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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 7403 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2021 21:34:05 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 28 Nov 2021 21:34:05 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5E6239CF31; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:34:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE48C94613; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:32:07 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="IqLg8gDj"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 46CD194613; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:32:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EA9594586 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:32:05 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id r26so39328705lfn.8 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:32:04 -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=1Qm+Zuxx2ChywGnAK/H0UqTZ9cBWun+dOfLzKhvj3SU=; b=IqLg8gDjl0el287wBv/AgunqpGC4IUINDJY/T/KtobgzD51b+utHfTgtre5f48ul3X qITOk7kAp2x4sbbjniC0uyq2T2oID63MrYjKtK5i2S8nEDiR5PWAqZ9StfsRDeykY9vH MW8S/1R54l6F/88peA4iz3ZgSWR1vrDShLB2w1jwJcVpyV9OLx+r92Rkq5nIvPLxcoVO 94lMMnXepfOM2c0CwlJrrSn/TnrltVLd4wAuvCvj4Q1yqmq2EiR4gXsTruPO3mAdBwt+ X2Eil9gyUM3ToS7ZXC4/RX57fcIAyHEGuHQWM1qN7kVb9KqtzCwF3eQYATsYu7mXSGdX PPLw== 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=1Qm+Zuxx2ChywGnAK/H0UqTZ9cBWun+dOfLzKhvj3SU=; b=bnnmjdgtLwFyp0MO4Vt9qe6v9xi1TDRVFuXUBYE1+8nP8DdxzydxqksXLobmNmuTDt GXcIzDoOL2GcRuUNyFhSHT8bETr6p61VICT9/Pffz9RfqxaC2Ealckw5pZ+93Jgga9CY sUJJSf1QoQMtbkNje6VQfLyo9/hEw+H3d7xRNS0DqQ77qLZfhtHRCKdctXymobH+9Vax pMwU7xWUZiYHlaG7cX6Y6XJWZz323J6wrkdxRhjEXLyEb+LXCsdl/3/G0V2PL8QNEBN5 qlW3ay4mqiyOFG7EDlDahEy3vv1cJ+t7TVDvVT4FBbJ9Sybsz3AVUlGWl53DtqK/h2Jl gIUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336B88Zrq6obndAoTfYIJ5C17jdtoPr1WS58kwB4m10SeM7wIwB 6G/QrBYmFLLeXhS50x8aOHsNDONFJXrh+WeZx9I3eBgr X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztu+BegD5WEPLpM0GJQuWZMGc0XBrIWang1DFOFWKFH2zevmJ0MyPHQTSIoYOu7BJgjICvW+KepWdd7VjN/VM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:39c4:: with SMTP id k4mr43731068lfu.79.1638135123383; Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:32:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202111282026.1ASKQ5X41437843@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <202111282115.1ASLFK1Q1438854@darkstar.fourwinds.com> In-Reply-To: <202111282115.1ASLFK1Q1438854@darkstar.fourwinds.com> From: Ken Thompson Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:31:52 -0800 Message-ID: To: Jon Steinhart Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f9ab005d1e00e2c" Subject: Re: [TUHS] A New History of Modern Computing - my thoughts 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 , Eugene Miya Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000001f9ab005d1e00e2c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 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. > > Jon > --0000000000001f9ab005d1e00e2c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The PDP-11 had very little the syntax of B expressions.All of that=C2=A0was in place in B long before the PDP-11.
To b= e honest, the byte addressing of the 11 was a
significant hindran= ce. It was the genius of Dennis
that was able to conquer the 11 a= s 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 <jon@fourwinds.com> 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 th= e
> availability of a department-sized machine. Was the instruction set a<= br> > 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.=C2=A0 If I remember correctly,<= br> it was very cool to have *p++ =3D *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.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 The machines were one, the softwa= re
was another, the third was content and CC was a big enabler.

Jon
--0000000000001f9ab005d1e00e2c--