[TUHS] Typesetter C compiler

[TUHS] Typesetter C compiler

[Noel Chiappa]

There was recent discussion here about the Typesetter C compiler; I don't
have the energy to look through the tons of opinion posts about recent
programming styles, to find the posts about actual Unix history which related
to that compiler, but I seem to recall that there was interest in locating
the source for it? I had strted to look, but then got distracted by some
other high-pri stuff; here are a few notes that I had accumulated to reply -
I hope they aren't too out-of-date by now.

I have a copy of it, from the dump of the CSR machine (I can't make the whole
dump public, sorry; it has personal material from a bunch of people mixed in).

I was pretty sure the C compiler from Mini-Unix, here:

  https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Mini-Unix/usr/source/c

was from the right timeframe to be the Typesetter C, but a quick check of
c0.h, shows that it's not; that one seems to be more like the V6 one. (Ditto
for LSX.)

The PWB1 one:

  https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=PWB1/sys/c/c

seems, from a very quick look at c0.h (using that nice side-by-side compare
feature on the TUHS archive - thanks, Warren!), to be somewhat close to the
Typesetter C. It would be interesting to compare that one to the CSR one
(which definitely is) to be sure.

Also, the V7 C compiler (not pcc, but the PDP-11 one) seems to be a fairly
close relative, too.

	Noel

[TUHS] Re: Typesetter C compiler

[Jonathan Gray]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 02:02:32PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 
> There was recent discussion here about the Typesetter C compiler; I don't
> have the energy to look through the tons of opinion posts about recent
> programming styles, to find the posts about actual Unix history which related
> to that compiler, but I seem to recall that there was interest in locating
> the source for it? I had strted to look, but then got distracted by some
> other high-pri stuff; here are a few notes that I had accumulated to reply -
> I hope they aren't too out-of-date by now.
> 
> I have a copy of it, from the dump of the CSR machine (I can't make the whole
> dump public, sorry; it has personal material from a bunch of people mixed in).

discussed in
https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2023-January/027393.html

The best case would be a copy of the tape that was licensed and
distributed externally.  With nroff/troff/ar/stdio.

> 
> I was pretty sure the C compiler from Mini-Unix, here:
> 
>   https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Mini-Unix/usr/source/c
> 
> was from the right timeframe to be the Typesetter C, but a quick check of
> c0.h, shows that it's not; that one seems to be more like the V6 one. (Ditto
> for LSX.)
> 
> The PWB1 one:
> 
>   https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=PWB1/sys/c/c
> 
> seems, from a very quick look at c0.h (using that nice side-by-side compare
> feature on the TUHS archive - thanks, Warren!), to be somewhat close to the
> Typesetter C. It would be interesting to compare that one to the CSR one
> (which definitely is) to be sure.

Yes, PWB/UNIX 1.0, AUSAM where READ_ME includes:
"the 'C' compiler contained herein is
not merely a local abheration of
'C' but is in fact a version from bell
labs via indirect means
the lanuage accepted by this 'C'
would is identical to that accepted by the 'C'
compiler distributed with PWB/UNIX
also corresponds to syntax given in
Kernigan and Plaugher's book on 'C'"

the Interdata 7/32 tree in modified form

and binaries in Tim_Shoppa_v6/unix_v6.rl02.gz as you described in
http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/ImprovingV6.html

Compared to v6 the phototypesetter compiler adds:
unsigned union typedef.

The v7 compiler included enums and structure assignment
described in "Recent Changes to C" November 15, 1978
https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/cchanges.pdf

2bsd includes diffs for it
upgrade/c/READ_ME:
"Mon Apr 16 23:33:04 PST 1979

The C compiler modifications here given as diffs will change a phototypesetter
C compiler to have a larger symbol table (change to c0.h) and to generate
switch code in I space (c11.c).  We install the changed C compiler as
-t0 and -t1; see the source for cc.c.  You need make a modified C compiler
only if you intend to recompile ex (-t0) or if you wish to compile with
smaller data spaces per user; all code will work fine without -t1, and
all programs but ex will compile with normal symbol table size."

and refers to it in src/ex:
/*
 * Since the phototypesetter v7-epsilon
 * C compiler doesn't have structure assignment...
 */

/*
 * Would like to use structured assignment but early
 * v7 compiler (released with phototypesetter for v6)
 * can't hack it.
 */

> 
> Also, the V7 C compiler (not pcc, but the PDP-11 one) seems to be a fairly
> close relative, too.
> 
> 	Noel
> 

[TUHS] Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Dan Cross]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 2:02 PM Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> [snip] I don't
> have the energy to look through the tons of opinion posts about recent
> programming styles, to find the posts about actual Unix history which related
> to that compiler,
> [snip]

On a semi-related note....

I have found TUHS a valuable resource, not just for discussing Unix
history, but for gaining a deeper understanding of systems which
informs my present and that I imagine will influence my future work as
well.

However, lately it has become clear that this is not always a welcome
use of the list. I don't think COFF is universally appropriate for
that either.

So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists at all?

        - Dan C.

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Larry McVoy]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:36:44PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 2:02 PM Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> > [snip] I don't
> > have the energy to look through the tons of opinion posts about recent
> > programming styles, to find the posts about actual Unix history which related
> > to that compiler,
> > [snip]
> 
> On a semi-related note....
> 
> I have found TUHS a valuable resource, not just for discussing Unix
> history, but for gaining a deeper understanding of systems which
> informs my present and that I imagine will influence my future work as
> well.
> 
> However, lately it has become clear that this is not always a welcome
> use of the list. I don't think COFF is universally appropriate for
> that either.

COFF lacks critical mass.  It's a common problem, you have a mailing list
with enough people that it is interesting and it gets too noisy so the
admin creates a more chatty list and only a small subset of the people
pick that up.  I don't know how to fix that.

> So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists at all?

Well, Hacker News was supposed to be really system-y.  I tried it for a while,
there was some good stuff there but it was drowned out by wannabe hackers
talking about trivial stuff as if it were interesting.  So I gave up.

If you find a Unix/Systems sort of forum, that actually has something to
say, let us know.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy           Retired to fishing          http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Jim Capp]

I love the topics and people on TUHS.  

But I also subscribed to COFF so I could pick up on interesting scraps not suitable for TUHS. 


> On Feb 2, 2023, at 5:41 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:36:44PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 2:02 PM Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> [snip] I don't
>>> have the energy to look through the tons of opinion posts about recent
>>> programming styles, to find the posts about actual Unix history which related
>>> to that compiler,
>>> [snip]
>> 
>> On a semi-related note....
>> 
>> I have found TUHS a valuable resource, not just for discussing Unix
>> history, but for gaining a deeper understanding of systems which
>> informs my present and that I imagine will influence my future work as
>> well.
>> 
>> However, lately it has become clear that this is not always a welcome
>> use of the list. I don't think COFF is universally appropriate for
>> that either.
> 
> COFF lacks critical mass.  It's a common problem, you have a mailing list
> with enough people that it is interesting and it gets too noisy so the
> admin creates a more chatty list and only a small subset of the people
> pick that up.  I don't know how to fix that.
> 
>> So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists at all?
> 
> Well, Hacker News was supposed to be really system-y.  I tried it for a while,
> there was some good stuff there but it was drowned out by wannabe hackers
> talking about trivial stuff as if it were interesting.  So I gave up.
> 
> If you find a Unix/Systems sort of forum, that actually has something to
> say, let us know.
> -- 
> ---
> Larry McVoy           Retired to fishing          http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat

[TUHS] Re: Typesetter C compiler

[Jonathan Gray]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:57:14AM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 02:02:32PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > 
> > There was recent discussion here about the Typesetter C compiler; I don't
> > have the energy to look through the tons of opinion posts about recent
> > programming styles, to find the posts about actual Unix history which related
> > to that compiler, but I seem to recall that there was interest in locating
> > the source for it? I had strted to look, but then got distracted by some
> > other high-pri stuff; here are a few notes that I had accumulated to reply -
> > I hope they aren't too out-of-date by now.
> > 
> > I have a copy of it, from the dump of the CSR machine (I can't make the whole
> > dump public, sorry; it has personal material from a bunch of people mixed in).
> 
> discussed in
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2023-January/027393.html
> 
> The best case would be a copy of the tape that was licensed and
> distributed externally.  With nroff/troff/ar/stdio.
> 
> > 
> > I was pretty sure the C compiler from Mini-Unix, here:
> > 
> >   https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Mini-Unix/usr/source/c
> > 
> > was from the right timeframe to be the Typesetter C, but a quick check of
> > c0.h, shows that it's not; that one seems to be more like the V6 one. (Ditto
> > for LSX.)
> > 
> > The PWB1 one:
> > 
> >   https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=PWB1/sys/c/c
> > 
> > seems, from a very quick look at c0.h (using that nice side-by-side compare
> > feature on the TUHS archive - thanks, Warren!), to be somewhat close to the
> > Typesetter C. It would be interesting to compare that one to the CSR one
> > (which definitely is) to be sure.
> 
> Yes, PWB/UNIX 1.0, AUSAM where READ_ME includes:
> "the 'C' compiler contained herein is
> not merely a local abheration of
> 'C' but is in fact a version from bell
> labs via indirect means
> the lanuage accepted by this 'C'
> would is identical to that accepted by the 'C'
> compiler distributed with PWB/UNIX
> also corresponds to syntax given in
> Kernigan and Plaugher's book on 'C'"
> 
> the Interdata 7/32 tree in modified form
> 
> and binaries in Tim_Shoppa_v6/unix_v6.rl02.gz as you described in
> http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/ImprovingV6.html
> 
> Compared to v6 the phototypesetter compiler adds:
> unsigned union typedef.
> 
> The v7 compiler included enums and structure assignment
> described in "Recent Changes to C" November 15, 1978
> https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/cchanges.pdf

As you mentioned in
https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2014-October/006834.html

there is also a (Miller modified?) "New C Compiler Features" document
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Interdata732/usr/doc/cdoc/newstuff.nr

a different, earlier? version of this is "C Changes"
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=AUSAM/source/c_compiler/newstuff.doc

another version of "C Changes" in
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=32V/usr/doc/ctour/newstuff

the C Reference Manual, May 1, 1977 in
Documents for the PWB/UNIX Time-Sharing System, Edition 1.0
https://bitsavers.org/pdf/att/unix/PWB_UNIX/Documents_for_the_PWB_UNIX_Time-Sharing_System_Edition_1.0_197710.pdf (44M)
notes:
"Warning: The data type name short is not recognized by the version
of the C compiler that is distributed as part of PWB/UNIX Edition 1.0."
but otherwise seems quite close to the C Reference Manual text in
tuhs/Documentation/Books/Draft-KandR-C-Book.pdf

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Dave Horsfall]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, Dan Cross wrote:

[...]

> However, lately it has become clear that this is not always a welcome 
> use of the list. I don't think COFF is universally appropriate for that 
> either.

As the perp responsible for the name "COFF", could I mayhaps suggest:

    Computer Retro Admin Perps ?

Best I could do on the spur of the moment...

> So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists 
> at all?

A new list?  Social media is for the birds; Usenet is dead, film at 11.

-- Dave

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Dan Cross wrote:
> So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing
> exists at all?

Some options:

- Cctalk email list.
- ClassicCMP Discord.
- Retrocomputingforum.com.
- Various Facebook groups.

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Alan D. Salewski]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023, at 20:44, Dave Horsfall wrote:
[...]
> A new list?  Social media is for the birds; Usenet is dead, film at 11.
>
> -- Dave

Usenet is dead. Long live Usenet!

-- 
a l a n   d.   s a l e w s k i
ads@salewski.email
salewski@att.net
https://github.com/salewski

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:17:24AM -0500, Alan D. Salewski wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023, at 20:44, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> [...]
> > A new list?  Social media is for the birds; Usenet is dead, film at 11.
> >
> > -- Dave
> 
> Usenet is dead. Long live Usenet!

I do miss comp.* - that was pleasant, a bunch of technical places divided
by topic.  I had many a fine discussion in comp.arch.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy           Retired to fishing          http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Chet Ramey]

On 2/2/23 8:44 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:

>> So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists
>> at all?
> 
> A new list?  Social media is for the birds; Usenet is dead, film at 11.

A new list, if it serves its purpose of providing interesting content, will
eventually undergo the same thing. It's always going end up being some
variant of Yogi Berra's famous "nobody goes there anymore, it's too
crowded."

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:11:35AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 2/2/23 8:44 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> 
> >>So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists
> >>at all?
> >
> >A new list?  Social media is for the birds; Usenet is dead, film at 11.
> 
> A new list, if it serves its purpose of providing interesting content, will
> eventually undergo the same thing. It's always going end up being some
> variant of Yogi Berra's famous "nobody goes there anymore, it's too
> crowded."

In my opinion, Warren has been threading the needle nicely.  He lets stuff
go into the weeds a bit but has a pretty good sense of when it is annoying
people that we all want to keep around.  He's very understated about it
all but he keeps this list pretty sane.

If you haven't joined COFF, maybe consider it, if that got big enough
then the other stuff could be done over there.

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Dan Cross]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:16 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:11:35AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 2/2/23 8:44 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> > >>So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists
> > >>at all?
> > >
> > >A new list?  Social media is for the birds; Usenet is dead, film at 11.
> >
> > A new list, if it serves its purpose of providing interesting content, will
> > eventually undergo the same thing. It's always going end up being some
> > variant of Yogi Berra's famous "nobody goes there anymore, it's too
> > crowded."
>
> In my opinion, Warren has been threading the needle nicely.  He lets stuff
> go into the weeds a bit but has a pretty good sense of when it is annoying
> people that we all want to keep around.  He's very understated about it
> all but he keeps this list pretty sane.
>
> If you haven't joined COFF, maybe consider it, if that got big enough
> then the other stuff could be done over there.

Some folks have given good suggestions, which I appreciate, but
perhaps it would help to explain exactly what I'm looking for.

I think that new system designs remain important, but without a
historical perspective, they run the risk of repeating old mistakes,
ignoring prior art, etc. Something I appreciate about TUHS is how one
has access to so many of the key players in Unix as well as other
systems: the perspective those people bring to the discussion is
illuminating.

But TUHS is clearly meant to be a Unix history list, not a "list about
new systems where we can ask about history because that helps us build
those new systems". In that sense, I'm not looking for COFF or a retro
or classic computer list, either, but for something explicitly modern
yet informed by history.

I don't believe such a thing actually exists.

        - Dan C.

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:39:38AM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:16 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:11:35AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > > On 2/2/23 8:44 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> > > >>So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing exists
> > > >>at all?
> > > >
> > > >A new list?  Social media is for the birds; Usenet is dead, film at 11.
> > >
> > > A new list, if it serves its purpose of providing interesting content, will
> > > eventually undergo the same thing. It's always going end up being some
> > > variant of Yogi Berra's famous "nobody goes there anymore, it's too
> > > crowded."
> >
> > In my opinion, Warren has been threading the needle nicely.  He lets stuff
> > go into the weeds a bit but has a pretty good sense of when it is annoying
> > people that we all want to keep around.  He's very understated about it
> > all but he keeps this list pretty sane.
> >
> > If you haven't joined COFF, maybe consider it, if that got big enough
> > then the other stuff could be done over there.
> 
> Some folks have given good suggestions, which I appreciate, but
> perhaps it would help to explain exactly what I'm looking for.
> 
> I think that new system designs remain important, but without a
> historical perspective, they run the risk of repeating old mistakes,
> ignoring prior art, etc. Something I appreciate about TUHS is how one
> has access to so many of the key players in Unix as well as other
> systems: the perspective those people bring to the discussion is
> illuminating.
> 
> But TUHS is clearly meant to be a Unix history list, not a "list about
> new systems where we can ask about history because that helps us build
> those new systems". In that sense, I'm not looking for COFF or a retro
> or classic computer list, either, but for something explicitly modern
> yet informed by history.

Well, be careful listening to gray beards too much.  Much of my knowledge
comes from working with rotating disks and all of those instincts are
wrong when you can get a 1TB SSD (Samsun no less) for $104 at Best Buy.

The old guys who held sway in some of the jobs I had, fell into the trap
of "we tried that and it didn't work".  Well, yeah, trying to write AI
programs in Prolog in 1985, yeah, that didn't work, the CPUs were nowhere
near fast enough.  Today we have machine learning that seems to work,
self driving cars that sort of work, ChatGPT that literally scares me,
the old rules don't apply.

Some things will never go away, like keep your fingers off of my L1
cache lines.  I think it's mostly lost because of huge memories, but
one of the things I love about early Unix is how small everything was.
Most people don't care, but if you want to go really fast, there is no
replacement for small.

Personally, I'm fine with some amount of "list about new systems where
we can ask about history because that helps us build those new systems".
Might be just me, I love systems discussions.

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Dan Cross]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:54 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> Well, be careful listening to gray beards too much.

Hey now, my own beard has more grey than brown at this point.

> [snip]
> the old rules don't apply.

That's precisely why I think it's important to think about new
directions in systems. But there's so much reinvention of the square
wheel, it at least makes sense to be _aware_ of the history.

> [snip]
> Personally, I'm fine with some amount of "list about new systems where
> we can ask about history because that helps us build those new systems".
> Might be just me, I love systems discussions.

Agreed. But TUHS is not that list, I don't think.

        - Dan C.

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Steve Nickolas]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Some things will never go away, like keep your fingers off of my L1
> cache lines.  I think it's mostly lost because of huge memories, but
> one of the things I love about early Unix is how small everything was.
> Most people don't care, but if you want to go really fast, there is no
> replacement for small.
>
> Personally, I'm fine with some amount of "list about new systems where
> we can ask about history because that helps us build those new systems".
> Might be just me, I love systems discussions.

I find a lot of my own stuff is like this - kindasorta fits and kindasorta 
doesn't for similar reasons.

(Since a lot of what I've been doing lately is creating a SysV-flavored 
rewrite of Unix from my own perspective as a 40-something who actually got 
most of my experience coding for 16-bits and MS-DOS, and speaks fluent but 
non-native C.  I'm sure it comes out in my coding style.)

-uso.

[TUHS] move to COFF Re: Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Will Senn]

We're in COFF territory again. I am enjoying the conversation, but let's 
self monitor. Perhaps, a workflow for this is that when we drift off 
into non-unix history discussion, we cc: COFF and tell folks to continue 
there? As a test I cced it on this email, don't reply all to this list. 
Just let's talk about it over in coff. If you aren't on coff join it.

If you aren't sure or think most folks on the list want to discuss it. 
Post it on COFF, if you don't get any traction, reference the COFF 
thread and tease it in TUHS.

This isn't at all a gripe - I heart all of our discussions, but I agree 
that it's hard to keep it history related here with no outlet for 
tangential discussion - so, let's put coff to good use and try it for 
those related, but not quite discussions.

Remember, don't reply to TUHS on this email :)!

- will

On 2/3/23 11:11 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
>> Some things will never go away, like keep your fingers off of my L1
>> cache lines.  I think it's mostly lost because of huge memories, but
>> one of the things I love about early Unix is how small everything was.
>> Most people don't care, but if you want to go really fast, there is no
>> replacement for small.
>>
>> Personally, I'm fine with some amount of "list about new systems where
>> we can ask about history because that helps us build those new systems".
>> Might be just me, I love systems discussions.
>
> I find a lot of my own stuff is like this - kindasorta fits and 
> kindasorta doesn't for similar reasons.
>
> (Since a lot of what I've been doing lately is creating a 
> SysV-flavored rewrite of Unix from my own perspective as a 
> 40-something who actually got most of my experience coding for 16-bits 
> and MS-DOS, and speaks fluent but non-native C.  I'm sure it comes out 
> in my coding style.)
>
> -uso.

[TUHS] Re: move to COFF Re: Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Will Senn]

Oh, and of course I would cc the old address!

Reply on the correct COFF address <coff@tuhs.org>

Sheesh.

On 2/3/23 11:26 AM, Will Senn wrote:
> We're in COFF territory again. I am enjoying the conversation, but 
> let's self monitor. Perhaps, a workflow for this is that when we drift 
> off into non-unix history discussion, we cc: COFF and tell folks to 
> continue there? As a test I cced it on this email, don't reply all to 
> this list. Just let's talk about it over in coff. If you aren't on 
> coff join it.
>
> If you aren't sure or think most folks on the list want to discuss it. 
> Post it on COFF, if you don't get any traction, reference the COFF 
> thread and tease it in TUHS.
>
> This isn't at all a gripe - I heart all of our discussions, but I 
> agree that it's hard to keep it history related here with no outlet 
> for tangential discussion - so, let's put coff to good use and try it 
> for those related, but not quite discussions.
>
> Remember, don't reply to TUHS on this email :)!
>
> - will
>
> On 2/3/23 11:11 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, Larry McVoy wrote:
>>
>>> Some things will never go away, like keep your fingers off of my L1
>>> cache lines.  I think it's mostly lost because of huge memories, but
>>> one of the things I love about early Unix is how small everything was.
>>> Most people don't care, but if you want to go really fast, there is no
>>> replacement for small.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm fine with some amount of "list about new systems where
>>> we can ask about history because that helps us build those new 
>>> systems".
>>> Might be just me, I love systems discussions.
>>
>> I find a lot of my own stuff is like this - kindasorta fits and 
>> kindasorta doesn't for similar reasons.
>>
>> (Since a lot of what I've been doing lately is creating a 
>> SysV-flavored rewrite of Unix from my own perspective as a 
>> 40-something who actually got most of my experience coding for 
>> 16-bits and MS-DOS, and speaks fluent but non-native C.  I'm sure it 
>> comes out in my coding style.)
>>
>> -uso.
>

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Bakul Shah]

On Feb 3, 2023, at 8:41 AM, Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> But TUHS is clearly meant to be a Unix history list, not a "list about
> new systems where we can ask about history because that helps us build
> those new systems". In that sense, I'm not looking for COFF or a retro
> or classic computer list, either, but for something explicitly modern
> yet informed by history.
> 
> I don't believe such a thing actually exists.

I’m not aware of one. May be comp.arch comes close. Any new list
will have difficulty attracting the right kind of people. TUHS, COFF are
rather unix oriented. If you mean *software systems*, I suspect the
field is still too green to have a proper systematic analysis or
established engineering principles. We still seem to be in the “Cambrian
explosion” phase where every new complex system is a new species.

[TUHS] A List for New Systems Influenced by History. (Was: Proper use of TUHS)

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Dan,

> a "list about new systems where we can ask about history because that
> helps us build those new systems".

https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff says

    The Computer Old Farts Forum provides a place for people to discuss
    the history of computers and their future.

That seems to align well to me.

Yet another list seems a bad idea; the interested parties would be
spread more thinly.  Just as a worldwide Usenet group was weakened when
anyone could start a forum on a topic and many did.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.

[TUHS] Re: A List for New Systems Influenced by History. (Was: Proper use of TUHS)

[Larry McVoy]

On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 08:03:20AM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> > a "list about new systems where we can ask about history because that
> > helps us build those new systems".
> 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff says
> 
>     The Computer Old Farts Forum provides a place for people to discuss
>     the history of computers and their future.
> 
> That seems to align well to me.
> 
> Yet another list seems a bad idea; the interested parties would be
> spread more thinly.  Just as a worldwide Usenet group was weakened when
> anyone could start a forum on a topic and many did.

Seems like the rest of the world, well, the good parts, need to learn
about COFF.  We need as much mass as we can get from tuhs and then we
advertise on stackoverflow and hacker news and ?
-- 
---
Larry McVoy           Retired to fishing          http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat

[TUHS] Re: A List for New Systems Influenced by History.

[Angel M Alganza]

On 2023-02-04 14:56, Larry McVoy wrote:

> We need as much mass as we can get from tuhs and then we
> advertise on stackoverflow and hacker news and ?

On nostr, maybe? There are tons of technical people there celebrating 
how cool it's having the same feelings they had 25-30 years ago when 
they discovered the Internet first, when it was still full of hope of 
being decentralized and free. I think tuhs and, probably even more, coff 
might be the perfect fit for them.

Cheers,
Ángel

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Tomasz Rola]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 06:36:34AM +0000, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Dan Cross wrote:
> > So, the question becomes: what _is_ that forum, if such a thing
> > exists at all?
> 
> Some options:
> 
> - Cctalk email list.

(cc-ed to coff, of coffse...)

I use to hang out on IBM-MAIN mailing list, too. While they are,
mostly, dealing with modern mainframes and current problems, they also
occasionally mention old story or two. Actually, since mainframe is
such a living fossil thing, the whole talk sometimes feels as if it
was about something upgraded continuously from the 1960-ties. Most of
it is uncomprehensible to me (never had proper mainframe training, or
unproper one, and they deal with stuff in unique way, have their own
acronyms for things, there are some intro books but there is not
enough time*energy), but also a bit educating - a bit today, a bit
next week etc.

> - ClassicCMP Discord.
> - Retrocomputingforum.com.
> - Various Facebook groups.

Web stuff, requiring Javascript to work, ugh, ugh-oh. Mostly, it boils
down to the fact that one cannot easily curl the text from those other
places (AFAICT). So it is hard to awk this text into mbox format and
read it comfortably.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com             **

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[steve jenkin]

> On 4 Feb 2023, at 04:45, Bakul Shah <bakul@iitbombay.org> wrote:
> 
> We still seem to be in the “Cambrian explosion” phase
> where every new complex system is a new species.

You just perfectly described the computing world  before 1965 & IBM’s 360.
A range with 10x - 20x (? recall failure) of compatible models.

This was repeated with microprocessors
 - at each ‘process step’, one clock frequency option for many years.

Can’t recall who invented the range of CPU options we now have:

	server, desktop, laptop, tablet and ‘embedded’

Might’ve been two variants of 486, can’t recall.

There was a tower of babel with Networking for decades,
first the physical layer,
then the packet layer, 
then network / protocol layer.

We ended up with cat-5/6 twisted pair as the most common
physical layer (with RJ-45’),
async packets framed with Ethernet,
running IP protocols over the network layer.

“Internetwork” is a give away in the name “I.P.”.

This, despite IBM & Microsoft’s  (& others) considerable efforts otherwise.

Mature markets require “Standard” parts / services,
so consumers can mix-n-match as they wish.

Standards facilitate “substitutes” & competition necessary
to generate low-margin, high-volume commodity markets.

By definition, commodity markets trade “fungible goods”
destined for consumers. So many of these, hard to list.

Standards - where manufacturers agree on common designs -
only appear when manufacturers agree they’ve a common
interest in building “volume”, not locking customers in.

This happened very early with bipolar TTL logic.

Smart phones are mostly Linux / Android,
with Apple still able to sell non-commodity designs
at premium prices.

Remember Microsoft’s foray, via Nokia, into Mobiles?
“Pocket PC” and “Windows Mobile” / Windows Phone:

	Crashed and burned.

Even Nokia, then largest phone seller,
with the proven Symbian O/S,
 failed against Android.

--
Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design 
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

mailto:sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin

[TUHS] Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Chris Hanson]

On Feb 3, 2023, at 5:55 AM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> 
> I do miss comp.* - that was pleasant, a bunch of technical places divided
> by topic.  I had many a fine discussion in comp.arch.

I still skim Usenet a few times a month, via eternal-september.org <http://eternal-september.org/>. There are still people posting to comp.* and related alt.* groups though not nearly as many as there once were.

  -- Chris