HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davis@cs.cornell.edu (Jim Davis)
Subject: seeking info on Imlac Composer
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:26:35 GMT


I am looking for information about a program called Composer that used
to run on an Imlac display system.  The Imlac was a minicomputer which
resembled an expanded PDP-8 with a vector graphics display processor.
The Composer was an early attempt at a WYSIWYG editor for typesetting.
This was before laser printing, so the only way to get high quality
computer output was to generate tapes for typsetting.

Anyway, I seek info about the Composer program, not the Imlac itself,
but any lead would be appreciated.

Jim Davis   -- davis@cs.cornell.edu -- 607-255-1134

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.052636.23004@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>I offered an open challenge for someone to quantify how many bugs they might
>attribute to various language-based implementations of any code released by
>any author on any basis, to rate the use of the various languages as that
>pertains to reliability of product.  I don't see anyone challenging my
>opinion that C would come in dead last.

I'll challenge it, gladly.  (I assume you mean that C would come in last
in terms of how reliable the products written in various languages are,
if we could objectively meassure and average reliability?)  I don't know
which language would come in last, but good candidates would COBOL (because
the type of people who use it have no clue), Assembler (because it's very
hard to write solid code without a compiler), and Ada (because Ada compilers
are all buggy).

>I would think that writing buggy
>code in C qualifies at least in part as not knowing what goes on under
>the hood so to speak.

*shrug*... in part.  There are other reasons why people write buggy code.
One of them is that they are bad programmers.  Another is that they are
bad software engineers.  Another is that they don't do sufficiently 
rigorous testing.  These three reasons, for example, can apply to people
who know full well what's going on under the hood.

>Presumably all of these "experts" you claim exist 
>(aren't they "experts" since they aren't as ignorant as I make out?) had
>full access to all of the associated wonderful development tools to 
>eliminate all known problems, etc., so if so, then why the failing grade?

What failing grade?  Before you use the inferiority of C code as an
assumption for further arguments, shouldn't you demonstrate that it
is so with some hard data?  I doubt that you can...

>I have friends who are of the opinion that C is more like a demented
>macro assembler being misused with the "wrong" macroes, but I won't let
>my personal friends bias the count here.

Your friends's oppinions clearly qualify you as an expert on computer
programming languages.
--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:12768 comp.unix.misc:3295
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:08:33 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <id._VFS.0AK@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
}In article <1992Aug15.012242.15303@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

}Today, you can buy a computer for $400 that supports dozens of free programming
}languages (free in the sense that you can get them for media and postage). Or
}you can pay more and get more of a choice of commercial software, but I'd
}suggest the former system: it's got a better overall design.
}
}> You can debate all you want about assembler vs. other.  In the end, if you
}> like to eat at all regularly, you'll do what you're paid to do.
}
}If you want to continue to eat regularly, it's worthwhile spending a little
}of your own money on a personal computer that'll expand your horizons.

My first job in the business expanded my horizons plenty.  Quoth the
software manager when he hired me: "Do you know COBOL?" Me: "Uh, no ..."
Him: "We've got a COBOL job coming up.  Go learn COBOL.  Have a look at
JCL while you're at it." Me: "Ok."

And so it went.  While working in that shop I wrote software in at least
half a dozen high level languages, three or four assemblers and I've no
idea how many OS's.  Most I'd never seen before.  They didn't budget time
to learn them.

And no one _ever_ consulted me as to what language I thought any project
should be written in.  That was up to the customer, period.

Sure, I can do anything I want on my home system.  Maybe, some day, I'll
write The Great American Program (in The Great American HLL, which I'll
also write) and retire.  Until then, the people who write my paycheck get
to call the tune.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Non Unix-OS's
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:28:11 GMT

In article <5053@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> ralph@falcon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Ralph Becker-Szendy) writes:
}... You can still get new and more powerful CPU
}boards to run cp/m and descendents on ...
}... but not from Kaypro or Osborne...

You can't get anything from Osborne.  They went belly-up years ago (and
deservedly so, IMHO).

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: jeremy@sw.oz.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge)
Subject: Re: Pick -- what is it?
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:37:50 GMT

In <1992Aug16.034153.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>In article <82342.219922706@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Murray_Moffatt@kcbbs.gen.nz (Murray Moffatt) writes:
>...
>> So, now you all know a bit more about Pick.  Me, I use Prime's Information 
>> software, which is an improved (IMHO) version of Pick, and runs under 
>> PrimeOS.
>> 
>Why is there no "R" in Pick?
>Because then it would be usefull.

No, then it would be a tautology.

	J

--
jeremy@softway.sw.oz.au ph:+61 2 698 2322-x122 fax:+61 2 699 9174
What are you looking at?
I don't know, your label has fallen off.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Copy of Ritchie's "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite..."?
From: cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Clare West)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:51:01 GMT
Organization: Dept of CompSci, U of Auckland

In article <8eZ16KOSMUA8AWn6MA@transarc.com> Pat_Barron@transarc.com writes:
>alanlb@bethesda.cs.vt.edu (Alan L. Batongbacal) writes:
>> Does somebody out there have a copy of this?
>
>Actually, it was written by Brian Kernighan, not Dennis Ritchie.
>
>It is Bell Labs CSTR #100, and is available via anonymous FTP to
>research.att.com, as /netlib/research/cstr/100.Z.

Does anybody have information for how to get this via email? (I don't
have access to ftp anonymous or otherwise)

adTHANKSvance

-- 
Oh, why didn't I listen when they said "Never do a   |  cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz 
 masters and try to have a life at the same time"?   |  clare west
                 BigSis to Chris, Eric and Kristiina
                    Official Welcomer of the RFA
From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computers killing people?  (WAS Re: 9 track data storage???)
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:41:42 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1400@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, oliver@cs.uwindsor.ca (Timothy Oliver) writes:
> 
> No, it is NOT possible.  There are not data lines that go FROM the
> printer TO the computer. The only line that go to the computer 
> are status lines (in a PARELLEL port).

Not necessarily true in the case of the IBoringM PC-type machines. They
regularly use the parallel port for both I and O. Of course, the software
printing on the port isn't likely to suck data in and execute it...
> 
> With a SERIAL port, maybe. But very unlikely. Few printers have
> the transmit data line hooked up. But any signal that comes in though
> the serial port MUST be read by a programme and any programme that
> writes to a serial printer will reject anything other than the paper out
> signal, pinter not ready signal, etc.

All of the serial printers that we have do, in fact, transmit data back to
the host. Aside from the fact that most of them have keyboards (a printer
isn't really useful unless it has a keyboard), DEC is quite fond of
XON/XOFF flow control.

Roger Ivie
ivie@cc.usu.edu
From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: DataPoint (Was: Non Unix-OS's)
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:37:23 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Aug18.211927.4075@news.uiowa.edu>, jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
> Is DataPoint still out there?  How are they doing?  Is there a
> relationship between the TRS-80's operating system and the DataPoint
> RMS system?

I think they're still out there. I hear that DataBus (blech!) is being worked 
into an ANSI standard.

Roger Ivie
ivie@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: aduell@nyx.cs.du.edu (Tony Duell)
Subject: Early Programable calculators.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:00:23 GMT


While agreeing that the HP9100 is an early programmable machine, and worth
preserving (I want one!!!!), is it really the second progarammable ever
produced.  The Casio AL1000 certainly predated it , and I think the AL2000
did also (1968???) although the latter used integrated circuits.
-tony 'PDP11 Hacker' Duell
ard@siva.bris.ac.uk

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.misc,comp.programming
From: reeuwijk@dutentb.et.tudelft.nl (C. van Reeuwijk)
Subject: Re: Indentation
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:15:17 GMT

In <1992Aug14.190152.18040@a.cs.okstate.edu> norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes:

>In systems I've used, it works well. I believe this mechanism 
>(called 'layout' or 'off-side rule') originated in Peter Landin's
>work on Iswim in the mid-60's. The layout mechanism has been 
>adopted by most of the purely functional programming languages
>designed in the past 10 years (eg. Miranda and Haskell).  The use
>of layout seems to be generally regarded as a good thing by those
>in the functional programming community.
>-- 
>Norman Graham
><norman@a.cs.okstate.edu>                 Standard Disclaimer Applies

Mr. Graham will probably not consider me a member of the functional
programming community, but personally I *HATE* the off-side rule in
Miranda. I have written programs (all right then, `scripts' :-) in
Miranda, and I consider it one of its worst features.

The main reason is that indentation that was quite logical to me
was considered incorrect by Miranda, and this was one of the main
sources of coding errors. More generally, I consider layout-dependent
semantics revolting.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C. van Reeuwijk                  e-mail: reeuwijk@et.tudelft.nl
Delft University of Technology   Phone: +15-781429
Dep. of Electronic Engineering   Telefax: +15-785922
Mekelweg 4
2628 CD  Delft, The Netherlands
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:12556 comp.human-factors:1783 comp.misc:3230 comp.programming:2323
From: pat@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Patrick Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.human-factors,comp.misc,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Indentation
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: patrick@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research

In article <1992Aug14.170444.1576@tandem.com>, tvv@tandem.com (Tom Van Vleck) writes:
|BTI computer systems had an implementation language called DRAGON, in
|which the indentation WAS the loop/if scope indicator.  Pat Helland
|worked on the language there and told me about it after he left.

An interesting idea.
Does anyone know how well this worked in practice?

-- 
Patrick Smith            preferred: larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bnrmtl!pat
Bell-Northern Research   next best: patrick@bnr.ca
(514) 765-7914
From: ljt3@CS1.CC.Lehigh.EDU (Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Non Unix-OS's
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:46:07 GMT
	<1992Aug14.192811.5497@ttinews.tti.com> <20064@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>
Organization: Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

In article <20064@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> tbruseha@kafka.ems.cdc.com (Tom Brusehaver) writes:

This is not a flame of Tom, but of the concept in general.

>...DOS (all versions) can only deal with 640K.

This is completely, utterly, and totally WRONG.  Unfortunately, it has been
repeated so many times that it has become an accepted 'fact'.

The 640K limitation comes from the MACHINE ARCHITECTURE.

'didja ever stop and think that things like BIOS are above 640K?  That
the screen is above 640K?

MS-DOS (the program) can address 1 Meg of memory.  The problem is that
the machine has memory mapped devices, and IBM set aside memory address
space for the BIOS chips.

OK, rant mode off.

--
Lewis Tanzos - ljt3@cs1.cc.lehigh.edu - LJT3@PL122.eecs.lehigh.edu
"Under heaven, all can see beauty only because there is ugliness.
 All can know good as good only because there is evil."
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Reply-To: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky)
Organization: SNake Island Research Inc, Toronto
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:31:34 GMT

In article <6988@motcsd.csd.mot.com> ajv@xhost92.csd.mot.com writes:
>lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>
>>I have friends who are of the opinion that C is more like a demented
>>macro assembler being misused with the "wrong" macroes, but I won't let
>>my personal friends bias the count here.
>
>Amen.  Manually maintaining reference counts on things in the UNIX kernel,
>all by itself, has cost me man-months of debugging.  Whereas I have
>seen dynamic garbage collection *work* in assembly code. :-)  Setting
>aside whether the honorable Mr. Lasner would choose an implementation
>which called for garbage collection, I am sure we can all agree that
>methodology, technique, experience, and wise trade-offs are what make
>or break an implementation, not the language.

The cost of maintaining reference counts seems to be taste-dependent.
When I was contemplating the use of reference counts in SHARP APL for
a number of purposes, most of which grew out of the implementation of
recursive data structures, one colleague told me I'd never get it to work.

Well, it went in fairly smoothly, especially due to the implementation
of debug assertions which did a lot of checks to ensure counts never
went below zero, etc. These had minimal cost on the running code
(an interpreter) and pinpointed most bugs immediately.

One fault which took several years to hit, and several months of 
elapsed time(several days of brain time) to find, was caused by a
a much-earlier violation of other design rules, which had not been
visible from the coding style. 

Lessons to be learned:
a. Reference counts work, and work well, in a well designed, and
   well maintained system.
b. Violations of design rules do and have caused severe problems
   in fault isolation and detection of systems which use reference
   counts.
Basically, I approve of reference counts, and find them wonderful.

Bob





Robert Bernecky      rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.com  bernecky@itrchq.itrc.on.ca 
Snake Island Research Inc  (416) 368-6944   FAX: (416) 360-4694 
18 Fifth Street, Ward's Island
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2B9 
Canada
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favori
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 09:21:38 GMT

In article <NEERI.92Aug18180729@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
...
> No, that means that DEC has made a prediction for a timespan which is almost
> as long as their current existence. It seems to me that DEC is trying to
> announce the end of progress in architectural design, which to me just seems
> *slightly* premature.
> 

Why? DEC has only had 2 CPU designs since the Vax. It seems that except for the
ALPHA, DEC has not done a thing all through the 80s. OSs as well, ELN is the
only system in the 80s that I can think of. Oh, I forgot CRONIC :-)

~Paul
From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (CP/M lives!)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Indentation
Date: 17 Aug 92 10:29:32 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <41683@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, gvw@epcc.ed.ac.uk (Greg Wilson) writes:
> 
> The problem I always had with this was the difficulty of determining the
> scope of a long block --- without explicit end-of-block indicators, one
> is reduced to putting a ruler on a printout.  One of the (few) nice
> features of C's syntax is the use of curlies, which most editors can
> auto-match.

Sounds like the chicken and the egg. The guy writing the editor was using
C, so he decided matching curlies was a good thing to do, so the editor
matches curlies, so you use C because the editor matches curlies...

If enough people did OCCAM, there would probably be indent-matching editors.

Roger Ivie
ivie@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: "See Figure 1."
From: mikew@mdcbbs.com (Mike 'the Bard' Whitaker)
Date: 12 Aug 92 04:27:47 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Shape Data - a division of EDS Ltd

In article <5371223@zl2tnm.gen.nz> don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) writes:
>dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:

>There's no sign of "coffee breaks" in the annotated listings in the manual,
>but that doesn't mean they're not in the real thing.  Unfortunately, the 
>pdp11/34a that was my personal computer until a year or two ago died and 
>the corpse donated to the Comp Sci "museum"....  (I do have the OS release 
>on 800bpi magtape....)  

The Interleaf V4 install script for VMS includes...
%ILF-I-COFFEBRK - Starting inatll, please wait
or something similar
-- 
Mike Whitaker +44-223 | mikew@mdcbbs.com, bard@spuddy.uucp | Me: Bards just
Shape Data/EDS 321699 | -or- mwhitaker@cix.compulink.co.uk | KNOW things...
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: phillips@uwa.oz.au (Christopher Phillips)
Subject: Re: Bogosort
Organization: Elec Eng, Univ of Western Australia
Date: 16 Aug 92 08:02:55 GMT


>(1) Strassen (sp?) transformations to speed up matrix multiplication from
>O(n^3) to O(n^2.37...) (2.37 might be some slightly different number!)

>The constant factor out front is big enough that you need to be talking about
>simply ENORMOUS and DENSE matrices in order to make it worthwhile (something
>like 1500x1500).

Is it at all possilbe to give even the slightest inkling of how it works in
under 20 pages?  I've heard of them, but have no idea how they could possibly
have such a low order.


--
Christopher Jam	__________________________________________________
'Another day, another try.  But remember, SHOOT OR DIE!' -turrican
phillips@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au		c64 forever!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:12892 alt.folklore.science:3087
From: kolstad@cae.wisc.edu (Joel Kolstad)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: LED's and special effects
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:35:16 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <BETSYS.92Aug21180139@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>The device is an LED strip about a meter or two long, mounted on a
>pole several meters high. The strip is about the size of those little
>signs that scroll words using LED's, and flickers at a fast rate. If
>you look at it out of the corner of your eye, moving your head
>rapidly, the LED afterimages somehow "paint" a picture in the air. The
>display cycled through several different pictures.
>
>  Anyone out here seen one of these things, or know the theory behind
>it? 

This is just due to persistance of vision... you see the column of LEDs in one
configuration (think of it as one column on a CRT), and then you turn your
head a little bit... BUT... the first column remains "imprinted" in your
mind due to persistance of vision.  Now, since you turned your head, the
next place you see the LEDs will be offset from the first column.  So, now
if we change the pattern on the LEDs, we can form an image!

Nifty trick.  Not too horribly useful, though. :-)  Sears used to sell a
long sword like device that worked just like this -- except that the idea
was to swing the sword through the air, instead of your head.

							---Joel Kolstad
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:12622 comp.arch:8923
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch
Subject: comp.arch.history (was Re: Babbage books)
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:51:30 GMT
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

>>But he threw the contents of the chamber pots out the windows, didn't
>>he?
>
>Yes, but presumably they were Open Windows (sorry).

	I've been working towards this view for quite a while, but the latest
volumes of discussion of Babbage and how horrible it was to use batch 360's
finally pushed me over the edge.  What I'm proposing is to split comp.arch,
in an attempt to move the discussions of computer architecture history into
a separate group.  I'm sure there will be some overlap, and discussions that
start in one and move the other, but I think it will help the overall noise
ratio, especially for those interested in one but not the other.  (Personally
I will try to read both, but if I get behind I may skip to the end of
comp.arch.history - right now once I get behind it's painful to find the 
articles I really want to read in the volumes of stuff I don't.)

	There have been recurrent long discussions/reminiscences of ancient
hardware here for years, and it appears to be getting worse (or maybe the
general volume level is increasing with the internet population, in any case
it has become a problem IMHO).

	Perhaps there should also should be a comp.arch.software, given the
frequent software architecture discussions that come up here.  Personally I
don't quite think it's needed yet, but then again I am a software person.

	NOTE: I do NOT have time to run a vote for this.  If people want to
see it done, someone will have to post a formal RFD and then run a vote.  I'm
posting this merely to get the discussion going.

-- 
"Rev on the redline, you're on your own; seems like a lifetime, but soon it's
 gone..."  Foreigner
-
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.