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_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16672 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2022 00:04:28 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Jan 2022 00:04:28 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DD0DF951B8; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:04:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42E69510A; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:04:00 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="LMOdvKOv"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E98B79510A; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:03:56 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f50.google.com (mail-pj1-f50.google.com [209.85.216.50]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AE4095109 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:03:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f50.google.com with SMTP id o16-20020a17090aac1000b001b62f629953so4930080pjq.3 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:03:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rocxCZVI5P9DKzURT3G2c6tMyVQVBYF/Dl7MqGtV/zI=; b=LMOdvKOvdeQ43kv57NUo8kQpUHjbM21Zra+fKJzQLC9wb1xGLxevbBl6ao02qAEEcr SANJ7BsW9BcBNgoWFEpR3KdHqUbZ3YiKcluuHn5vypyMRD3GXTW2FgnJ0g9gs5con2ry QXQ2Vn0O7VC6YLDhyyY57/j3+VC7/ibu97YopuUu4W3kv67Qm4kQ7lZntvJ1c3Vl1wCE 3qOSWx1fTNUS/W/jrjcDeA4i6XTALOP/k/+0DbdEHWTOXGPvD9E9Hz0+pIPiprbhrZYN Bt2OMUqoyPVzmF7cwxcjSpl1unNEvr3RSdhx+KQFW8RWZc0riHRHcSTn1OTwjW1W2A94 aljg== 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=rocxCZVI5P9DKzURT3G2c6tMyVQVBYF/Dl7MqGtV/zI=; b=lBkz7sYcajKghnn/8RiC3LpA4WVr3y0qmazQp2t6GtTX04AU/HG2oDNS26Gw9lpl7Y JEfS97U65nbzLOhsO9XYOVZl0E54heK0a3mrutseuo4L1PfIgVvvxcLSo/vm8cjTJ+Op ek4NX/TopRpInLH5St2ckm7c6y+HT3SnEqmQtY+QiANdhXbOlcQHbz7w2Cge5gpRewNu 8wKWexm7UwFUH/QbBx/4DfF9aT/5ZU3nMclxBgXygPJUqeeWkER4q07CFCKzFbeUomBS fwPvFvwtJW/ztDtxg7vr0Bty2+mE4bJmomuaZ6hE36rJl6QkmpRvbbLuzAoKCQcRdY2k EmNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Gr6kLby13h4QgRolW8HyMSxj1qrWKbDn+VmE1CS9JKQ1CspQK z65CvPTglgujKO9q2U+iRAG5r330uBGHbZW9gjw9Z1jV X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzIJ5qL69I2/8bF85AWQkJT09LQgUZ3ZxqCA5uZPyeCRDyVcXcVn4/CNNHscPhMsZQS3EAoU+U9GzZ1yF9CqIM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1042:: with SMTP id f2mr11298407plc.115.1643414634605; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:03:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0f83f174-eeca-30fb-7b98-77fb0da80f2e@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Rob Pike Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 11:03:43 +1100 Message-ID: To: Will Senn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000083b2b205d6ad4997" 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" --00000000000083b2b205d6ad4997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Not really on topic for Unix, but historical and relevant to this conversation and I think not well known. In 1978 I was an exchange student working at EIR (now the Paul Scherrer Institute), using the CDC 7600 (I think that was the model) at ETH, where Wirth was a professor. EIR is about 30km from Z=C3=BCrich, and EIR had a re= mote job entry system. The computing environment was very odd, and I asked about it. Two things I learned: 1) The University had bought a CDC machine instead of an IBM one, somewhat against advice, because CDC, being a smaller company, did not have the wherewithal to translate their manuals. IBM's manuals came in German and were all but incomprehensible as they avoided the accepted terms of art known and used even by a German-speaking programmer. The CDC manuals, being in English, were easier to understand, especially when considering the nuance and precision necessary to learn the correct interpretation of the description of a computer's execution. The Swiss, being polyglots, handled English manuals just fine. 2) The operating system's I/O model was bizarre, but it was also unique. It was a version of NOS locally modified, partly (if I remember right) in support of the remote execution setup. The peculiar sequence of cards necessary to terminate the input was due to the local changes to NOS made at ETH. This was the system Pascal was created for, and a consequence of the design is the idiosyncratic way input worked in early Pascal, which made little sense to almost anyone, was seriously hard to recreate on Unix, but worked naturally if using punch cards on, and only on, the ETH 7600. -rob On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:32 AM Will Senn wrote: > On 1/28/22 5:18 PM, Dan Cross wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 6:09 PM Will Senn wrote: > >> I'm reading in, Kernighan & Plauger's 1981 edition of Software Tools in >> Pascal and in the book, the author's mention Bill Joy's Pascal and Andy >> Tanenbaum's as being rock solid. So, a few related questions: >> >> 1. What edition of UNIX were they likely to be using? >> > > I'm afraid I can't speak to your 2nd and 3rd questions, but I can offer > what I think is a reasonable guess about the first. > > One of the neat things about Unix and Unix-adjacent books of that era is > that very often the copyright page held some information about the > production of the book itself. I just so happened to have a copy of, > "Software Tools in Pascal" sitting on my desk, and it says, "This books a= s > set in Times Roman and Courier by the authors, using a Mergenthaler > Linotron 202 phototypesetter driven by a PDP-11/70 running the Unix > operating system." > > Given the PDP-11 and the date (1981) one may reasonably conclude that it > was running 7th Edition. I imagine the pascal was Joy's, from Berkeley. > > - Dan C. > > Great hint. 20 seconds after I hit send on the original email, I came > across this: > http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html > > Where Brian Kernighan talks about the challenges they faced porting the > ratfor examples into pascal. He explains that: > > The programs were first written in that dialect of Pascal supported by th= e > Pascal interpreter pi provided by the University of California at Berkele= y. The > language is close to the nominal standard of Jensen and Wirth,(6 > ) with good > diagnostics and careful run-time checking. Since then, the programs have > also been run, unchanged except for new libraries of primitives, on four > other systems: an interpreter from the Free University of Amsterdam > (hereinafter referred to as VU, for Vrije Universiteit), a VAX version of > the Berkeley system (a true compiler), a compiler purveyed by Whitesmiths= , > Ltd., and UCSD Pascal on a Z80. All but the last of these Pascal systems > are written in C. > > So, you were right about it being Joy's pi. > > Thanks, > > Will > --00000000000083b2b205d6ad4997 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not really on topic for Unix, but historical and relevant = to this conversation and I think not well known.

In 1978= I was an exchange student working at EIR (now the Paul Scherrer Institute)= , using the CDC 7600 (I think that was the model) at ETH, where Wirth was a= professor. EIR is about 30km from Z=C3=BCrich, and EIR had a remote job en= try system.

The computing environment was very odd, and = I asked about it. Two things I learned:

1) The Uni= versity had bought a CDC machine instead of an IBM one, somewhat against ad= vice, because CDC, being a smaller company, did not have the wherewithal to= translate their manuals. IBM's manuals came in German and were all but= incomprehensible as they avoided the accepted terms of art known and used = even by a German-speaking programmer. The CDC manuals, being in English, we= re easier to understand, especially when considering the nuance and precisi= on necessary to learn the correct interpretation of the description of a co= mputer's execution. The Swiss, being polyglots, handled English manuals= just fine.

2) The operating system's I/= O model was bizarre, but it was also unique. It was a version of NOS locall= y modified, partly (if I remember right) in support of the remote execution= setup. The peculiar sequence of cards necessary to terminate the input was= due to the local changes to NOS made at ETH. This was the system Pascal wa= s created for, and a consequence of the design is the idiosyncratic way inp= ut worked in early Pascal, which made little sense to almost anyone, was se= riously hard to recreate on Unix, but worked naturally if using punch cards= on, and only on, the ETH 7600.

-rob

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:32 AM Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
On 1/28/22 5:18 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
=20
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 6:09 PM Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm readi= ng in, Kernighan & Plauger's 1981 edition of Software Tools in Pascal and in the book, the author's mention Bill Joy's Pascal and Andy Tanenbaum's as being roc= k solid. So, a few related questions:

1. What edition of UNIX were they likely to be using?

I'm afraid I can't speak to your 2nd and 3rd questions,=C2=A0but I can offer what I=C2=A0think is a reasonab= le guess about the first.

One of the neat things about Unix and Unix-adjacent books of that era is that very often the copyright page held some information about the production of the book itself. I just so happened to have a copy of, "Software Tools in Pascal&q= uot; sitting on my desk, and it says, "This books=C2=A0as set i= n Times Roman and Courier by the authors, using a Mergenthaler Linotron 202 phototypesetter driven by a PDP-11/70 running the Unix operating system."

Given the PDP-11 and the date (1981) one may reasonably conclude that it was running 7th Edition. I imagine the pascal was Joy's, from Berkeley.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Dan C.

Great hint. 20 seconds after I hit send on the original email, I came across this:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html

Where Brian Kernighan talks about the challenges they faced porting the ratfor examples into pascal. He explains that:

The programs were first written in that dialect of Pascal supported by the Pascal interpreter pi provided by the University of California at Berkeley.=C2=A0 The language is close to the nominal standard of Jensen and Wirth,(6) with good diagnostics and careful run-time checking.=C2=A0 Since then, the programs have als= o been run, unchanged except for new libraries of primitives, on four other systems: an interpreter from the Free University of Amsterdam (hereinafter referred to as VU, for Vrije Universiteit), a VAX version of the Berkeley system (a true compiler), a compiler purveyed by Whitesmiths, Ltd., and UCSD Pascal on a Z80.=C2=A0 All but the last of these Pascal systems are written in C.
So, you were right about it being Joy's pi.

Thanks,

Will
--00000000000083b2b205d6ad4997--