From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!news.weisnix.org!newsfeed.ision.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <4fc0934e-197b-4a02-a006-4b64072897b2@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <7020ad82-ed09-4c87-8f46-db23bf2fa866@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:24:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1hj7ztupw83hr.1d411qsp6e0rw.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jul 2009 11:24:32 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e1d76d1.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=_>Dajl^V@S3^8FBo0_81f>ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9H1H@Tml5BLW`<:;ncOWl8E`eZW:o_=I8 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:422 comp.lang.ada:7338 comp.lang.modula3:106 comp.programming:12035 Date: 2009-07-25T11:24:32+02:00 List-Id: On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:05:03 -0700 (PDT), robertwessel2@yahoo.com wrote: > On Jul 24, 8:15�pm, wwilson wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:31:45 -0400, Jon Harrop � >> wrote: >> >>> tm wrote: >>>> Simplicity of languages and their implementation got lost somehow... >> >>> The F# team at Microsoft used to advertise that their compiler was under >>> 10kLOC. >> >> Am I the only one that remembers when computers came with a maximum of a � >> few kbytes. �I personally know of one full FORTRAN IV compiler for the IBM � >> 1130 that fit into 8 K bytes. �My favorite programming feat was the way � >> that IBM squeezed a whole COBOL compiler into 1400 bytes on the IBM 1401. > > While it�s true that compilers of that era ran in very small amounts > of memory, they often ran very many passes, the code for each of which > was loaded sequentially, and much use was made of temporary files to > hold intermediate transformations of the program being compiled. Some > compilers used upwards of 20 passes (which wasn't great for > compilation speeds either). The compilers were in fact much larger > than could fit in memory (at least on the smaller machines), they just > arranged things so that it didn't all need to be loaded at once. Yes, PDP-11 OS RSX-11M supported memory overlays which were actively used. However it didn't take 20 passes to compile FORTRAN IV. The compiler was extremely fast, much faster than the linker (TKB). Indeed I remember a C compiler (not from DEC) and an Ada 83 compiler (incomplete) for RSX-11 which used 6 passes, or so. But they were rather purely designed. Back to the point, let us not forget another limit, the hard drive DK for PDP-11 was 2.5MB. So all overlays should have fit into that. The FORTRAN compiler, the linker, the text editor (EDT) and the OS kernel together fit there. Incredible! -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de