Structured Fortran - was Re: Self modifying code, lambda calculus
cube1 at charter.net
Wed Sep 23 12:09:53 CDT 2015
On 9/23/2015 11:17 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
> On 09/23/2015 03:39 AM, ANDY HOLT wrote:
>>> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
>>> After all, languages are supposed to expose features
>>> of the underlying machine to the programmer.
>> Many believe that the purpose of languages is to HIDE (abstract) the
> Well, as far as I know, the 1401 series does NOT have binary data types,
> or floating point. Just decimal integers, where an implied decimal
> point can be placed. I think this would make a POSIX compliant C rather
> difficult to do. But, of course, you could just implement what came
> naturally to the machine. For a POSIX compliant implementation, you'd
> just about have to generate some kind of code interpreted by an
> interpreter that ran on the 1401 directly.
POSIX is not, in its origins, was not a language standard. It was an OS
interface standard. Really not relevant to the discussion, I think. I
do agree that trying to provide a POSIX compliant operating system
interface on such a machine would be impractical. Even if you could do
it, there would not be enough memory.
Naturally, C programs that depended upon, say, a numerically encoded
character might fail, but one could still provide functions that
converted from a number to a character and vice/versa (as in PASCAL).
The 1410 (which is what I originally mentioned, not a 1401) does have a
floating point - normally implemented in software, but also available in
hardware (standard on a 7010). I have to believe the 1401 had to have
something similar, since there were FORTRANs for it. ;)
The series would be more properly referred to as the 1400 series. The
1410 is not like, say, a 1440 which offers 1401 compatibility, aside
from a switch which quite literally caused the machine to become a 1401
instead of a 1410.
More information about the cctalk