From: Ken Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Jon Steinhart <email@example.com>
Cc: TUHS main list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eugene Miya <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [TUHS] A New History of Modern Computing - my thoughts
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:31:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMP=X_kFzqPaZPHo9S-BrAgLuwKa9gvJpS1XavVc59XmAqGRUg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1816 bytes --]
The PDP-11 had very little the syntax of B expressions.
All of that was in place in B long before the PDP-11.
To be honest, the byte addressing of the 11 was a
significant hindrance. It was the genius of Dennis
that was able to conquer the 11 as he installed types
into the language.
So, my opinion, the PDP-11 had no design on the
type system of C and moreover it was not even helpful.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 1:17 PM Jon Steinhart <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Rob Pike writes:
> > Is there a symbiosis between C and the PDP-11 instruction set? The
> > machine was vital to C and Unix's success, but primarily due to the
> > availability of a department-sized machine. Was the instruction set a
> > significant component? Most Unix programmers wrote little to no
> > assembly, although perhaps more read what came out of the compiler.
> > But did it matter? Auto-increment and -decrement are often cited in
> > this story, but they are not that important, really, and were around
> > well before the PDP-11 made its appearance.
> > I'm curious to hear arguments on either side.
> > -rob
> Well, might just be my personal experience, but most of the machines
> that I had used before the 11 were classic accumulator architectures.
> I feel that the 11's pointer architecture combined with autoincrement
> and autodecrement was an amazing fit for C. If I remember correctly,
> it was very cool to have *p++ = *q++ be a single instruction.
> BTW, one thing that I forgot in my earlier post is that I think that
> the book also omitted any mention of Creative Commons. The book did
> talk about the business of the web and such, and it's my opinion that
> CC was an an essential third prong. The machines were one, the software
> was another, the third was content and CC was a big enabler.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2315 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-28 21:34 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 [this message]
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
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
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).