From: J Ahlstrom
Subject: Seminal Languages was Re: Advantages of 64-bit architecture
Date:
Message-ID: <3C2387C9.BFFEF492@cisco.com>
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> In article <················@cisco.com>,
> J Ahlstrom <········@cisco.com> writes:
>
> |> Commercial Translator - precursor to COBOL
> |> Simula 67
> |> SNOBOL (precursor of string matching facilities
> |> in things like AWK, Perl???)
> |> Prolog - what descendents?
> |> sh
>
> I didn't know about the first - did it bear a similar relation
> to COBOL as Autocode did to Fortran?
From:
http://secretguide2pcs.tripod.com/Strange-tongues.htm
> From IBM�s COMMERCIAL TRANSLATOR, COBOL borrowed
> group items (01 and 02), PICTURE symbols,
> fancy IF statements, and COMPUTE formulas.
>
> Simula and Prolog were largely derivations of Algol and LISP,
> though did have some new features. SNOBOL had a lot of influence
> but few descendents - definitely Icon and perhaps awk, but not
> really Perl or even Python.
Simula (the original) had no OO characteristics.
Simula 67 (to lessen confusion now called Simula)
was the first OO language AFAIK. I think that
deserves seminal status even tho' it had predecessors
in other areas.
>
> You have a good point about sh, but the seminal language was
> probably the Titan command language. Stephen Bourne was a
> lecturer here.
Any machine readable descriptions of the Titan
command language around?
>
> Actually, that makes Cambridge the originator of two, which seems
> a bit OTT but may be right :-)
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren,
> University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
> Email: ····@cam.ac.uk
> Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
--
The first ten amendments to the constitution
are what make this a country worth fighting
for. Ignorance and apathy are what make it
so difficult to defend.
Jack Barone
You do not preserve freedom by destroying freedom.
Eric Green
From: Arthur T. Murray
Subject: Re: Seminal Languages was Re: Advantages of 64-bit architecture
Date:
Message-ID: <3c23bac7@news.victoria.tc.ca>
J Ahlstrom <········@cisco.com> wrote on Fri, 21 Dec 2001:
> Nick Maclaren wrote: [...]
> From:
> http://secretguide2pcs.tripod.com/Strange-tongues.htm
ATM:
This just in via Solstice Communications from Stone Henge...
http://ai.createastandard.com "Standards in Artificial Intelligence"
calls for 64-bit CPU architectures to support large-memory AI in
http://mind.sourceforge.net/lisp.html [SourceForge LISP AI] and
http://mind.sourceforge.net/prolog.html [SourceForge Prolog AI].
>
>>
>> Actually, that makes Cambridge the originator of two, which seems
>> a bit OTT but may be right :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nick Maclaren,
>> University of Cambridge Computing Service,
>> New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
[...]
From: Nick Maclaren
Subject: Re: Seminal Languages was Re: Advantages of 64-bit architecture
Date:
Message-ID: <a01o7e$l5t$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
In article <·················@cisco.com>,
J Ahlstrom <········@cisco.com> wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>
>> Simula and Prolog were largely derivations of Algol and LISP,
>> though did have some new features. SNOBOL had a lot of influence
>> but few descendents - definitely Icon and perhaps awk, but not
>> really Perl or even Python.
>
>Simula (the original) had no OO characteristics.
>Simula 67 (to lessen confusion now called Simula)
> was the first OO language AFAIK. I think that
> deserves seminal status even tho' it had predecessors
> in other areas.
This is a good point. It wasn't the first to use those techniques,
but as far as I know was the first to make them a fundamental part
of the language. The IBM MFT/MVT/MVT Access Method macros (perhaps
dating back to PCP) were a strongly object oriented interface, for
example. But the expansion of the technique in the 1980s can all
be traced back to Simula.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email: ····@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
"Nick Maclaren" <····@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
·················@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
snip
> The IBM MFT/MVT/MVT Access Method macros (perhaps
> dating back to PCP) were a strongly object oriented interface, for
> example.
What characteristics make you say that? ISTM that they are essentially
subroutine calls. There is no data hiding - the control blocks (DCB, etc.
and of course, the data buffers) are provided by the user and certainly
visible to him. There is no concept of inheritance or polymorphism
(different calls for for different file types). I can't see anything about
them that are object oriented.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
From: Nick Maclaren
Subject: Re: Seminal Languages was Re: Advantages of 64-bit architecture
Date:
Message-ID: <a04d0e$eqf$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
In article <························@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Stephen Fuld <···················@att.net> wrote:
>"Nick Maclaren" <····@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>·················@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>> The IBM MFT/MVT/MVT Access Method macros (perhaps
>> dating back to PCP) were a strongly object oriented interface, for
>> example.
>
>What characteristics make you say that? ISTM that they are essentially
>subroutine calls. There is no data hiding - the control blocks (DCB, etc.
>and of course, the data buffers) are provided by the user and certainly
>visible to him. There is no concept of inheritance or polymorphism
>(different calls for for different file types). I can't see anything about
>them that are object oriented.
Not at all. They may look like that to a shallow inspection, but
they are actually very different.
Firstly, when you set up a DCB (essentially the class), you specify
options that select which methods will be used. Within limitations,
those methods can be changed later. Some are set up by the system
and inspected/called by the programmer; some the other way round.
Secondly, far more was hidden than you believe and, more importantly,
was variable according to the options. All of the channel commands,
for a start, and much of the DEB etc. Yes, you could get at them,
but they weren't exposed interfaces, and I have had to hack at
'hidden' interfaces in the X Toolkit, too.
All of the essentials of "object orientation" were there. Not as
part of a language, true, but as part of an interface.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email: ····@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679