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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 27810 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2021 00:22:50 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Nov 2021 00:22:50 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D168C9CF1F; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:22:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671C494613; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:19:42 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="fOWivHen"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D0D2F94613; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:19:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f174.google.com (mail-qt1-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E0A894586 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:19:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f174.google.com with SMTP id z9so14742494qtj.9 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:19:35 -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=ooE+fy7sHH4A0gVHt1Wf7MPYJ2XNOI8Dt01JiioNXwM=; b=fOWivHena3q7FNRIZDUJ9ibdKkKDwDZg5jKxq2VS1E+9hgrckFRs5zP/p+VUmCUGjR WgXVHSMbv+wTGrJ52fmZ/Uxlfu3R8tu2un0HZ8Mb9g23TOpznf13GJdKinKDCofVs9T2 k6fuFN3+ABXHXil9kz58Nc4G8j4lQfThTLDec= 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=ooE+fy7sHH4A0gVHt1Wf7MPYJ2XNOI8Dt01JiioNXwM=; b=uf0rcvmGt8utYCUrv5lKZdH7rc08KIxczYQZlhatCJT+ZIHSEHjdUvMrPDuUkVJxzJ /7yEkUYUs7GOjDG5Jsimzml2FTZ8y6Je6iuoLi4JNPDcARBo6LLVN5g74R0oy8SpZOJ5 D0C+7bbBdyCmbGE745dPuZ4WbxffaSOwiODISQrdrWVQ26oLmerdBq8xBA4S/HFfhvMP MRT+yZ3NfZxqM+Ry8g8C59XjnGC+3fPXNGMAxqRHK5nCo3yJQJYkAoI4DPDJAI73+LAK SDThRRXt4qNlnQ3F1B3x3KSi65uPqlT5l6OtbSXKVnuVT+0BbTE00wUb8AJ+xPhlzrHQ on1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531STsjUF5e1PZc6C4N6etiv/spos56vT/IKN5MSBx2kJlEfNVWi HrWa+sSxZPUJxerS2fqi6s2gnrii85QWhmwPyjz36+R7C96X6g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwq1SNJNJ33JhLEfr1b9EsbZurRWDte1RBO1upgoJS9FSMZL648/pcADSJt+a70cWQvZMSeZhvdATaXVUDJaLc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:30e:: with SMTP id q14mr40467047qtw.71.1638145174033; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:19:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202111282026.1ASKQ5X41437843@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <202111282115.1ASLFK1Q1438854@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <202111282147.1ASLlND41439656@darkstar.fourwinds.com> In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:19:08 -0500 Message-ID: To: Rob Pike Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000030730305d1e2655f" Subject: Re: [TUHS] A New History of Modern Computing - my thoughts 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 , Eugene Miya Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000030730305d1e2655f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rob, I offer a small tweak to your statement, that I hope you will consider On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 5:20 PM Rob Pike wrote: > The PDP-11 as an affordable commercial computer, now _that_ was important= . > s/computer/mini-computer/ I really believe that this distinction is important. Bell coined the term in the late 1950s/early 1960s when he called it a minicomputer. The key is that he meant >>minimal computer - in function and price<< (not small). (This would event eventual lead to Bell's law for the birth and death of computer classes). To me, the PDP-111 ISA is the epitome the *minimal computer architecture* - just want you to need to get the job done be it commercial or scientific and it was affordable as you said. The solution is elegant, nothing fancy, little extra added - just the right set of features for a system to do real work. It was also extremely regular as Larry points out, so it was not filled with a ton of special cases. It did have a few more features like addressing modes, and multiple registers that made it more complex than say= an accumulator-based PDP-8. But the small set of new features made sense and were* of** use for almost all programmers*. [FWIW: IMHO, most new features we add to Intel*64 is all for some special cases for a specific customer]. I note that the VAX (was is the epitome of the CISC and while extraordinarily successful), has always been an easy target as way too complicated, filled with many special cases (just for the Fortran compiler, or for Cutler's as an assembly programmer). IMHO: C is also made from the same minimal ideal. It took the simplicity of the B and added typing and better data structures, but did not overdo it. Again, what was added was useful to almost all programmers. I note that while the follow-on to both the 11 (the Vax) and C (C++) became working horses, but both are ugly as can be, and neither would I call elegant. I've used them both, however, I have moved on since that time. I do pine for something more like a 64-bit PDP-11 (more in a minute), and still use C when I can in the kernel or Go when in userspace. Having kicked around DEC during some of the Alpha discussions, other than the original lack of byte addressing, I think the PDP-11 influenced the Alpha more than VAX did. There was a definition -- why is the needed -- thinking. Keep it simple a minimal. As for Unix (since this is a Unix history list), again I think it is the minimal view I miss from Sixth and Seventh Edition. I look at Linux and mostly turn green with how much has been lost from those days. But like the PDP-11, I can not really go back. My hope is that something will appear that is "good enough" and '"simple enough" to get people excited again. my 2 cents, Clem =E1=90=A7 =E1=90=A7 --00000000000030730305d1e2655f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob, I offer a= small tweak to your statement, that I hope you will consider
<= /div>
<= font color=3D"#ff0000">On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 5:20 PM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> w= rote:
The PDP-11 as an affordable commercial computer, now _= that_ was important.
s/computer/mini-computer/

I really believe that this distinction is im= portant.=C2=A0 Bell coined the term in the late 1950s/early 1960s when he c= alled it a minicomputer.=C2=A0 The key is that he meant >>minimal com= puter - in function and price<< (not small).=C2=A0 (This = would event eventual lead to=C2=A0Bell's law for the birth and d= eath of computer classes).

To me, the PDP-111 ISA=C2=A0 is the epitome the minimal computer architecture - just= want you to need to get the job done be it commercial or scientific an= d it was affordable as you said.=C2=A0 The solution is el= egant, nothing fancy, little extra added - just the right set of features f= or a system to do real work.=C2=A0 It was also extremely regular as Larry p= oints out, so it was not filled with a ton of special cases.=C2=A0 It did h= ave a few more features like addressing modes, and multiple registers that = made it more complex than say an accumulator-based=C2=A0PDP-8.=C2=A0 But the small set of new fea= tures=C2=A0made sense and were of use for almost all program= mers.=C2=A0 [FWIW: IMHO, most new features we add to Intel*64 is al= l for some=C2=A0special cases for a specific customer].

I note that the VAX (was is the epitome=C2=A0of the C= ISC and while extraordinarily successful), has always been an easy target a= s=C2=A0way to= o complicated, filled=C2=A0with many special cases (just for the Fortran = compiler, or for Cutler's as an assembly=C2=A0programmer).

IMHO: C is also made from the same minimal ide= al.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 It took the simplicity of the B and added typing and bette= r data structures, but did not overdo it.=C2=A0 Again, what was added was u= seful to almost all programmers.

I note = that while the follow-on to both the 11 (the Vax) and C (C++) became workin= g horses, but both are ugly as can be, and neither would I call elegant.=C2= =A0 I've used them both, however, I have moved on since that time.=C2= =A0 I do pine for something more like a 64-bit PDP-11 (more in a minute), a= nd still use C when I can in the kernel or Go when in userspace.=C2=A0 =C2= =A0

<= /div>
Having kicked around DEC during some = of the Alpha discussions, other than the original lack of byte addressing, = I think the PDP-11 influenced the Alpha more than VAX did.=C2=A0 There was = a definition -- why is the needed -- thinking.=C2=A0 Keep it simple a minim= al.

<= /div>
As for Unix (since this is a Unix his= tory list), again I think it is the minimal view I miss from Sixth and Seve= nth Edition.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I look at Linux and mostly turn green with how muc= h has been lost from those days.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 But like the PDP-11, I can no= t really go back.=C2=A0 My hope is that something will appear that is "= ;good enough" and '"simple enough" to get people excited= again.

my=C2=A02 cents,
Clem=C2=A0 =C2=A0
<= /div>
3D""=E1=90=A7
3D""=E1=90=A7
--00000000000030730305d1e2655f--