The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
@ 2021-12-01 20:23 Arnold Robbins
  2021-12-01 20:57 ` John Cowan
  2021-12-01 20:59 ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Arnold Robbins @ 2021-12-01 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

Hi All.

Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:

	https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor

I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
the V7 manual are also included.

Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
(ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
yylval variables.)

You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.

I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in like 2
seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
no warnings.

I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.

Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
book to convey the "zen" of Unix.

Thanks,

Arnold

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 20:23 [TUHS] Ratfor revived! Arnold Robbins
@ 2021-12-01 20:57 ` John Cowan
  2021-12-01 20:59 ` Clem Cole
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2021-12-01 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arnold Robbins; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1756 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:40 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:


>  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>

+1.

Jez Higgins is in the process of rewriting _Software Tools in Pascal_ into
C++ in a project called "stinc++".  His blog index is at <
https://www.jezuk.co.uk/tags/software-tools-in-c++.html> and the repo is at
<https://github.com/jezhiggins/stiX/>.  He's up through uniq in Chapter 4
so far.

He writes: "I first found Software Tools in Pascal a bit over 20 years ago,
hidden in amongst old VAX manuals in the library of the company where I
worked at the time. Unusually for a technical book, Software Tools in
Pascal has a terrific narrative. It starts with a tiny task – copy
everything from the console input to the console output – and presents the
correspondingly tiny program. Step by step, program by program, you arrive
at the end of the book with an ex-like line editor, a roff-style print
formatter, and a macro processor. En route, you take in filtering, file
archiving, sorting, and regular expressions. Each incremental step seems so
logical and the code presented is so clear, that you just want to keep
reading. Chunks of code in a book can be rather tedious, but Kernighan and
Plauger’s is a joy. The lessons imparted on simplicity, clarity,
efficiency, on tools and the Unix philosophy, in common sense, how each
decision affects the finished program – well, they are at the core of what
we do, and how we should think about programming.  Your mind can only be
blown once, but I re-read bits of this book often to remind myself of the
feeling it gave me."

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2939 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 20:23 [TUHS] Ratfor revived! Arnold Robbins
  2021-12-01 20:57 ` John Cowan
@ 2021-12-01 20:59 ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
                     ` (2 more replies)
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-12-01 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arnold Robbins; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2262 bytes --]

Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of
things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful childhood
experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them running on a
VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no C yet.

I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought in a
desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system -- was
there something in byacc that could not be done easily in bison?   To be
honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and bison was the
successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm suspecting that
there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this is purely curiosity --
an educational opportunity.

Thanks again,
Clem
ᐧ

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:

> Hi All.
>
> Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
> Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>
>         https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>
> I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
> on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
> at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
> the V7 manual are also included.
>
> Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
> the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
> (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
> use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
> yylval variables.)
>
> You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>
> I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in like 2
> seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
> no warnings.
>
> I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>
> Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
> for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
> spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnold
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3969 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 20:59 ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
  2021-12-01 22:23     ` Henry Bent
                       ` (2 more replies)
  2021-12-01 21:24   ` Thomas Paulsen
  2021-12-02  7:34   ` arnold
  2 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Deborah Scherrer @ 2021-12-01 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2961 bytes --]

All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there 
was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley 
Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000 
members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a 
virtual operating system that we designed, inspired of course by 
Kernighan's ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating 
systems, including some without file systems.   This is all still freely 
available, and stored with the Unix archives.

Deborah

On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of 
> things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful 
> childhood experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them 
> running on a VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no 
> C yet.
>
> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought 
> in a desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system 
> -- was there something in byacc that could not be done easily in 
> bison?   To be honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and 
> bison was the successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm 
> suspecting that there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this 
> is purely curiosity -- an educational opportunity.
>
> Thanks again,
> Clem
> ᐧ
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi All.
>
>     Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>     Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>
>     https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>
>     I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>     on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>     at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>     the V7 manual are also included.
>
>     Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>     the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>     (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>     use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>     yylval variables.)
>
>     You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>
>     I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs
>     in like 2
>     seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>     no warnings.
>
>     I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>
>     Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>     for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>     spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>     programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>     book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Arnold
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6042 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 20:59 ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
@ 2021-12-01 21:24   ` Thomas Paulsen
  2021-12-02  7:34   ` arnold
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Paulsen @ 2021-12-01 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 4878 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
@ 2021-12-01 22:23     ` Henry Bent
  2021-12-02  0:34       ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-01 22:43     ` Brantley Coile
  2021-12-02  7:41     ` arnold
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Henry Bent @ 2021-12-01 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dscherrer; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3221 bytes --]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 17:17, Deborah Scherrer <dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there was
> an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley Lab.
> The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000 members.
> We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a virtual operating
> system that we designed, inspired of course by Kernighan's ideas.  The
> collection was ported to over 50 operating systems, including some without
> file systems.   This is all still freely available, and stored with the
> Unix archives.
>
Could you provide a link to said environment, and suggest what sort of
machines it might have run on?  I probably have something here that will do
it, and I am very interested.

-Henry


> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>
> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of
> things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful childhood
> experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them running on a
> VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no C yet.
>
> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought in a
> desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system -- was
> there something in byacc that could not be done easily in bison?   To be
> honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and bison was the
> successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm suspecting that
> there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this is purely curiosity --
> an educational opportunity.
>
> Thanks again,
> Clem
> ᐧ
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All.
>>
>> Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>> Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>>
>>         https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>>
>> I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>> on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>> at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>> the V7 manual are also included.
>>
>> Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>> the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>> (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>> use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>> yylval variables.)
>>
>> You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>>
>> I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in like
>> 2
>> seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>> no warnings.
>>
>> I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>>
>> Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>> for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>> spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Arnold
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5828 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
  2021-12-01 22:23     ` Henry Bent
@ 2021-12-01 22:43     ` Brantley Coile
  2021-12-02  7:41     ` arnold
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Brantley Coile @ 2021-12-01 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dscherrer; +Cc: tuhs

I installed the STUG tape on our CDC Cyber 18/30 minicomputer and went from clunky to cool. A mentor Bob Stearns loaned me a copy of the book and it changed my life. After Bob passed away, his widow gave me the book. I was very touched. 

The Software Tools Groups work certainly made a big difference before Unix was widely available. 

  Brantley Coile


> On Dec 1, 2021, at 4:14 PM, Deborah Scherrer <dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000 members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a virtual operating system that we designed, inspired of course by Kernighan's ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating systems, including some without file systems.   This is all still freely available, and stored with the Unix archives.
> 
> Deborah
> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful childhood experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them running on a VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no C yet.
>> 
>> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought in a desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system -- was there something in byacc that could not be done easily in bison?   To be honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and bison was the successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm suspecting that there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this is purely curiosity -- an educational opportunity.
>> 
>> Thanks again,
>> Clem
>> ᐧ
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>> Hi All.
>> 
>> Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>> Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>> 
>>         https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>> 
>> I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>> on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>> at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>> the V7 manual are also included.
>> 
>> Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>> the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>> (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>> use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>> yylval variables.)
>> 
>> You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>> 
>> I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in like 2
>> seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>> no warnings.
>> 
>> I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>> 
>> Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>> for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>> spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Arnold


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 22:23     ` Henry Bent
@ 2021-12-02  0:34       ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-02  5:44         ` Henry Bent
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-12-02  0:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Henry Bent; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3451 bytes --]

https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Software_Tools/
ᐧ

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:25 PM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 17:17, Deborah Scherrer <
> dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there
>> was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley
>> Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000
>> members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a virtual
>> operating system that we designed, inspired of course by Kernighan's
>> ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating systems, including
>> some without file systems.   This is all still freely available, and stored
>> with the Unix archives.
>>
> Could you provide a link to said environment, and suggest what sort of
> machines it might have run on?  I probably have something here that will do
> it, and I am very interested.
>
> -Henry
>
>
>> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>>
>> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of
>> things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful childhood
>> experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them running on a
>> VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no C yet.
>>
>> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought in a
>> desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system -- was
>> there something in byacc that could not be done easily in bison?   To be
>> honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and bison was the
>> successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm suspecting that
>> there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this is purely curiosity --
>> an educational opportunity.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Clem
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All.
>>>
>>> Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>>> Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>>>
>>>         https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>>>
>>> I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>>> on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>>> at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>>> the V7 manual are also included.
>>>
>>> Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>>> the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>>> (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>>> use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>>> yylval variables.)
>>>
>>> You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>>>
>>> I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in
>>> like 2
>>> seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>>> no warnings.
>>>
>>> I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>>>
>>> Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>>> for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>>> spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>>> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>>> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Arnold
>>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6715 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-02  0:34       ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-12-02  5:44         ` Henry Bent
  2021-12-02 14:15           ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-02 16:30           ` John Cowan
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Henry Bent @ 2021-12-02  5:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4461 bytes --]

Thank you, Clem.  I am working on getting the tools running in DOSBox,
which seemed most straightforward.

The Byte article (the scan of which I am very grateful for; not having to
go trawling through the stacks at the Oberlin College library is always a
plus) claims that the tools have been implemented on:

ACOS
Amdahl
Apollo
AN/UYK
Burroughs
CDC
Cray
Data General
DEC
FACOM
GEC
HP
HITAC
Honeywell
IBM
Intel
Interdata
Modcomp
Multics
NCR
Perkin-Elmer
Prime
Rolm
SEL
Tandem
Univac
Wang
Xerox
CP/M Machines
MS/DOS Machines
UNIX Machines

Which is quite the list; I've never even heard of a few of those!  Based on
the files in the UNIX Archive, am I to assume that most of those ports took
advantage of a native Pascal compiler?  That's how I'm planning to bring
the tools up on my local RT-11 machine.

-Henry

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 19:34, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Software_Tools/
> ᐧ
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:25 PM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 17:17, Deborah Scherrer <
>> dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there
>>> was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley
>>> Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000
>>> members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a virtual
>>> operating system that we designed, inspired of course by Kernighan's
>>> ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating systems, including
>>> some without file systems.   This is all still freely available, and stored
>>> with the Unix archives.
>>>
>> Could you provide a link to said environment, and suggest what sort of
>> machines it might have run on?  I probably have something here that will do
>> it, and I am very interested.
>>
>> -Henry
>>
>>
>>> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>>>
>>> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of
>>> things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful childhood
>>> experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them running on a
>>> VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no C yet.
>>>
>>> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought in
>>> a desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system -- was
>>> there something in byacc that could not be done easily in bison?   To be
>>> honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and bison was the
>>> successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm suspecting that
>>> there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this is purely curiosity --
>>> an educational opportunity.
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Clem
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All.
>>>>
>>>> Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>>>> Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>>>>
>>>>         https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>>>>
>>>> I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>>>> on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>>>> at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>>>> the V7 manual are also included.
>>>>
>>>> Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>>>> the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>>>> (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>>>> use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>>>> yylval variables.)
>>>>
>>>> You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>>>>
>>>> I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in
>>>> like 2
>>>> seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>>>> no warnings.
>>>>
>>>> I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>>>>
>>>> Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>>>> for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>>>> spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>>>> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>>>> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Arnold
>>>>
>>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8321 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 20:59 ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
  2021-12-01 21:24   ` Thomas Paulsen
@ 2021-12-02  7:34   ` arnold
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: arnold @ 2021-12-02  7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: clemc, arnold; +Cc: tuhs

Hi Clem.

Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?

I did try Bison first. But, for reasons I have not yet fathomed, the
code makes use of yyval (not yylval!), which is $$ in yacc productions.
Bison does not make that available as a global variable.

> To be honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both

I am not sure of the exact provenance. My understanding is that RMS
started with Corbett's yacc and built bison out of it. But I could
be totally wrong.

Arnold

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
  2021-12-01 22:23     ` Henry Bent
  2021-12-01 22:43     ` Brantley Coile
@ 2021-12-02  7:41     ` arnold
  2021-12-02 18:34       ` Deborah Scherrer
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: arnold @ 2021-12-02  7:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs, dscherrer

Indeed.

I never worked with this directly, though. I went to grad school
at Georgia Tech, where some of the students had started with the tools
from the book and built a beautiful Unix-like subsystem on top of
Primos on Pr1me minicomputers.  (This code was recoverd in 2019,
after thinking it'd been lost for 30+ years!)

I never asked, but I suspect that the Georgia Tech guys simply didn't
know about the LBL work, or else they developed in parallel.

Arnold

Deborah Scherrer <dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu> wrote:

> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there 
> was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley 
> Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000 
> members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a 
> virtual operating system that we designed, inspired of course by 
> Kernighan's ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating 
> systems, including some without file systems.   This is all still freely 
> available, and stored with the Unix archives.
>
> Deborah
>
> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> > Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of 
> > things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful 
> > childhood experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them 
> > running on a VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no 
> > C yet.
> >
> > I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought 
> > in a desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system 
> > -- was there something in byacc that could not be done easily in 
> > bison?   To be honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and 
> > bison was the successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm 
> > suspecting that there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this 
> > is purely curiosity -- an educational opportunity.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > Clem
> > ᐧ
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi All.
> >
> >     Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
> >     Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
> >
> >     https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
> >
> >     I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
> >     on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
> >     at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
> >     the V7 manual are also included.
> >
> >     Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
> >     the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
> >     (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
> >     use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
> >     yylval variables.)
> >
> >     You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
> >
> >     I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs
> >     in like 2
> >     seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
> >     no warnings.
> >
> >     I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
> >
> >     Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
> >     for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
> >     spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
> >     programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
> >     book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     Arnold
> >

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-02  5:44         ` Henry Bent
@ 2021-12-02 14:15           ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-02 14:35             ` Brantley Coile
  2021-12-02 14:49             ` arnold
  2021-12-02 16:30           ` John Cowan
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-12-02 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Henry Bent; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5440 bytes --]

Henry -- most people that I am aware used the original Fortran-IV version
since that was the Lingua-Franca.  The Pascal version was a few years
later, and frankly other than to read the book, I personally never ran the
results from them.  But I can say I did use the original Fortran version
under VMS back in the day.  As bwk says in the Pascal edition, it was
actually a difficult thing to do because Pascal lacked many features that
really made it uniform across implementations, portable between systems
themselves, and as a reasonable systems programming language.  See: Why
Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language
<http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/bwk-on-pascal.html>

Clem
ᐧ

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:44 AM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, Clem.  I am working on getting the tools running in DOSBox,
> which seemed most straightforward.
>
> The Byte article (the scan of which I am very grateful for; not having to
> go trawling through the stacks at the Oberlin College library is always a
> plus) claims that the tools have been implemented on:
>
> ACOS
> Amdahl
> Apollo
> AN/UYK
> Burroughs
> CDC
> Cray
> Data General
> DEC
> FACOM
> GEC
> HP
> HITAC
> Honeywell
> IBM
> Intel
> Interdata
> Modcomp
> Multics
> NCR
> Perkin-Elmer
> Prime
> Rolm
> SEL
> Tandem
> Univac
> Wang
> Xerox
> CP/M Machines
> MS/DOS Machines
> UNIX Machines
>
> Which is quite the list; I've never even heard of a few of those!  Based
> on the files in the UNIX Archive, am I to assume that most of those ports
> took advantage of a native Pascal compiler?  That's how I'm planning to
> bring the tools up on my local RT-11 machine.
>
> -Henry
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 19:34, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Software_Tools/
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:25 PM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 17:17, Deborah Scherrer <
>>> dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there
>>>> was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley
>>>> Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000
>>>> members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a virtual
>>>> operating system that we designed, inspired of course by Kernighan's
>>>> ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating systems, including
>>>> some without file systems.   This is all still freely available, and stored
>>>> with the Unix archives.
>>>>
>>> Could you provide a link to said environment, and suggest what sort of
>>> machines it might have run on?  I probably have something here that will do
>>> it, and I am very interested.
>>>
>>> -Henry
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of
>>>> things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful childhood
>>>> experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them running on a
>>>> VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no C yet.
>>>>
>>>> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought in
>>>> a desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system -- was
>>>> there something in byacc that could not be done easily in bison?   To be
>>>> honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and bison was the
>>>> successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm suspecting that
>>>> there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this is purely curiosity --
>>>> an educational opportunity.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> Clem
>>>> ᐧ
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>>>>> Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>>>>>
>>>>>         https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>>>>>
>>>>> I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>>>>> on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>>>>> at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>>>>> the V7 manual are also included.
>>>>>
>>>>> Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>>>>> the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>>>>> (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>>>>> use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>>>>> yylval variables.)
>>>>>
>>>>> You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in
>>>>> like 2
>>>>> seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>>>>> no warnings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>>>>> for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>>>>> spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>>>>> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>>>>> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Arnold
>>>>>
>>>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9958 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-02 14:15           ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-12-02 14:35             ` Brantley Coile
  2021-12-02 14:49             ` arnold
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Brantley Coile @ 2021-12-02 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: TUHS main list

I lead a dual technological life. I usually don't talk about one side on email lists about the other. Sometimes creates heat. But I'm completely convinced of the value of both sides. Let's call one 1127, after the department number at Bell Labs, and the other Wirthian. Thomsonian and Wirthian would also be appropriate. 

I loved the WPNMFPL paper! Later, Wirth fixed all the language issues mentioned in that paper with his last language, Oberon. Some issues in the paper are issues of taste, and Oberon is, well, strongly Wirthian, so one might object to it if their taste corresponds with BWK's.

DMR said at HOPL that Pascal and C have a lot in common. He said one might even expect there was information cross flow, which he stated there wasn't. That was what DMR said, not me.

I program in C on Plan 9 because it's the best tool for what I'm doing. I could easily see me living in Oberon. I might even like it better. Some days. But then... 

See how great it is to live a duplicitous life. Best of both.

  Brantley

> On Dec 2, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
> 
> Henry -- most people that I am aware used the original Fortran-IV version since that was the Lingua-Franca.  The Pascal version was a few years later, and frankly other than to read the book, I personally never ran the results from them.  But I can say I did use the original Fortran version under VMS back in the day.  As bwk says in the Pascal edition, it was actually a difficult thing to do because Pascal lacked many features that really made it uniform across implementations, portable between systems themselves, and as a reasonable systems programming language.  See: Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language
> 
> Clem
> ᐧ
> 
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:44 AM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Clem.  I am working on getting the tools running in DOSBox, which seemed most straightforward.
> 
> The Byte article (the scan of which I am very grateful for; not having to go trawling through the stacks at the Oberlin College library is always a plus) claims that the tools have been implemented on:
> 
> ACOS
> Amdahl
> Apollo
> AN/UYK
> Burroughs
> CDC
> Cray
> Data General
> DEC
> FACOM
> GEC
> HP
> HITAC
> Honeywell
> IBM
> Intel
> Interdata
> Modcomp
> Multics
> NCR
> Perkin-Elmer
> Prime
> Rolm
> SEL
> Tandem
> Univac
> Wang
> Xerox
> CP/M Machines
> MS/DOS Machines
> UNIX Machines
> 
> Which is quite the list; I've never even heard of a few of those!  Based on the files in the UNIX Archive, am I to assume that most of those ports took advantage of a native Pascal compiler?  That's how I'm planning to bring the tools up on my local RT-11 machine.
> 
> -Henry
> 
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 19:34, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
> https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Software_Tools/
> ᐧ
> 
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:25 PM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 17:17, Deborah Scherrer <dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu> wrote:
> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000 members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a virtual operating system that we designed, inspired of course by Kernighan's ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating systems, including some without file systems.   This is all still freely available, and stored with the Unix archives.
> 
> Could you provide a link to said environment, and suggest what sort of machines it might have run on?  I probably have something here that will do it, and I am very interested.
> 
> -Henry
>  
> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful childhood experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them running on a VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no C yet.
>> 
>> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought in a desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system -- was there something in byacc that could not be done easily in bison?   To be honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and bison was the successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm suspecting that there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this is purely curiosity -- an educational opportunity.
>> 
>> Thanks again,
>> Clem
>> ᐧ
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>> Hi All.
>> 
>> Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>> Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>> 
>>         https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>> 
>> I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>> on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>> at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>> the V7 manual are also included.
>> 
>> Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>> the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>> (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>> use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>> yylval variables.)
>> 
>> You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>> 
>> I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs in like 2
>> seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>> no warnings.
>> 
>> I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>> 
>> Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>> for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>> spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>> programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>> book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Arnold


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-02 14:15           ` Clem Cole
  2021-12-02 14:35             ` Brantley Coile
@ 2021-12-02 14:49             ` arnold
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: arnold @ 2021-12-02 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: henry.r.bent, clemc; +Cc: tuhs

Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> See: Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language
> <http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/bwk-on-pascal.html>

Even better: https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/cstr100

This is the troff for that memo; I got it from BWK. :-)

Arnold

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-02  5:44         ` Henry Bent
  2021-12-02 14:15           ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-12-02 16:30           ` John Cowan
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2021-12-02 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Henry Bent; +Cc: TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 663 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:45 AM Henry Bent <henry.r.bent@gmail.com> wrote:


> The Byte article (the scan of which I am very grateful for; not having to
> go trawling through the stacks at the Oberlin College library is always a
> plus) claims that the tools have been implemented on:
>
> Tandem
>

That would be me; at least I registered it with Addison-Wesley, although
someone else may have implemented it independently.  I also wrote a shell
that took advantage of Guardian-style IPC, using a per-user pipe server
that connected up all the monodirectional pipes through itself.  Its prompt
was ::, which the documentation referred to as the quadpoint prompt.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1239 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] Ratfor revived!
  2021-12-02  7:41     ` arnold
@ 2021-12-02 18:34       ` Deborah Scherrer
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Deborah Scherrer @ 2021-12-02 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: arnold, tuhs

Oh no, the Georgia Tech guys were heavily involved with the Software 
Tools stuff at Lawrence Berkeley Lab.  Were in frequent contact.  Did a 
superb job of setting up the Tools there and extending them.  Good guys!

Debbie

On 12/1/21 11:41 PM, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> I never worked with this directly, though. I went to grad school
> at Georgia Tech, where some of the students had started with the tools
> from the book and built a beautiful Unix-like subsystem on top of
> Primos on Pr1me minicomputers.  (This code was recoverd in 2019,
> after thinking it'd been lost for 30+ years!)
>
> I never asked, but I suspect that the Georgia Tech guys simply didn't
> know about the LBL work, or else they developed in parallel.
>
> Arnold
>
> Deborah Scherrer <dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> All you folks revisiting the Software Tools should remember that there
>> was an entire movement around the first book, based at Lawrence Berkeley
>> Lab.  The Software Tools group, an offshoot of Usenix, had about 2000
>> members.  We created an almost-entire Unix environment based on a
>> virtual operating system that we designed, inspired of course by
>> Kernighan's ideas.  The collection was ported to over 50 operating
>> systems, including some without file systems.   This is all still freely
>> available, and stored with the Unix archives.
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>> On 12/1/21 12:59 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>>> Arnold -- sounds fun.  Thank you!!!  I'll add it to my growing pile of
>>> things I want to play with at some point.   I too had a wonderful
>>> childhood experience with the SW tools.  Somebody had a number of them
>>> running on a VMS box when all we had was the VMS Fortran compiler, no
>>> C yet.
>>>
>>> I am curious why did you decide to use byacc?   I would have thought
>>> in a desire to modernize and make it more available on a modern system
>>> -- was there something in byacc that could not be done easily in
>>> bison?   To be honest, I had thought Robert Corbett did them both and
>>> bison was the successor to byacc, but I'm not a compiler guy - so I'm
>>> suspecting that there must be a difference/reason.   As I said, this
>>> is purely curiosity -- an educational opportunity.
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Clem
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:41 PM Arnold Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi All.
>>>
>>>      Mainly for fun (sic), I decided to revive the Ratfor (Rational
>>>      Fortran) preprocessor.  Please see:
>>>
>>>      https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/ratfor
>>>
>>>      I started with the V6 code, then added the V7, V8 and V10 versions
>>>      on top of it. Each one has its own branch so that you can look
>>>      at the original code, if you wish. The man page and the paper from
>>>      the V7 manual are also included.
>>>
>>>      Starting with the Tenth Edition version, I set about to modernize
>>>      the code and get it to compile and run on a modern-day system.
>>>      (ANSI style declarations and function headers, modern include files,
>>>      use of getopt, and most importantly, correct use of Yacc yyval and
>>>      yylval variables.)
>>>
>>>      You will need Berkely Yacc installed as byacc in order to build it.
>>>
>>>      I have only touch-tested it, but so far it seems OK.  'make' runs
>>>      in like 2
>>>      seconds, really quick. On my Ubuntu Linux systems, it compiles with
>>>      no warnings.
>>>
>>>      I hope to eventually add a test suite also, if I can steal some time.
>>>
>>>      Before anyone asks, no, I don't think anybody today has any real use
>>>      for it.  This was simply "for fun", and because Ratfor has a soft
>>>      spot in my heart.  "Software Tools" was, for me, the most influential
>>>      programming book that I ever read.  I don't think there's a better
>>>      book to convey the "zen" of Unix.
>>>
>>>      Thanks,
>>>
>>>      Arnold
>>>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-02 19:45 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-12-01 20:23 [TUHS] Ratfor revived! Arnold Robbins
2021-12-01 20:57 ` John Cowan
2021-12-01 20:59 ` Clem Cole
2021-12-01 21:14   ` Deborah Scherrer
2021-12-01 22:23     ` Henry Bent
2021-12-02  0:34       ` Clem Cole
2021-12-02  5:44         ` Henry Bent
2021-12-02 14:15           ` Clem Cole
2021-12-02 14:35             ` Brantley Coile
2021-12-02 14:49             ` arnold
2021-12-02 16:30           ` John Cowan
2021-12-01 22:43     ` Brantley Coile
2021-12-02  7:41     ` arnold
2021-12-02 18:34       ` Deborah Scherrer
2021-12-01 21:24   ` Thomas Paulsen
2021-12-02  7:34   ` arnold

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).