paulkoning at comcast.net
Sat Jan 14 12:10:03 CST 2017
> On Jan 14, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
> On 01/14/2017 06:31 AM, dwight wrote:
>> I would say he doesn't like the 1620.
> I'm familiar with the document. For all of that, note that the 1620 and
> its industrial version, the 1710, was hugely popular and a great deal of
> useful work was accomplished with it.
> Was the CADET slow? Sure, but it was fast enough--and eminently
> programmable in machine language, even for a student. Some of the same
> criticisms could be levied against the venerable 1401, none of which
> prevented its application in the real world.
It's worth reading that with the goals in mind. He was doing an RFP for a machine suitable for multiprogramming and for ALGOL, and writing about some of the responses. Clearly someone who would propose an IBM 1620 in response lacks clue. One of his criticisms is that you can't save the state to do context switching (true; consider how subroutine returns are done).
The 1620 was very successful in its intended market, but that market wasn't where EWD resided.
More information about the cctech