to work on a range of PID controllers for fermentation
>>> vessels (Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, etc) and when I said that
>>> they should let it be done in C because of all the maths involved they
>>> declined, so I spent much time developing 32 bit arithmetic in 8 bit
>>> assembler, which took longer to do (and was thus more expensive) than
>>> had C been permitted.
>> 
>> So use assembler, but call routines from the C library ;-)
>> 
> 
> A refusal to buy the C compiler resulted in the lack of the C library.
> 
> It was ISTR a Hitachi 6303
> 
> 

Probably long before gcc, and/or you weren't allowed to install it.

-- 
Pete

On Thu, 2018-02-15, Quadibloc wrote:
...
> And when computers communicated to the user by typing back... not
> with a graphical interface, computer programs were simpler to write.

There's still a fraction of the Unix community using those kinds of
interfaces -- it's not all in the past.

And I /do/ think one of the major benefits is that it's more inviting
to new programmers.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 2018-02-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code. When
> you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly enough
> that you usually don't forget how it's working C) keypunched/typed by you
> D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience that's the biggest step from
> student programming assignments to production work-the code may be complex
> and had to be understood by lots of people, perhaps years later.

And one of them might be you.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 9:59:52 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 4:14:16 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> > 
> >> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
> >> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
> >> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
> >> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago. If I
> >> still wanted to play with an 1130 I could use an emulator, but it wouldn't
> >> be fun anymore. I'd have to be crazy to want to get involved with ancient
> >> hardware. 
> > 
> > Did you ever get your printout?<g>  The 1132 was so S L O W !  
> 
> 300lpm, not that slow. We gave it a workout, since we were doing program
> development.

I thought the 1132 printer, which was a converted 407, ran at
only 80 lines per minute.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:54:16 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-02-15, Quadibloc wrote:
> ...
>> And when computers communicated to the user by typing back... not with
>> a graphical interface, computer programs were simpler to write.
> 
> There's still a fraction of the Unix community using those kinds of
> interfaces -- it's not all in the past.
> 
> And I /do/ think one of the major benefits is that it's more inviting to
> new programmers.

I spent some weeks teaching that interface just before Christmas, as I 
have done most years.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:24:34 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2018-02-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code.
>> When you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly
>> enough that you usually don't forget how it's working C)
>> keypunched/typed by you D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience
>> that's the biggest step from student programming assignments to
>> production work-the code may be complex and had to be understood by
>> lots of people, perhaps years later.
> 
> And one of them might be you.

Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)

About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was 
a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to 
anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
INTERSVR (remember those?)

I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it, 
transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.

Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the 
more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might 
have written it.

Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent 
it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to 
me!



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 17 Feb 2018 21:28:14 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:24:34 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code.
>>> When you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly
>>> enough that you usually don't forget how it's working C)
>>> keypunched/typed by you D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience
>>> that's the biggest step from student programming assignments to
>>> production work-the code may be complex and had to be understood by
>>> lots of people, perhaps years later.
>> 
>> And one of them might be you.
>
>Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)
>
>About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was 
>a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to 
>anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
>INTERSVR (remember those?)
>
>I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it, 
>transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>
>Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the 
>more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might 
>have written it.
>
>Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent 
>it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to 
>me!

Did your program lose its flavor on the boomerang as it came back over
several years later ?

A sort of blend from 'Tie me Kangaroo Down' and 'Does your chewing gum
lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight ?'. An Auzzie song and a
Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs fandango.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:43:21 -0600, JimP wrote:

> On 17 Feb 2018 21:28:14 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:24:34 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-02-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless
>>>> code.
>>>> When you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed
>>>> quickly enough that you usually don't forget how it's working C)
>>>> keypunched/typed by you D) run once and thrown away.  In my
>>>> experience that's the biggest step from student programming
>>>> assignments to production work-the code may be complex and had to be
>>>> understood by lots of people, perhaps years later.
>>> 
>>> And one of them might be you.
>>
>>Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat,
>>but...)
>>
>>About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was
>>a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to
>>anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
>>INTERSVR (remember those?)
>>
>>I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it,
>>transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>>
>>Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the
>>more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might
>>have written it.
>>
>>Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had
>>sent it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come
>>back to me!
> 
> Did your program lose its flavor on the boomerang as it came back over
> several years later ?

Well, it was OK, but I wasn't all that impressed with it! :)



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 9:59:52 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 4:14:16 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The nostalgia is for the sights, sounds, and smells those days. I can still
>>>> recall leaning over the 1132 printer waiting for my printout to start.
>>>> We're also nostalgic for out first acquaintance with the wonders of
>>>> computers. Now every kid over 8 knows more than we did 50 years ago. If I
>>>> still wanted to play with an 1130 I could use an emulator, but it wouldn't
>>>> be fun anymore. I'd have to be crazy to want to get involved with ancient
>>>> hardware. 
>>> 
>>> Did you ever get your printout?<g>  The 1132 was so S L O W !  
>> 
>> 300lpm, not that slow. We gave it a workout, since we were doing program
>> development.
> 
> I thought the 1132 printer, which was a converted 407, ran at
> only 80 lines per minute.
> 

Gosh, you're right; I misremembered. Only 55 years and the memory is
already starting to fade.

-- 
Pete

On 2/17/2018 3:28 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:24:34 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code.
>>> When you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly
>>> enough that you usually don't forget how it's working C)
>>> keypunched/typed by you D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience
>>> that's the biggest step from student programming assignments to
>>> production work-the code may be complex and had to be understood by
>>> lots of people, perhaps years later.
>>
>> And one of them might be you.
> 
> Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)
> 
> About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was
> a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to
> anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
> INTERSVR (remember those?)
> 
> I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it,
> transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
> 
> Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the
> more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might
> have written it.
> 
> Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent
> it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to
> me!
> 
And it came home wagging its tail behind it... and you discovered that 
*you* were the Great Stone Face!!!  ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stone_Face_(Hawthorne)


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 2/17/2018 3:28 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:24:34 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-02-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code.
>>>> When you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly
>>>> enough that you usually don't forget how it's working C)
>>>> keypunched/typed by you D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience
>>>> that's the biggest step from student programming assignments to
>>>> production work-the code may be complex and had to be understood by
>>>> lots of people, perhaps years later.
>>> 
>>> And one of them might be you.
>> 
>> Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)
>> 
>> About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was
>> a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to
>> anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
>> INTERSVR (remember those?)
>> 
>> I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it,
>> transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>> 
>> Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the
>> more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might
>> have written it.
>> 
>> Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent
>> it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to
>> me!
>> 
> And it came home wagging its tail behind it... and you discovered that 
> *you* were the Great Stone Face!!!  ;-)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stone_Face_(Hawthorne)
> 
> 

At least you know that your program was useful enough that other people
passed it around.

-- 
Pete

On 2/18/2018 5:20 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2018 3:28 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:24:34 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-02-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think most of us started out writing impenetrable, commentless code.
>>>>> When you're doing a student project it's A) small, B) completed quickly
>>>>> enough that you usually don't forget how it's working C)
>>>>> keypunched/typed by you D) run once and thrown away.  In my experience
>>>>> that's the biggest step from student programming assignments to
>>>>> production work-the code may be complex and had to be understood by
>>>>> lots of people, perhaps years later.
>>>>
>>>> And one of them might be you.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)
>>>
>>> About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was
>>> a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to
>>> anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
>>> INTERSVR (remember those?)
>>>
>>> I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it,
>>> transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>>>
>>> Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the
>>> more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might
>>> have written it.
>>>
>>> Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent
>>> it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to
>>> me!
>>>
>> And it came home wagging its tail behind it... and you discovered that
>> *you* were the Great Stone Face!!!  ;-)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stone_Face_(Hawthorne)
>>
>>
> 
> At least you know that your program was useful enough that other people
> passed it around.
> 

Hey, I think it's great!!!  I never had such an experience with my code, 
so I'm a bit jealous! I fear that most of my code ended up in "file 13"! 
:-(

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:

> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was
>> a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to
>> anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
>> INTERSVR (remember those?)
>>
>> I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it,
>> transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>>
>> Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the
>> more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might
>> have written it.
>>
>> Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent
>> it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to
>> me!
>
> Hey, I think it's great!!!  I never had such an experience with my code, 
> so I'm a bit jealous! I fear that most of my code ended up in "file 13"! 
> :-(

Creative folks always have this problem.  Unless your code goes viral,
your painting is in the Guggenheim or your photo on the cover of Time,
you never know.

A number of smaller metalwork pieces I'm proud of were made for people
now dead.  I can't help but wonder if the heirs put my piece out in
the yard sale with the mismatched flatware, the dog-eared paperbacks
and the old venetian blinds.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
> Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)
>
> About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was 
> a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to 
> anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
> INTERSVR (remember those?)
>
> I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it, 
> transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>
> Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the 
> more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might 
> have written it.
>
> Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent 
> it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to 
> me!

former co-worker at science center and research was responsible for the
internal network (larger than arpanet/internet from just about the
beginning until sometime mid-80s) ... past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
which was also used for the corporate sponsored university network
(also larger than arpanet/internet for a time) some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet

in the 80s, he had left IBM and was working for company that did a lot
of real-time stuff and he was working with major real-time system and
noticed code that he thot was familiar. The supervisor contained module
that was seemed same as his RSCS/VNET MSUP routine (from 15yrs
earlier), a nearly line-for-line translation from 360 assembler to
C, included retaining the original comments. past refs
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#32 "The Elements of Programming Style"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010k.html#34 Was VM ever used as an exokernel?

His RSCS/VNET MSUP dates back to the 60s, before 23JUNE1969 unbundling
and starting to separately charge for lots of stuff, including software
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundling

after the unbundling announce, IBM had internal people going back and
adding "COPYRIGHT" statements to the front of every source routine.
example from long ago and far away:


*********************************************************************** 00002000
***                                                                 *** 00003000
***           5748-XE1 - COPYRIGHT IBM CORPORATION - 1978, 1979     *** 00004000
***           LICENSED MATERIAL - PROGRAM PROPERTY OF IBM           *** 00005000
***           REFER TO COPYRIGHT INSTRUCTIONS:  FORM G120-2083      *** 00006000
***                                                                 *** 00007000
*********************************************************************** 00008000

more recently, I was somewhat surprised when something similar happened
to IETF/ISOC Internet standards documents ... something about original
authors retains rights (and use may require obtaining the authors
permissions) ... previously IETF had made transition from no copyright
notice to:

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (xxxx).  All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

... snip ...

I had done some work with documents under the above copyright and then
was contacted by author of various RFC standards that I had used ... and
tried to apply the latest IETF/ISOC copyright retroactively to all his
earlier RFCs. I had to spend over a thousand (of my own money) on
copyright lawyer to explain it to the author and his representative.

some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#5 Internet today -- what's left for hobbiests
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#12 Reverse or inverse ARP from windows/linux - no way (!?!?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#56 Reverse or inverse ARP from windows/linux - no way (!?!?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#83 The IETF is probably the single element in the global equation of technology competition than has resulted in the INTERNET
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#83 Today, the IETF Turns 25
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#95 56kbit modems

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>> Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)
>> 
>> About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was 
>> a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to 
>> anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
>> INTERSVR (remember those?)
>> 
>> I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it, 
>> transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>> 
>> Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the 
>> more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might 
>> have written it.
>> 
>> Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent 
>> it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to 
>> me!
> 
> former co-worker at science center and research was responsible for the
> internal network (larger than arpanet/internet from just about the
> beginning until sometime mid-80s) ... past posts
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
> which was also used for the corporate sponsored university network
> (also larger than arpanet/internet for a time) some past posts
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet
> 
> in the 80s, he had left IBM and was working for company that did a lot
> of real-time stuff and he was working with major real-time system and
> noticed code that he thot was familiar. The supervisor contained module
> that was seemed same as his RSCS/VNET MSUP routine (from 15yrs
> earlier), a nearly line-for-line translation from 360 assembler to
> C, included retaining the original comments. past refs
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#32 "The Elements of Programming Style"
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010k.html#34 Was VM ever used as an exokernel?
> 
> His RSCS/VNET MSUP dates back to the 60s, before 23JUNE1969 unbundling
> and starting to separately charge for lots of stuff, including software
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundling
> 
> after the unbundling announce, IBM had internal people going back and
> adding "COPYRIGHT" statements to the front of every source routine.
> example from long ago and far away:
> 
> 
> *********************************************************************** 00002000
> ***                                                                 *** 00003000
> ***           5748-XE1 - COPYRIGHT IBM CORPORATION - 1978, 1979     *** 00004000
> ***           LICENSED MATERIAL - PROGRAM PROPERTY OF IBM           *** 00005000
> ***           REFER TO COPYRIGHT INSTRUCTIONS:  FORM G120-2083      *** 00006000
> ***                                                                 *** 00007000
> *********************************************************************** 00008000

I'll bet that was a fun job. Was it punishment for salesmen who didn't make
quota?

--
Pete

Peter Flass wrote:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>>> Exactly. Might be worth recounting this story (possibly a repeat, but...)
>>>
>>> About 15 years ago I had a need for a particular program on a PC. It was
>>> a one-off, and it had to be in BASIC, as the machine wasn't connected to
>>> anything else - all I could do was move small files using INTERLNK/
>>> INTERSVR (remember those?)
>>>
>>> I searched the Internet and found an ideal program. I downloaded it,
>>> transferred it to the PC and it did exactly what I wanted.
>>>
>>> Being me, I had a look at the source code. The more I looked at it, the
>>> more mystified I became by the style of programming. It was how I might
>>> have written it.
>>>
>>> Then it hit me. I *had* written it, a further 15 years before. I had sent
>>> it to various people but not bothered keeping a copy. It had come back to
>>> me!
>>
>> former co-worker at science center and research was responsible for the
>> internal network (larger than arpanet/internet from just about the
>> beginning until sometime mid-80s) ... past posts
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
>> which was also used for the corporate sponsored university network
>> (also larger than arpanet/internet for a time) some past posts
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet
>>
>> in the 80s, he had left IBM and was working for company that did a lot
>> of real-time stuff and he was working with major real-time system and
>> noticed code that he thot was familiar. The supervisor contained module
>> that was seemed same as his RSCS/VNET MSUP routine (from 15yrs
>> earlier), a nearly line-for-line translation from 360 assembler to
>> C, included retaining the original comments. past refs
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#32 "The Elements of Programming
Style"
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010k.html#34 Was VM ever used as an exokernel?
>>
>> His RSCS/VNET MSUP dates back to the 60s, before 23JUNE1969 unbundling
>> and starting to separately charge for lots of stuff, including software
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundling
>>
>> after the unbundling announce, IBM had internal people going back and
>> adding "COPYRIGHT" statements to the front of every source routine.
>> example from long ago and far away:
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************************
00002000
>> ***                                                                 ***
00003000
>> ***           5748-XE1 - COPYRIGHT IBM CORPORATION - 1978, 1979     ***
00004000
>> ***           LICENSED MATERIAL - PROGRAM PROPERTY OF IBM           ***
00005000
>> ***           REFER TO COPYRIGHT INSTRUCTIONS:  FORM G120-2083      ***
00006000
>> ***                                                                 ***
00007000
>> ***********************************************************************
00008000
>
> I'll bet that was a fun job. Was it punishment for salesmen who didn't make
> quota?

At DEC, it was Tape Prep's job to put copyrights in documentation when
they typed up the files for the programmers.  Source code didn't get
copyrights.

Then, in the mid 80s, the lawyers decreed that all files had to have
copyrights in them, including the *.EXE, *.REL, *.SAV, *.HGH, *.LIB,
*.LOW, *.UNV files.  It had to be ASCII so that typing
TYPE FOO.EXE on a TTY would display the copyright amid all of the
cybercrud.  It was my job to put those in or ensure that the
other guys put them in.  Spider figured out that putting the
copyright in the job data area of the program would not break
anything and legally protect the file.  When the EXE was executed,
the contents of the job data area were overwritten with the good
stuff.

/BAH

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:11:58 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:

> At DEC, it was Tape Prep's job to put copyrights in documentation when
> they typed up the files for the programmers.  Source code didn't get
> copyrights.
> 
> Then, in the mid 80s, the lawyers decreed that all files had to have
> copyrights in them, including the *.EXE, *.REL, *.SAV, *.HGH, *.LIB,
> *.LOW, *.UNV files.  It had to be ASCII so that typing TYPE FOO.EXE on a
> TTY would display the copyright amid all of the cybercrud.  It was my
> job to put those in or ensure that the other guys put them in.  Spider
> figured out that putting the copyright in the job data area of the
> program would not break anything and legally protect the file.  When the
> EXE was executed, the contents of the job data area were overwritten
> with the good stuff.

It's interesting looking at the ROM listing for the IBM PC. The relevant 
area (which was used even though space was tight) had in it:

  CCOOPPYYRRIIGGHHTT  ...

Why? Because alternate bytes went in the 'high' and 'low' ROM chips. That 
way, each chip had a complete copyright notice!



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 

>Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
>they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
>experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!

Such was also said about early Fortran. By comparison, their was something
to be said. However more complex programs were attempted for the ability
of the programmers. Zo . . .

>Live and learn!

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
> 
>> Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
>> they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
>> experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!
> 
> Such was also said about early Fortran. By comparison, their was something
> to be said. However more complex programs were attempted for the ability
> of the programmers. Zo . . .
> 
>> Live and learn!
> 

When I first read about "automatic programming" I thought it sounded
interesting. Then I looked it up and discovered it referred to a rather
primitive form of assembler.

-- 
Pete

On 23/02/2018 21:21, Walter Bushell wrote:
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
> 
>> Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
>> they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
>> experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!
> 
> Such was also said about early Fortran. By comparison, their was something
> to be said. However more complex programs were attempted for the ability
> of the programmers. Zo . . .
> 
>> Live and learn!
> 
> 
> 
Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you 
why. Comments are needed for that.

Programs may be (partially) self documenting but files are not, their 
fields need specifying.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:29:16 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2018-02-25, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> [15 lines snipped]
> 
>> Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you
>> why. Comments are needed for that.
> 
> *applause*
> 
> Anyone who writes code like this should be shot;
> 
> x=5;		# Set x to 5

Strangely, I was doing generic feedback for an assignment about an hour 
ago. I repeated this statement, but not in Huge terms. (the external 
examiner will read it)



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:29:16 +0000, Huge wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-25, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [15 lines snipped]
>> 
>>> Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you
>>> why. Comments are needed for that.
>> 
>> *applause*
>> 
>> Anyone who writes code like this should be shot;
>> 
>> x=5;		# Set x to 5
> 
> Strangely, I was doing generic feedback for an assignment about an hour 
> ago. I repeated this statement, but not in Huge terms. (the external 
> examiner will read it)
> 

When you start writing assembler everyone says you should put a comment on
every line, so you tend to do a lot of this until you get the  idea.

-- 
Pete

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:29:16 +0000, Huge wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-02-25, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [15 lines snipped]
>>> 
>>>> Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you
>>>> why. Comments are needed for that.
>>> 
>>> *applause*
>>> 
>>> Anyone who writes code like this should be shot;
>>> 
>>> x=5;		# Set x to 5
>> 
>> Strangely, I was doing generic feedback for an assignment about an hour 
>> ago. I repeated this statement, but not in Huge terms. (the external 
>> examiner will read it)
>
> When you start writing assembler everyone says you should put a comment on
> every line, so you tend to do a lot of this until you get the  idea.

Putting a comment on every line makes it simpler to
read the whole program as comments.  With highlighting
this is an easy way to quickly absorb a module.

Of course the comments may not be 100% right.

In the above case, the code still needs a comment
but it should be something like:

x=5;		# Max supported fingers

-- 
Dan Espen

Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:

> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:29:16 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2018-02-25, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [15 lines snipped]
>>>> 
>>>>> Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you
>>>>> why. Comments are needed for that.
>>>> 
>>>> *applause*
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone who writes code like this should be shot;
>>>> 
>>>> x=5;		# Set x to 5
>>> 
>>> Strangely, I was doing generic feedback for an assignment about an hour 
>>> ago. I repeated this statement, but not in Huge terms. (the external 
>>> examiner will read it)
>>
>> When you start writing assembler everyone says you should put a comment on
>> every line, so you tend to do a lot of this until you get the  idea.
>
> Putting a comment on every line makes it simpler to
> read the whole program as comments.  With highlighting
> this is an easy way to quickly absorb a module.
>
> Of course the comments may not be 100% right.
>
> In the above case, the code still needs a comment
> but it should be something like:
>
> x=5;		# Max supported fingers

That's exactly the point.

On Mon, 2018-02-26, Dan Espen wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:29:16 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2018-02-25, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [15 lines snipped]
>>>> 
>>>>> Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you
>>>>> why. Comments are needed for that.
>>>> 
>>>> *applause*
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone who writes code like this should be shot;
>>>> 
>>>> x=5;		# Set x to 5
>>> 
>>> Strangely, I was doing generic feedback for an assignment about an hour 
>>> ago. I repeated this statement, but not in Huge terms. (the external 
>>> examiner will read it)
>>
>> When you start writing assembler everyone says you should put a comment on
>> every line, so you tend to do a lot of this until you get the  idea.
>
> Putting a comment on every line makes it simpler to
> read the whole program as comments.  With highlighting
> this is an easy way to quickly absorb a module.
>
> Of course the comments may not be 100% right.
>
> In the above case, the code still needs a comment
> but it should be something like:
>
> x=5;		# Max supported fingers

max_supported_fingers=5;  # Nothing more to say

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 2018-02-25, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 23/02/2018 21:21, Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, it did work and sold well. Upgrading though was such a pain that
>>> they recoded in assembler *WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS* because, based on their
>>> experience with hexadecimal machine code, assembler was "self documenting"!
>> 
>> Such was also said about early Fortran. By comparison, their was something
>> to be said. However more complex programs were attempted for the ability
>> of the programmers. Zo . . .
>> 
>>> Live and learn!
> 
> Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you 
> why. Comments are needed for that.

"$(MYLANGUAGE) is so readable it doesn't need comments!"

> Programs may be (partially) self documenting but files are not, their 
> fields need specifying.

I'm starting to migrate toward CSV files with a heading line naming the
fields.  It's a step in the right direction, and looks pretty good when
loaded into a spreadsheet.

XML can be pretty self-documenting, but its large overhead means it's
usually overkill.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 26/02/2018 06:43, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-26, Dan Espen wrote:
{snip}

>>
>> Putting a comment on every line makes it simpler to
>> read the whole program as comments.  With highlighting
>> this is an easy way to quickly absorb a module.
>>
>> Of course the comments may not be 100% right.
>>
>> In the above case, the code still needs a comment
>> but it should be something like:
>>
>> x=5;		# Max supported fingers
> 
> max_supported_fingers=5;  # Nothing more to say
> 
> /Jorgen
> 

Nice to have an assembler that supports long variable names.

In article <ffga3c...@mid.individual.net>,
 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-02-25, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
> [15 lines snipped]
> 
> > Reading Fortran and Assembler code tells you how, it does not tell you 
> > why. Comments are needed for that.
> 
> *applause*
> 
> Anyone who writes code like this should be shot;
> 
> x=5;		# Set x to 5

Surely sending them to a reeducation camp would suffice?!

-- 
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.