Linked by David Adams on Wed 29th Mar 2017 23:14 UTC
General Unix AT&T has a YouTube channel, where a few times a week they post old videos from the glory days. A few years ago, they posted a cool video from 1982 called The UNIX System: Making Computers More Productive. It's worth a watch. There's lots of other gems on the channel. For example, how about an interview with Arthur C Clarke from 1976?
Order by: Score:
Comment by judgen
by judgen on Wed 29th Mar 2017 23:42 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

Imagine a world where code is truly portable!

Edited 2017-03-29 23:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by judgen
by Kochise on Thu 30th Mar 2017 06:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Assemblers aren't in the first place, so...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by judgen
by feamatar on Thu 30th Mar 2017 08:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

Academics want something clean and elegant, people on the field want something that works... most of the time. So we got UNIX, C and the IBM PC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by Kochise on Thu 30th Mar 2017 08:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Lisp machines, missed opportunities...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by judgen
by moondevil on Thu 30th Mar 2017 09:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

You mean the world of Fortran, Lisp, Algol 68, Lisp, PL/I?

Contrary to urban legends there was a computing world outside AT&T walls.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by Anachronda on Thu 30th Mar 2017 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
Anachronda Member since:
2007-04-18

You mean the world of Fortran, Lisp, Algol 68, Lisp, PL/I?


Cue the obligatory Blazing Saddles clip:

"You said Lisp twice."
"I like Lisp."

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by Kochise on Thu 30th Mar 2017 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

"Read my Lisp!"

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by BlueofRainbow on Fri 31st Mar 2017 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
BlueofRainbow Member since:
2009-01-06

Even within AT&T, there was a world which is now mostly forgotten. For example, something called "A Little Implementation Language" (LIL):

http://www.ultimate.com/phil/lil/lil.html

"A language is described that was implemented on a PDP-11 computer for writing system-level code for the PDP-11 family of minicomputers. The Little Implementation Language LIL offers a number of features that facilitate writing structured, high-level code with no sacrifice in efficiency over assembly language. The discussion ends with a harsh evaluation of its future usefulness."

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by Pro-Competition on Fri 31st Mar 2017 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

Thanks for linking to that - very interesting. It actually does seem useful to me, despite the negative assessment at the end.

It sits about halfway between Assembler and C. It uses a C-like syntax, which is much easier to work with than opcodes, but uses registers and memory access instead of arbitrary variables, and allows access to condition codes (which is a shortcoming of every portable, high-level language).

If I had to write extremely low-level, machine-dependent code, I would certainly prefer to do it in a language like this rather than Assembly!

Is anyone aware of any other efforts in this direction? (I admit that I am not an expert in esoteric/obscure languages.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by judgen
by Rugxulo on Fri 31st Mar 2017 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by judgen"
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

If I had to write extremely low-level, machine-dependent code, I would certainly prefer to do it in a language like this rather than Assembly!


Assembly isn't necessarily that low-level (esp. with macros and similar high-level stuff). I like assembly, but it is indeed much more error-prone, which can be tedious to double-check. So 3 kb vs. 512 bytes output isn't (usually) worth the minimal savings or time waste. (UPX, FTW!)


Is anyone aware of any other efforts in this direction? (I admit that I am not an expert in esoteric/obscure languages.)


I haven't read the full article yet, but he mentions Wirth's PL/360. He also mentions nested control structures, which makes me think of MASM v6 syntax.

Okay, so that was a short article. I agree that a standard, portable language is better overall than low-level stuff. (I like Wirth languages although I'm unfamiliar with PL/360.) But personally I'm tired of the bloat. (Wirth's _Plea for Lean Software_, anyone?) Well, there are many workarounds, so it could always be worse.

"Other efforts in this direction"? Probably Forth. And Sphinx C--. And maybe even Turbo Pascal (since it had "absolute", Port[], Mem[] even before it had inline asm). Even Modula-2 and Oberon have pseudo-module SYSTEM for low-level stuff like this.

Reply Score: 1

Love this!
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 1st Apr 2017 02:07 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

the best part of this video is that they don't treat the viewer as idiots.....Second runner up is the 80's ness of it :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Love this!
by Kochise on Sat 1st Apr 2017 06:44 UTC in reply to "Love this!"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

If you 80s things, try this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrIjfIjssLE

Reply Score: 2