The splitting you talk about came about because of the Blit, one part
of a program running on the host, the 'graphical' part on the terminal,
i.e., the Blit; the two parts communicated with a simple protocol, an
example of which you can see in 'sam'. 'Cip', 'proof', 'jim', 'sam' and
'pi' (really, 'pads'), followed this model. It wasn't necessary I think
with all programs, and I'm sure 'icon', the bitmap editor, didn't.

If you look in the various Blit/Jerq source directories in the distributions
you will see programs with a 'host' and 'term' subdirectory.


On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 6:18 PM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the link. I skimmed it and will read it later.
>
> What struck me was the splitting of the editor into front and back ends
> that did not have to be on the same machine. Rob Pike used that design
> for "sam" somewhat later. I wonder if he got the idea from 's' or came
> up with it on his own... (Dough, thoughts?)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnold
>
> Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Arnold,
> >
> > It was mentioned in the STinP edit discussion, so of course, I had to go
> looking! Here's the referenced article by Fraser:
> >
> > https://archive.org/details/compact-portable-crt
> >
> > Will
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Jan 30, 2022, at 10:09 AM, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Has anyone seen Fraser's original ratfor source for the s editor for
> unix on the PDP-11. It was a screen editor front-end built on top of
> Software Tools's edit. I've seen a c version, but I'm interested in the 375
> line version :).
> > >>
> > >> Will
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > I've never heard of this. Can you give some background please?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Arnold
>