Sujet : Re: evolution of bytes, The joy of FORTRAN
De : c186282 (at) *nospam* nnada.net (c186282)
Groupes : alt.folklore.computers comp.os.linux.miscDate : 04. Mar 2025, 05:07:24
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <rsecnabYS4Id4Vv6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
On 3/3/25 6:38 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 06:54:32 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
This was probably a reaction against PL/I where sizes are specified
explicitly, such as “bit(8) unsigned”.
Computers had a whole range of word sizes in those days. What was the best
way to write portable code? The PL/I approach was to let the programmer
explicitly specify the number of bits and digits for everything, and damn
the inefficiency.
PL/I had its good aspects ... though arbitrary byte/word
sizes DID imply a lot of background calx.
Some outfit called 'Iron Spring' does have a Linux-compat
PL/I compiler. It was an "and the kitchen sink" language
kinda in the BASIC/FORTRAN idiom. Whatever it was, you
could do it several ways. "Flexible" would be the modern
salesman's term.
http://www.iron-spring.com/