[cctalk] Re: Looking for IBM System/3 BASIC book

of what is encompassed by the emulation. It’s at least plausible that the > state of the emulation required for implementing the APL interpreter was missing some non-trivial set of features required by the BASIC interpreter. Certainly possible - we've found the jump tables in both emulators that gives an inventory of what opcodes they supported, and to fit in the capacity and cost (of what amount of software could be fitted into a slotted card at the time) that they were targeting, some compromises had to be made [ so neither were a "general 100% cycle accurate" kind of emulation, rather the focus was on supporting the essentials necessary for those respective applications of APL and BASIC, adapted from line-printer over to kbd/CRT fashion ] I recall in the SCAMP Joe George engineering docs, there was an entry where they had trouble funding or obtaining a "spare" System/3 for their development (that being IBMs own internal developers). I'm on travel and will have to lookup the exact reference later. Perhaps similarly, whatever S/360 they borrowed or used previously was no longer available. So (maybe) just being pragmatic on what was available to them at the time, they went the S/3 route. Another reason might possibly be: iirc, 1975 the trial portion of IBMs long antitrust suite was starting (the decade long one ending right at the release of the IBM PC in 1981). That being the issue of coupling software to their hardware. A thought was that by at least showing the concept that "some other language" could essentially be plugged into the system, it at least gives the impression that a third-party could technically do the same. Of course no one ever did (I'm not sure if they'd have access to enough info then to do so), but there was mention of a FORTRAN card concept for the system. Aspects along these lines are also implied in the dev journal mentioned above (if not for third party, but even in internal debate and justification by Friedl to get the project funded, a la "you want to build WHAT?" kind of discussions to a mainframe oriented business unit). Dennis Robinson might still be available to chime in on this aspect. -Steve On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 5:18 AM r.stricklin via cctalk &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: > > > > On May 6, 2025, at 11:32 PM, Steve Lewis via cctalk < > cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; wrote: > > > >>>> OS/360 TSO BASIC, pgm-nr 5734-RC2 round 1971 > > > > Interesting - then I wonder why in 1974 they bothered to build a S/3 > > emulator into the IBM 5100. They had already done the S/360 emulator > and > > gotten APL working, so why not use this OS/360 version of BASIC? > > of what is encompassed by the emulation. It’s at least plausible that the > state of the emulation required for implementing the APL interpreter was > missing some non-trivial set of features required by the BASIC interpreter. > > It’s also worth considering, as you point out, that perhaps the BASIC > inerpreter depended on some OS services. APL\360 had originally been its > own standalone timesharing environment. I’m unsure of whether that > situation was fully at an end by the time of APL\360 on DOS and MVT > (1969ish) but I don’t doubt the standalone code was likely still reasonably > fresh by the time work was underway on the 5100. The S/3 BASIC may have > been in a more reasonable state for adapting to standalone operation on the > 5100. I haven’t kept up with all the scholarship around the history of the > 5100 but it’s also not exactly implausible that there was some phase of the > project where the thing had been two separate products. > > ok > bear. > >