From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 12712 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2022 19:59:49 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Jan 2022 19:59:49 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 80F8F9518E; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 05:59:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0169510A; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 05:59:32 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="q8N2fj4q"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 851AA9510A; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 05:59:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qv1-f43.google.com (mail-qv1-f43.google.com [209.85.219.43]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E92CF95109 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 05:59:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qv1-f43.google.com with SMTP id g13so9042082qvw.4 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 11:59:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UmkgmHatpfN2H37mOlbMuoA+oK+y22J1aCHJKwSA6Tw=; b=q8N2fj4qIaKUcYAssid1uDApLfhUF/GnB2EUGgmsQGo4XWFhMmmL0O+bCixT0XcgI+ 4ksPv8f8gDu7nLvr81uDnsmJ1ktZjfuz/L8Y4V1OD/Op1TU9AAxpR9Ta3KYQ2mJ3P//O W4kTDp2zBG9s5Jd2BM4vNfsiLcU4glFN64EVY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UmkgmHatpfN2H37mOlbMuoA+oK+y22J1aCHJKwSA6Tw=; b=OitKscEnuljhAWW/E9Oon/Wj8sJr/kDVEsr80/E+E/S+RiCHKs62AlnuTbXHcWAm0S okAa9Prz9oe/arOC3bdizcSfUzUl7t49DuitsmltrXV5FuAOk6HkqQ8nBsnzaT6yi6qe zZiLbB21wTuzKCJCn5NIOCbPrmPn4dqU7a6L/pqFJDhNlYEzFgmPzeptNPz5Q5YaUwnV O9YWXVNJVoQCu9ZmRADLoIeSLSE90GbNffs+BXqLEJDBF0gvgwRFJA0XuCvnVGTBS3L7 Wg9eCNIWaJVlD6ZRZVCEf27wu2I0GFEEOpDh/EteIzZ4fDKK1+jcywvxS+h5yDK1Qu69 mN6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531PmU6x7nePHoh8I24lBCV+6q3Y6V4eM3cn0jQaQOr8ooX1C3+b MgsI+7SAnyZczLMwxfYbsUXXzPULIBidNESBdXYkxh52jFlHSous X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzWfipWgWnyXyfGicNr9puxH7Cjvane002ID9vjJNi/F0W86VSAuvaMqElFw/zTgYT5kHcVDv8CPZH3i3athdE= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5aae:: with SMTP id u14mr6967791qvg.126.1643486368733; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 11:59:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0f83f174-eeca-30fb-7b98-77fb0da80f2e@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <0f83f174-eeca-30fb-7b98-77fb0da80f2e@gmail.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 14:59:02 -0500 Message-ID: To: Will Senn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000033b27205d6bdfd2e" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Looking back to 1981 - what pascal was popular on what unix? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000033b27205d6bdfd2e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 6:08 PM Will Senn wrote: > 1. What edition of UNIX were they likely to be using? > Already answered ... > 2. What versions of "Standard Pascal" were in vogue on UNIX at the time > (1981)? > Remember in 1981, the 'Pascal Standard' was still in flight. ISO 7185 was 1983 and Pascal really does not standardize enough that real portability was possible until the 1990 version and people actually started implementing compilers that obeyed it. > > 3. What combinations of UNIX/Pascal were popular? > Depends the implementation... there were a number of them... there were the ones I had at that time - UCB Pascal -- pi being the most popular for the PDP-11, and later pc for the Vax - VU Pascal for the 11 - The Zurich P4 compiler was around and of course eventually begat UCSD, but I don't remember that it was directly made to run on Unix[I did not have one], although it may/must have been. - The Similer2 compiler for 68000 [was one of Wirth's -- I think was the basis for the compiler that they used for Lilith - or maybe it was a fork that produced the Lilith and the Similer2 compiler -- I don't remember]. That showed up on a couple of the 68K workstations in 1981. - Andy's Amsterdam Toolkit - There was a compiler that the RTS folks had at MIT, but I don't know its origin or how complete it was. - Purdue had something that had started on the CDCs -- that went to Tektronix and was the basis for some of the stuff the Logical Analizer folks were using. It was cross compiler that ran on Unix and generated 8-bit microprocessor code for embedded systems. - Per Brinch Hansen had a Pascal that we was pushing, but I don't think he even moved it to Unix - Plus, the "Tunis" folks in Toronto had a Concurrent-Pascal and a UNIX-like system that ran on PDP-11s. And the problem was 'standard' - lots of people messed with it and every Pascal was a little different. In 1981 at one of the HP/Tektronix [Hatfield/McCoy parties - Stienhart probably remembers], Mike Zuhl, TW Cook and I counted 14 different "Tek Pascal's" and over 25 "HP Basic's" -- each was a little different. UCSD Pascal was its own system, not Unix [sort of like Smalltalk -- a walled garden within itself]. They started with the P4 compiler but they made it work on 8-bit systems, so while it was around, it was not a UNIX Pascal >>and<< it the Standard was still in flight. The OMSI Pascal compiler was popular for the PDP-11's, but it was RT-11 and RSX [maybe RSTS, but I'm not sure]. The Zurich PDP-10 Compiler was very popular in PDP-10 land. DEC released the VAX/pascal for VMS, which they eventually brought to Ultrix and Tru64. I believe that that was a scratch rewrite and did not use P4 or anything from the PDP-10s or CDC systems before it. One of the big issues with P4 based stuff is that the original P2 porting kit from Wirth assumed a 40 bit integer of the CDC system. Making it work with a 36 bit world was a tad easier than the 32 or 16 bit world, much less the 8-bit micros. Folks like DEC, UCB and Amsterdam which started over with a new front end, tended to have an easier go of it and often had better compiler tools [which were mostly C based BTW for UNIX and a combination of Pascal and BLISS at DEC]. Sun later brought the UCB PI and PC to the SunOS, but pls Rob G/Larry correct me here - I think they later did their own compiler when they did their new C and Fortran. Masscomp started with the Similer2 compiler, but eventually did a new front end that matched their C and Fortran like DEC had. As for SWTinP running with FreePascal. I looked into it and decided it was doable, but never went very fair with my investigation since the need for it, was less. Back in the days of VMS, Pr1meOS and the like, SWT was a Godsend. But Windows and like have real Unix subsystems, so I never really was motivated other than pure curiosity. > --00000000000033b27205d6bdfd2e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On F= ri, Jan 28, 2022 at 6:08 PM Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
= 1. What edition of UNIX were they likely to be using?
Already answered ...
=
2. What versions of "Standard Pascal" were in vogue on UNIX= at the time (1981)?
Reme= mber in 1981, the 'Pascal Standard' was still in flight. ISO 7185 w= as 1983 and Pascal really does not standardize enough=C2=A0that real portab= ility=C2=A0was possible until the 1990 version and people actually started = implementing compilers that obeyed it.

3. What combinations of UNIX/Pascal were popular?
Depends the implementation... = =C2=A0there were a number of them... there were the ones I had at that time=
  • UCB Pascal -- pi being the = most popular for the PDP-11, and later pc for the Vax
  • VU Pascal for the 11
  • The Zurich P4 compiler was around and of course eventually begat UCS= D, but I don't remember that it was directly made to run on Unix[I did = not have one], although it may/must=C2=A0have been.
  • The Similer2 compiler for=C2=A068000 [was one of Wirth'= s -- I think was the basis for the compiler that they used for Lilith - or = maybe it was a fork that produced the Lilith and the Similer2 compiler -- I= don't remember].=C2=A0 That showed up on a couple of the 68K workstati= ons in 1981.
  • Andy's Amsterdam To= olkit=C2=A0
  • There was a compiler=C2= =A0that the RTS folks=C2=A0had at MIT, but I don't know its origin or h= ow complete it was.
  • Purdue had somet= hing that had started=C2=A0on the CDCs -- that went to Tektronix and was th= e basis for some of the stuff the Logical Analizer=C2=A0folks were using.= =C2=A0 It was cross compiler that ran on Unix and generated 8-bit microproc= essor code for embedded systems.
  • Per= Brinch Hansen had a Pascal that we was pushing, but I don't think he e= ven moved it to Unix
  • Plus, the "= ;Tunis" folks in Toronto had a Concurrent-Pascal and a UNIX-like syste= m that ran on PDP-11s.
And= the problem was 'standard' - lots of people messed with it and eve= ry Pascal was a little different.=C2=A0 In 1981 at one of the HP/Tektronix = [Hatfield/McCoy parties - Stienhart probably remembers], Mike Zuhl, TW Cook= and I counted 14 different "Tek Pascal's" and over 25 "= HP Basic's" -- each was a little different.

UCSD Pascal wa= s its own system, not Unix [sort of like Smalltalk -- a walled garden withi= n itself].=C2=A0 They started with the P4 compiler but they made it work on= 8-bit systems, so while it was around, it was not a UNIX Pascal >>an= d<< it the Standard was still in flight.=C2=A0 The OMSI Pascal compil= er was popular for the PDP-11's, but it was RT-11 and RSX [maybe RSTS, = but I'm not sure].=C2=A0 The Zurich PDP-10 Compiler was very popular in= PDP-10 land.=C2=A0 DEC released the VAX/pascal for VMS, which they eventua= lly brought to Ultrix and Tru64. =C2=A0 I believe that that was a scratch= =C2=A0rewrite and did not use=C2=A0P4 or anything from the PDP-10s or CDC s= ystems before it.

<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif= ">One of the big issues with P4 based stuff is that= the original P2 porting kit from Wirth assumed a 40 bit integer of the CDC= system. =C2=A0 Making it work with a 36 bit world was a tad easier than th= e 32 or 16 bit world, much less the 8-bit micros. =C2=A0 Folks like DEC, UC= B and Amsterdam=C2=A0which started=C2=A0over with a new front end, tended t= o have an easier=C2=A0go of it and often had better compiler tools [which w= ere mostly C based BTW for UNIX and a combination of Pascal and BLISS at DE= C].

Sun later brought the UCB PI and PC to the SunOS, but pls Rob = G/Larry correct me here - I think they later did their own compiler=C2=A0wh= en they did their new C and Fortran.=C2=A0 Masscomp started with the Simile= r2 compiler, but eventually did a new front end that matched their C and Fo= rtran like DEC had.


As = for SWTinP running with FreePascal.=C2=A0 I looked into it and decided=C2= =A0it was doable, but never went very fair with my investigation since the = need for it, was less.=C2=A0 Back in the=C2=A0days of VMS, Pr1meOS and the = like, SWT was a Godsend.=C2=A0 But Windows and like have real Unix subsyste= ms, so I never really was motivated other than pure curiosity.
=
--00000000000033b27205d6bdfd2e--