From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com>
Cc: TUHS main list <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>, Eugene Miya <eugene@soe.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: [TUHS] A New History of Modern Computing - my thoughts
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:18:15 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn0_h43LoNx7MK0w13cT+Ak=V6dK1FcpUw=eC=vn0dBALg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC20D2P0PPeJMvg9LHERw-kxPFWr_4QTPHCJg1_wTyz=-0-tdw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3286 bytes --]
I suspect because we believed we understood the pdp11 we felt we'd
understand a good operating system on it.
If more tertiary education people had been on other hardware of the day,
we'd probably have invented the same myths for that host.
G
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, 10:22 am Clem Cole, <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
> 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 <robpike@gmail.com> 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
> ᐧ
> ᐧ
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8121 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-29 1:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-28 20:26 Jon Steinhart
2021-11-28 21:07 ` Rob Pike
2021-11-28 21:15 ` Jon Steinhart
2021-11-28 21:31 ` Ken Thompson
2021-11-28 21:47 ` Jon Steinhart
2021-11-28 22:17 ` Rob Pike
2021-11-29 0:19 ` Clem Cole
2021-11-29 1:12 ` Larry McVoy
2021-11-29 2:23 ` Bakul Shah
2021-11-30 19:27 ` Ralph Corderoy
2021-12-01 8:46 ` Rich Morin
2021-12-01 12:28 ` Al Kossow
2021-11-30 3:18 ` Larry McVoy
2021-11-29 1:18 ` George Michaelson [this message]
2021-11-29 1:36 ` Bakul Shah
2021-11-29 1:47 ` Bakul Shah
2021-11-29 7:46 ` arnold
2021-11-29 7:52 ` arnold
2021-11-29 14:44 ` Larry McVoy
2021-11-29 12:11 ` Michael Kjörling
2021-11-28 21:23 ` Thomas Paulsen
2021-11-28 21:39 ` Steve Nickolas
2021-11-28 22:41 ` Ron Natalie
2021-11-28 21:40 ` Larry McVoy
2021-11-29 15:37 ` Phil Budne
2021-11-28 23:12 Noel Chiappa
2021-11-28 23:35 ` Adam Thornton
2021-11-29 1:53 ` John Cowan
2021-11-29 13:48 ` Dan Halbert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAKr6gn0_h43LoNx7MK0w13cT+Ak=V6dK1FcpUw=eC=vn0dBALg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ggm@algebras.org \
--cc=clemc@ccc.com \
--cc=eugene@soe.ucsc.edu \
--cc=tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).