Wanted: 1802 CP/M (or, PL/M 1802)

Trying to locate some tools to allow for CP/M 1802 on a
formerly ~ $70,000(?) RCA Cosmac Development System.

Maybe somebody's already built this wheel?

Obviously with PL/M-1802 the CCP and BDOS can
be compiled; then just need to write a CBIOS for some
version of COSMAC system. I do find a CDP18S651
floppy controller in the 'rack'. The main deviation from
'normal' would be the 700+ Kbytes of CMOS memory
available, and how best to use it. (imagine, in 1977!)

Any interest or help out there?

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/19/2007 4:39:02 PM
comp.os.cpm 3269 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

35 Replies
445 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 26
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:39:02 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
wrote:

>Trying to locate some tools to allow for CP/M 1802 on a
>formerly ~ $70,000(?) RCA Cosmac Development System.

Just to correct something.....

Probably due to the cost, I'm pretty sure not many have
ever even seen one of these systems. It would have been
unusual in the extreme to find it classed with other personal
computers.

Nevertheless, the 1802 chip was a common device for the
home hobbiest/experimenter.

Since folks generally understand that Intel really built the
first 4004, 4040, 8008, 8080 etc COMPUTERS, whatever
they called them, development systems, whatever, well in
this case the Development System I'm talking about is
exactly that. Not, what you MIGHT get if you added this
piece (TTY interface) or that (Pertect floppy drives, the
EXACT same box also sold by MITS for their Altair).

This was a complete ready to run computer system.

Unlike the Altair.

Trouble in that day was, it cost more than most houses!

It uses sort of odd 22 pins x 2 card edge connnectors,
just exactly like the one on the hobbiest Cosmac boards.

RCA called them Microboards. The RCA Microsystems
manual SSD-270 pretty much enumerates all of them,
complete with jumper settings and schematics. Nearly
600 pages.

Also details available software. No CP/M, though.

The racks for the cards came in 5-card and 22 card sizes.

There were plain front panels, and more elaborate ones
that allowed inputting data, single-stepping, and numeric
display of program pointer, Op codes, and data.

I see there was a Concurrent Pascal for multitasking!

Pretty amazing, but right in line with what Ed Roberts
has been saying for thirty years now - not much new.

This was THE FIRST of the modern line of CMOS
based microcomputers. Bar none. All the others
were N-Mos or P-Mos, both totally obsolete now.

Curiously, I seem to recall RCA had to license some of
the Complementary technology from Texas Instruments.

Guess I'll have to post photos one of these days.

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/19/2007 6:21:50 PM
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:21:50 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:39:02 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Trying to locate some tools to allow for CP/M 1802 on a
>>formerly ~ $70,000(?) RCA Cosmac Development System.
>
>Just to correct something.....

Far as I know PL/M was never done on 1802.  CP/M is not a good fit for
it either.

There is Elf/OS which has a unix flavor including subdirectories and
large devices.

http://www.elf-emulation.com/

>Probably due to the cost, I'm pretty sure not many have
>ever even seen one of these systems. It would have been
>unusual in the extreme to find it classed with other personal
>computers.
>
>Nevertheless, the 1802 chip was a common device for the
>home hobbiest/experimenter.
>
>Since folks generally understand that Intel really built the
>first 4004, 4040, 8008, 8080 etc COMPUTERS, whatever
>they called them, development systems, whatever, well in
>this case the Development System I'm talking about is
>exactly that. Not, what you MIGHT get if you added this
>piece (TTY interface) or that (Pertect floppy drives, the
>EXACT same box also sold by MITS for their Altair).
>
>This was a complete ready to run computer system.
>
>Unlike the Altair.

By Time the 1802 development system cme out there wer plenty of
packaged CP/N systems and others (like NS* Horizon).

>Trouble in that day was, it cost more than most houses!
>
>It uses sort of odd 22 pins x 2 card edge connnectors,
>just exactly like the one on the hobbiest Cosmac boards.
>
>RCA called them Microboards. The RCA Microsystems
>manual SSD-270 pretty much enumerates all of them,
>complete with jumper settings and schematics. Nearly
>600 pages.
>
>Also details available software. No CP/M, though.

Their OS was not like CP/M but they had a DOS.

>The racks for the cards came in 5-card and 22 card sizes.
>
>There were plain front panels, and more elaborate ones
>that allowed inputting data, single-stepping, and numeric
>display of program pointer, Op codes, and data.
>
>I see there was a Concurrent Pascal for multitasking!
>
>Pretty amazing, but right in line with what Ed Roberts
>has been saying for thirty years now - not much new.
>
>This was THE FIRST of the modern line of CMOS
>based microcomputers. Bar none. All the others
>were N-Mos or P-Mos, both totally obsolete now.

You forget the 6100 which was before the 1802 and 
12bit [PDP-8 Emulation in CMOS].

Allison

>Curiously, I seem to recall RCA had to license some of
>the Complementary technology from Texas Instruments.
>
>Guess I'll have to post photos one of these days.
>
>Bill


0
no.spam5 (564)
3/19/2007 10:36:55 PM
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:36:55 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:

>Far as I know PL/M was never done on 1802.

Maybe if instead of telling me what you don't know, you simply
asked to see what I have that even suggests its existence
we might all get someplace further along.

>  CP/M is not a good fit for it either.

Well there's really only one way to find out, isn't there?

>By Time the 1802 development system cme out there wer plenty of
>packaged CP/N systems and others (like NS* Horizon).

Kentucky Fried Computers? Surely you jest. Hobbiest toys.
KFC merely slapped purchased parts together. Like anybody else.

RCA designed, developed, INVENTED a lot of their own stuff.

Try this on for size:

http://www.decodesystems.com/cosmac/case-history.html

7-1/2 inch disk drives? $5 media? 1.4Mb capacity? UARTs?
DMA? Memory Mapped Video? Boot Sectors? a DOS? ??

Huh? NINETEENSEVENTYFOUR????? And, it WORKED?????

I 'spose, unless you were around then, that article will go in one ear
and out the other. Keep reading it until it sinks in. That was WAY
ahead of anything going on in the hobbiest community at the time.


Anyway, didn't Kildall write PL/M?  How could RCA come up with
PL/M 1802 and he not know anything about it? Illogical. We also
know Tom Pittman did a LOT of work on 1802 stuff. Kildall often
described him as a friend, as well as co-worker. Those guys HAD
to have had something to do with it.

>Their OS was not like CP/M but they had a DOS.

And, they had a Concurrent Multitasking one! (well, okay,
calling Pascal an ''operating system'' is sorta like calling
StandAloneDIsk Basic one - there's one inside there
somewhere, and you don't need a separate one, but .....)

I think we (okay, maybe only the Frenchman and me) would
really like to find out more about this elusive PL/M 1802.

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/21/2007 6:06:36 AM
On Mar 21, 6:06 am, Bill <B...@SunSouthWest.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:36:55 GMT, no.s...@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
> wrote:
>
> >Far as I know PL/M was never done on 1802.
>
> Maybe if instead of telling me what you don't know, you simply
> asked to see what I have that even suggests its existence
> we might all get someplace further along.
>
> >  CP/M is not a good fit for it either.
>
> Well there's really only one way to find out, isn't there?
>
> >By Time the 1802 development system cme out there wer plenty of
> >packaged CP/N systems and others (like NS* Horizon).
>
> Kentucky Fried Computers? Surely you jest. Hobbiest toys.
> KFC merely slapped purchased parts together. Like anybody else.
>
> RCA designed, developed, INVENTED a lot of their own stuff.
>
> Try this on for size:
>
> http://www.decodesystems.com/cosmac/case-history.html
>
> 7-1/2 inch disk drives? $5 media? 1.4Mb capacity? UARTs?
> DMA? Memory Mapped Video? Boot Sectors? a DOS? ??
>
> Huh? NINETEENSEVENTYFOUR????? And, it WORKED?????
>
> I 'spose, unless you were around then, that article will go in one ear
> and out the other. Keep reading it until it sinks in. That was WAY
> ahead of anything going on in the hobbiest community at the time.
>
> Anyway, didn't Kildall write PL/M?  How could RCA come up with
> PL/M 1802 and he not know anything about it? Illogical. We also
> know Tom Pittman did a LOT of work on 1802 stuff. Kildall often
> described him as a friend, as well as co-worker. Those guys HAD
> to have had something to do with it.
>
> >Their OS was not like CP/M but they had a DOS.
>
> And, they had a Concurrent Multitasking one! (well, okay,
> calling Pascal an ''operating system'' is sorta like calling
> StandAloneDIsk Basic one - there's one inside there
> somewhere, and you don't need a separate one, but .....)
>
> I think we (okay, maybe only the Frenchman and me) would
> really like to find out more about this elusive PL/M 1802.
>
> Bill

> I 'spose, unless you were around then, that article will go in one ear
> and out the other.

Careful, Bill. She *was* around then, and has been building
her own CP/M systems for quite some time.[1]
I would read up on her past postings here, before you
reject her opinions and try and rebuff her.

I would guess she's forgotten more about CP/M, the Z80,
and S-100 systems than you or I will ever know.

I ca also personally vouch for the fact the she has
been extraordinarily helpful here and in other groups;
and I would suggest to you that your comments can be
taken as less than flattering, and possibly even insulting.

[1] I believe she's been doing so since the first time
you saw The Empire Strikes Back, and probably longer

HTH & HAND,
  Tarkin

0
Tarkin000 (374)
3/21/2007 3:22:41 PM
"Bill" <Bill@SunSouthWest.com> wrote in message 
news:hha103d0h64avdt21469rj7beu3197vaq5@4ax.com...

> Huh? NINETEENSEVENTYFOUR????? And, it WORKED?????
>
> I 'spose, unless you were around then, that article will go in one ear
> and out the other. Keep reading it until it sinks in. That was WAY
> ahead of anything going on in the hobbiest community at the time.
>


Please bear in mind that there really wasn't much "invented" in the early 
hobbiest computer industry anyway.  Those guys just made it cheaper for us 
normal Joe's to afford.  And they took steps copying the work of the "big 
guys" - so they were always a few steps behind.  One only has to look at the 
DEC PDP machines of the late sixties to see some of the more obvious 
influences.

And BTW, I still have my old Netronics ELF II running RPN Basic.  I learned 
a lot tinkering with it back in high school.

-John 


0
John
3/21/2007 5:03:30 PM
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:06:36 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
wrote:

First off there is no CP/M for 1802, it's off topic for this group.

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:36:55 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
>wrote:
>
>>Far as I know PL/M was never done on 1802.
>
>Maybe if instead of telling me what you don't know, you simply
>asked to see what I have that even suggests its existence
>we might all get someplace further along.

Forth was the power language for the 1802 as its addressing favors
stacks.  They had a really good BASIC too.

>>  CP/M is not a good fit for it either.
>
>Well there's really only one way to find out, isn't there?

Really and that is?  It didn't exist.  It could be done but the
general programming of 1802 favors a different  os model.

>>By Time the 1802 development system cme out there wer plenty of
>>packaged CP/N systems and others (like NS* Horizon).
>
>Kentucky Fried Computers? Surely you jest. Hobbiest toys.
>KFC merely slapped purchased parts together. Like anybody else.

In a very creative way!  

>RCA designed, developed, INVENTED a lot of their own stuff.
>
>Try this on for size:
>
>http://www.decodesystems.com/cosmac/case-history.html

Yes the 1800/1801 was almost working when that was written.
The 1800 was a predates the 1802 and is shy a few instructions.

FYI: RCA had a bad case of NIH (NOT INVENTED HERE) and
was also the first with CMOS logic (4xxx series).  The COSMAC
archetecture was done with 4000 series logic before it was 
reduced to silicon.  It's design was based on a simplified version
of the RCA mainframe.

Curious, do you know just how much 4Kx8 of ram would cost in 1974?
Hint, 2102 1uS part ran for $6.00 in Quantities over 1000.  The 8008
system I was doing then used 4k of ram for a mere $12 in small
quantities and we were getting a good price but then again the 8008
was $180 a copy.

>7-1/2 inch disk drives? $5 media? 1.4Mb capacity? UARTs?
>DMA? Memory Mapped Video? Boot Sectors? a DOS? ??

Yes PDP-11 had RX01 (8" SSSD disk), DMA and all that as did the 
PDP8.  The mid 70s brought higher density logic (TTL, Pmos, 
Nmos, Cmos) about and made it easier and cheaper to do what 
existed already.  The 6100 (PDP-8 on a CMOS chip) actually 
predates the 1802 though the 1801/1800 was earlier.

The Uarts was already around in PMOS and early NMOS 
(three voltage) RCA just did it using their CMOS technology.

>Huh? NINETEENSEVENTYFOUR????? And, it WORKED?????
>
>I 'spose, unless you were around then, that article will go in one ear
>and out the other. Keep reading it until it sinks in. That was WAY
>ahead of anything going on in the hobbiest community at the time.

I remember reading it while doing my second 8008 design.   Looked 
good but you couldn't get the chipset (1800/1801).    The 1802 was
1975 (very late).

>Anyway, didn't Kildall write PL/M?  How could RCA come up with
>PL/M 1802 and he not know anything about it? Illogical. We also
>know Tom Pittman did a LOT of work on 1802 stuff. Kildall often
>described him as a friend, as well as co-worker. Those guys HAD
>to have had something to do with it.

Back then everyone knew everyone because there were so few
doing it.

>>Their OS was not like CP/M but they had a DOS.
>
>And, they had a Concurrent Multitasking one! (well, okay,
>calling Pascal an ''operating system'' is sorta like calling
>StandAloneDIsk Basic one - there's one inside there
>somewhere, and you don't need a separate one, but .....)

They did a few really neat things.  But the 180x series was 
decidedly aimed at the new embedded control systems 
market.  Part of that embedded market was video games
(back then  they were dedicated chips) and the article describes 
an enhanced StudioII of sheeps clothing.

I started using the 1802 (and still do) and built an expanded 
system based on the ELF and Evaluation Kit (seem MPM203)
 back in  '76 the chip (white ceramic) is date coded 7624 
(24th week 1976).  Have all the docs. I even had the task 
of calling on the NJ marketing and engineering group back in 
late '70s.   Signed a few NDAs back then.

>I think we (okay, maybe only the Frenchman and me) would
>really like to find out more about this elusive PL/M 1802.

Should  you find it, make it public. I'll bet it was a cross complier
that ran on PDP-10 under TOPS10, that was the fashon then.   Far
too much RCA literature and design info was lost to time.


Allison

0
no.spam5 (564)
3/22/2007 8:10:27 PM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:10:27 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:

>Curious, do you know just how much 4Kx8 of ram would cost in 1974?

No, do you?

>Hint, 2102 1uS part ran for $6.00 in Quantities over 1000.  The 8008
>system I was doing then used 4k of ram for a mere $12 in small
>quantities and we were getting a good price but then again the 8008
>was $180 a copy.

I think I'll look it up ....hmmm how about YOU place your price dot
on this chart and tell us what your cost was again?

http://www.jcmit.com/mem2006.htm

I DO know the Cosmac System I have includes two 20 - card racks
each card holding 16Kbytes of CMOS RAM. That's 320K Bytes, times
two, or a total sixHUNDREDforty K bytes PLUS a few more memory
cards in the main cpu rack putting available RAM over 700Kbytes.

Each of the 16K cards listed in the hundreds of dollars, you do the
math. At say $300 each, that's twelve thousand just for the 40 cards.
I don't know what they cost - maybe it was only $125 each. Whatever.

Didn't I say not many of these systems have turned up in the thirty
years since? Try to find one! I found a dozen Altairs in the time I've
been looking. And that's not counting those being listed on eBay.

Since I was in the Twin Cities area at the time, and as far as I know
MOST of the core memory people  were scattered in that area, to
be close to 3M, I was VERY familiar with memory costs. And watched
as solid state drove magnetic core out of business. You assume much,
unfortunately you are wrong about as often as you are right.

MY estimations of memory cost in 1975 seem to fit the chart fairly
well. Do you have a chart to offer, perhaps a sales invoice,
SOMETHING? (other than an obviously failing memory)

And, just for laughs, click the link at the bottom and check out the
price for 4K Bytes of Altair board, 1975. Disagree with that, too?

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/22/2007 9:18:52 PM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:10:27 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:

>FYI: RCA had a bad case of NIH (NOT INVENTED HERE) and
>was also the first with CMOS logic (4xxx series).  The COSMAC
>archetecture was done with 4000 series logic before it was 
>reduced to silicon.  It's design was based on a simplified version
>of the RCA mainframe.

And your point is?

Have you any (real) idea how many CPUs were done in 2901 bit-slice
and TTL before THEY were ''committed to silicon''? So what? DEC
stopped at the bit-slice versions, and called them PDP-whatevers.

The problem, in retrospect, wasn't that something ''wasn't invented
here'' by RCA, it was that they were trying to do far too much for any
one person to mentally integrate into a single company's product
lines. They went off in a dozen directions at once.

We were early adopters of 4000 series CMOS, before they had any
protection diodes on their inputs. Dangerous stuff, 'in that day'.

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/22/2007 9:33:21 PM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:10:27 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:

>First off there is no CP/M for 1802, it's off topic for this group.

Lemme get this straight, oh great godess of all things ancient

Who appointed YOU arbiter of what existed or didn't, and as
moderator of this newsgroup?

Kildall said he wrote CP/M ONLY to support HIS choice of
programming language for microprocessors. In addition to the
8080 Intel chip and the 2605 Signetics chip, that APPEARS to
include the RCA 1800 series, however so far I have not found
a mention of it FROM KILDALL. Doesn't mean there isn't one,
maybe he signed a non-disclosure and wouldn't talk about it.

RCA certainly published information about THEIR PLM 1800.

CP/M is the OPERATING SYSTEM of the PL/M LANGUAGE.

What part of this is off-topic in a CP/M newsgroup?


As it happens, UNIX is the operating system of the 'C' language.

So, in fact, anything having to do with 'C' is OFF TOPIC here.

Go soak your head.

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/22/2007 10:00:30 PM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:52 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:10:27 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
>wrote:
>
>>Curious, do you know just how much 4Kx8 of ram would cost in 1974?
>
>No, do you?
>
>>Hint, 2102 1uS part ran for $6.00 in Quantities over 1000.  The 8008
>>system I was doing then used 4k of ram for a mere $12 in small
>>quantities and we were getting a good price but then again the 8008
>>was $180 a copy.
>
>I think I'll look it up ....hmmm how about YOU place your price dot
>on this chart and tell us what your cost was again?
>
>http://www.jcmit.com/mem2006.htm

My number are in agreement with the chart allowing for local suppler
pricing (schwebber electronics.).

>
>I DO know the Cosmac System I have includes two 20 - card racks
>each card holding 16Kbytes of CMOS RAM. That's 320K Bytes, times
>two, or a total sixHUNDREDforty K bytes PLUS a few more memory
>cards in the main cpu rack putting available RAM over 700Kbytes.
>
>Each of the 16K cards listed in the hundreds of dollars, you do the
>math. At say $300 each, that's twelve thousand just for the 40 cards.
>I don't know what they cost - maybe it was only $125 each. Whatever.
>
>Didn't I say not many of these systems have turned up in the thirty
>years since? Try to find one! I found a dozen Altairs in the time I've
>been looking. And that's not counting those being listed on eBay.
>
>Since I was in the Twin Cities area at the time, and as far as I know
>MOST of the core memory people  were scattered in that area, to
>be close to 3M, I was VERY familiar with memory costs. And watched
>as solid state drove magnetic core out of business. You assume much,
>unfortunately you are wrong about as often as you are right.
>
>MY estimations of memory cost in 1975 seem to fit the chart fairly
>well. Do you have a chart to offer, perhaps a sales invoice,
>SOMETHING? (other than an obviously failing memory)
>
>And, just for laughs, click the link at the bottom and check out the
>price for 4K Bytes of Altair board, 1975. Disagree with that, too?
>
>Bill

Its off by a factor of 1.411.  I paid  $399 april of '75.  First card
to break the $199(kit) barrier was a PT 8kstatic.  It was 1978.


Allison
0
no.spam5 (564)
3/22/2007 11:39:30 PM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:33:21 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:10:27 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
>wrote:
>
>>FYI: RCA had a bad case of NIH (NOT INVENTED HERE) and
>>was also the first with CMOS logic (4xxx series).  The COSMAC
>>archetecture was done with 4000 series logic before it was 
>>reduced to silicon.  It's design was based on a simplified version
>>of the RCA mainframe.
>
>And your point is?
>
>Have you any (real) idea how many CPUs were done in 2901 bit-slice
>and TTL before THEY were ''committed to silicon''? So what? DEC
>stopped at the bit-slice versions, and called them PDP-whatevers.

List all the PDP whatevers that used 2801 bitslice.  It's a very short
list even for protos.

>
>The problem, in retrospect, wasn't that something ''wasn't invented
>here'' by RCA, it was that they were trying to do far too much for any
>one person to mentally integrate into a single company's product
>lines. They went off in a dozen directions at once.
>
>We were early adopters of 4000 series CMOS, before they had any
>protection diodes on their inputs. Dangerous stuff, 'in that day'.
>
>Bill

First system used over 100 pieces of 4000, other than latchup it was
good stuff.

Allison

0
no.spam5 (564)
3/22/2007 11:42:11 PM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:00:30 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:10:27 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
>wrote:
>
>>First off there is no CP/M for 1802, it's off topic for this group.
>
>Lemme get this straight, oh great godess of all things ancient
>
>Who appointed YOU arbiter of what existed or didn't, and as
>moderator of this newsgroup?
>
>Kildall said he wrote CP/M ONLY to support HIS choice of
>programming language for microprocessors. In addition to the
>8080 Intel chip and the 2605 Signetics chip, that APPEARS to
>include the RCA 1800 series, however so far I have not found
>a mention of it FROM KILDALL. Doesn't mean there isn't one,
>maybe he signed a non-disclosure and wouldn't talk about it.
>
>RCA certainly published information about THEIR PLM 1800.
>
>CP/M is the OPERATING SYSTEM of the PL/M LANGUAGE.
>
>What part of this is off-topic in a CP/M newsgroup?
>
>
>As it happens, UNIX is the operating system of the 'C' language.
>
>So, in fact, anything having to do with 'C' is OFF TOPIC here.
>
>Go soak your head.
>
>Bill

plonk.
0
no.spam5 (564)
3/22/2007 11:43:57 PM

> List all the PDP whatevers that used 2901 bitslice.  It's a very short
> list even for protos.

KS-10 (2020), KT-10 (Minnow), and 11/730

DEC used 2901s in lots of other places (FPP, CIS ,periph ctlrs), but
not in CPU data paths.

I'm not going to bother commenting on the rest of the rant.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
aek2 (123)
3/23/2007 1:23:47 AM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:39:30 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:52 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
>wrote:

>>I think I'll look it up ....hmmm how about YOU place your price dot
>>on this chart and tell us what your cost was again?
>>
>>http://www.jcmit.com/mem2006.htm
>
>My number are in agreement with the chart allowing for local suppler
>pricing (schwebber electronics.).

I don't think so. Place your alleged price dot

I think you'll find your 'recollection' off by about five years.

Like this:  Coordinates: price = ?? Year = 1975

You obviously didn't look. Assumptions, again?

The Altair 4k 2102 board cost $195 in October.

That's roughly $50,000 a megabyte. Or, $37,500 in
Altair memory dollars for this 3/4 megabyte COSMAC.

And while I'm sure you could buy parts and make boards
to stuff them into for less, the point of all this is ready to
run 8 bit computing, not how to lay out boards.

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/23/2007 3:24:05 AM
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:42:11 GMT, no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:33:21 -0500, Bill <Bill@SunSouthWest.com>
>wrote:

>>We were early adopters of 4000 series CMOS, before they had any
>>protection diodes on their inputs. Dangerous stuff, 'in that day'.

>First system used over 100 pieces of 4000, other than latchup it was
>good stuff.

Seems to me, they referred to it as the SCR effect. Put a crowbar
across the power supply rails. Chips sometimes got a little warm;
one or two maybe blew themselves to pieces. You'd go to the spot
on the board where they'd used to be, maybe you'd find a couple
legs still in their holes, the rest of the chip? Who knows? Powder.

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/23/2007 3:31:31 AM
no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
(snip)

> I started using the 1802 (and still do) and built an expanded 
> system based on the ELF and Evaluation Kit (seem MPM203)
>  back in  '76 the chip (white ceramic) is date coded 7624 
> (24th week 1976).  Have all the docs. I even had the task 
> of calling on the NJ marketing and engineering group back in 
> late '70s.   Signed a few NDAs back then.

I believe it was the 1802 that the ICT (Integer
Cosine Transform) was developed to run on:

http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-119/119M.pdf

>>I think we (okay, maybe only the Frenchman and me) would
>>really like to find out more about this elusive PL/M 1802.

> Should  you find it, make it public. I'll bet it was a cross complier
> that ran on PDP-10 under TOPS10, that was the fashon then.   Far
> too much RCA literature and design info was lost to time.

That was popular for many years, including I believe the original
Microsoft BASIC for the Altair 8800.  In later years people I
knew moved over to the LSI-11.

-- glen

0
gah (12850)
3/23/2007 7:13:18 AM
>> Should  you find it, make it public. I'll bet it was a cross complier
>> that ran on PDP-10 under TOPS10, that was the fashon then.   Far
>> too much RCA literature and design info was lost to time.
>
> That was popular for many years, including I believe the original
> Microsoft BASIC for the Altair 8800.  In later years people I
> knew moved over to the LSI-11.

The original Altair BASIC (MicroSoft, as it was originally called, didn't
exist then) was run on an 8080 simulator on a DEC until Gates, Allen
and Davidoff (Remember Monte? He wrote the floating-point routines
in Altair BASIC) could get access to a real Altair.

Tom Lake 


0
tlake (476)
3/23/2007 8:45:55 AM
PLM1800.TXT
-----------

The famous polemist of the comp.os.cpm  Newsgroup, "Wild"  Bill,
sent me (why me?)  3 JPEG  files holding  the contents  of pages
515, 516, and 517 of an unknown book.  Apparently, he  is unable
to retype the following few paragraphs so, for  the sake  of the
discussion, I retyped them (I am too kind):

Sofware -- CDP18S839

PLM-1800
High-Level-Language Compiler

The PLM-1800 High-Level Language  Compiler, CDP18S839,  provided
on  a  diskette, is  a software  package designed  to accelerate
program development on the  COSMAC DOS  Development System  (CDS
III) CDP18S007V1 or CDP18S007V3, and on  the COSMAC  Development
System IV CDP18S008V1, V3, V5, and V7. It  has features  similar
to those of many well-known high-level languages, such  as PL/1,
ALGOL, and Pascal. Use of the PLM language encourages structured
programming   and,   hence,   provides   easy  readability   and
maintenance. Its scoped procedures  and control  structures also
support modular programming.

The  PLM  Compiler  automatically   creates  code   for  complex
conditions and signed sixteen-bit arithmetic expressions, and it
performs systematic register and storage allocations. Because of
these features, the programmer has more  time to  concentrate on
the application requirements.

The PLM  Compiler also  supports CDP1802  features. It  contains
built-in  functions  such as  shift operations  (SHL, SHR,  SCL,
SCR),  data  conversions  (LOW,  HIGH),  and   declaration-based
information functions (ADDR, LENGTH).  Other built-in  functions
or predeclared variables (Q, MEMORY, DMAPTR, STACKPTR, EF1, EF2,
EF3, EF4, CARRY) allow access to  CDP1802-based hardware.   Data
transfers  through  the  I/O  ports are  supported by  INPUT and
OUTPUT.   The  interrupt  mechanism  is  programmable  with  the
INTERRUPT attribute for procedures  and the  ENABLE and  DISABLE
statements. A built-in procedure, TIME, allows time delays based
on the microprocessor clock.

Code written in PLM may be integrated with assembly code through
the Compiler's in-line-code feature.  In addition,  the Compiler
produces CDP1802 assembly code that can  be combined  with other
assembly-time code.

PLM  operates  directly  with  the  COSMAC   Development  System
CDP18S008. When used with a CDP18S007 COSMAC Development System,
PLM  requires  60  kilobytes  of  read-write  memory and  a data
terminal  or  console.   Required  software is  the CDOS  System
Diskette, version 2.2 or  later (supplied  with the  CDP18S007),
and  the  PLM-1800  High-Level-Language  Compiler  on   diskette
CDP18S839. Documentation is provided  with the  CDOS Development
System  and  with  the  PLM-1800  High-Level-Language   Compiler
diskette.


Features of PLM
---------------

The  features  of  the  PLM-1800  High-Level-Language   Compiler
CDP18S839 include the following:

Data Description:

CONSTANTS -   decimal, hexadecimal,  octal, binary  numbers, and
        strings of characters.

VARIABLES  -   two  types;  may  be  aggregated  into  arrays or
        initialized.
        BYTE - 8-bit value
        ADDRESS  -   16-bit value;  may contain  the address  of
        another variable.

EXPRESSIONS - permit the following operations:
        arithmetic +, -, *, /, MOD
        logical AND, OR, XOR, NOT
        equality and ordering =, <>, <, >, <=, >=.


Statement Description:

ASSIGNMENT  -   allows  replacement   of  variable's   value  by
        evaluation of  an expression;  multiple assignments  are
        possible in one statement.

IF..THEN..ELSE  -   allows execution  of a  group of  statements
        based on a condition. IF statements may be nested.

DO..END - allows execution of a group of statements.

ITERATIVE DO  -  allows  looping based  on a  iterative variable
        whose  increment  is  controllable  with an  optional BY
        clause.

DO..WHILE - allows looping based on a condition.

PROCEDURE - contains executable instructions and  local variable
        declarations.  Procedures may be  recursive if  declared
        with  REENTRANT  attribute.   Procedures  may  take   on
        function attribute.

CALL - subroutine invocation.

GO TO, GOTO - branching capability to labels within scope  rules
of the language.


Compiler Features:

In-line assembly code capability
Output listing controls
Assembly code output


Operating with PLM
------------------

After a program is generated in the PLM language, the first step
for using  the Compiler  is to  place the  PLM diskette  in disk
drive 0. The user then invokes compilation of the file by typing

        PLM fname.ext:x

where fname.ext is the user's file name and x is the drive.   If
errors occur  during compilation,  they are  transmitted to  the
development system terminal device, as well as to an output file
of  PLM  source  code  interlisted with  CDP1802 assembly  code.
Another output  file equating  assembly names  and PLM  names is
also generated by the Compiler. The error messages  indicate the
nature of the error, the number of the line in  which the  error
occurred, and where in the line the error was detected.

A    program    development    cycle    using    the    PLM-1800
High-Level-Language Compiler is given in Figure 1. The  Compiler
accepts source code written in the  PLM language,  and generates
the equivalent assembly code that can subsequently be  assembled
into CDP1802 executable code.

                    +----------+
                    |PLMLIB ASM|
                    | program  |
                    | library  |
                    +----------+
                         |
 +-----+                 |    +-------+                    +----+
/        \   +--------+  V   /         \   +----------+   /      \
|  PLM   |-->| CDP1802|----->|Assembler|-->| CDP1802  |-->|CDSBIN|
\compiler/   |assembly|  ^   \ (ASM8)  /   |executable|   \      /
 +------+    |  code  |  |    +-------+    |   code   |    +----+
    ^        +--------+  |                 +----------+      |
    |                    |                                   V
 +------+           +--------+                          +--------+
 | PLM  |           | Other  |                          |Absolute|
 |source|           |assembly|                          | binary |
 | code |           |  code  |                          |  load  |
 +------+           +--------+                          | module |
    ^                                                   +--------+
    |
 +------+
/        \
| Editor |
\        /
 +------+

        Figure  1.  Block diagram  of program  development cycle
using the PLM Compiler.


Sample program
--------------

A sample program using PLM is  given in  Figure 2.  This program
will sort an array by means of a method called "bubblesort".

DO;
/* This is a bubblesort program *.
DECLARE A(10) ADDRESS INITIAL
 (33,10,99,60,162,3,3,272,98,2);
DECLARE (I,SWITCHED,J) BYTE, TEMP ADDRESS;
 SWITCHED = 1;
 DO WHILE SWITCHED = 1;
  SWITCHED = 0;
  DO I = 1 TO 9;
     J = 1 + 1;
     IF A(I) > A(J) THEN
        DO;
         SWITCHED = 1;
         TEMP = A(I);
         A(I) = A(J);
         A(J) = TEMP;
        END;
  END;
 END; /* of WHILE */
END;
/* Now completed scan without switching */
EOF

        Figure 2. PLM "bubblesort" program


Literature
----------

Further information on the PLM-1800 High-Level-Language Compiler
CDP18S839  is  given  in  the "User  Manual for  the RCA  COSMAC
PLM-1800 High-Level-Language Compiler", MPM-239.

Information on the RCA COSMAC Development System IV CDP18S008V1,
CDP18S008V3,  CDP18S008V5,  and  CDP18S008V7  is  given  in  two
manuals "Operator Manual for the RCA  COSMAC Development  System
IV CDP18S008", MPM-235, and "Hardware Reference  Manual for  the
RCA COSMAC Development System IV CDP18S008", MPM-236.

Information on the RCA COSMAC DOS Development System CDP18S007V1
and CDP18S007V3 is given in the two manuals "Operator Manual for
the  RCA  COSMAC DOS  Development System  (CDS III)  CDP18S007",
MPM-232, and "Hardware Reference Manual for  the RCA  COSMAC DOS
Development System (CDS III) CDP18S007", MPM-233.

General  information  on  the  RCA  1800  Microprocessor Series,
including software, programming techniques, and architecture, is
given   in   the   "User   Manual   for   the   CDP1802   COSMAC
Microprocessor", MPM-201.

Binary arithmetic software packages on disk  are also  available
for use on the COSMAC DOS Development System CDS III. The COSMAC
Microprocessor   Fixed-Point   Binary   Arithmetic   Subroutines
(CDP18S826) are described in Product Description  PD-6, and  the
COSMAC  Microprocessor  Floating-Point  Arithmetic   Subroutines
(CDP18S827)   are   described  in   Product  Description   PD-7.
Additional information on these arithmetic diskettes is given in
the manuals "Fixed-Point Binary  Arithmetic Subroutines  for RCA
COSMAC Microprocessors", MPM-206, and "Floating-Point Arithmetic
Subroutines for RCA COSMAC Microprocessors", MPM-207.

Two application notes are available for PLM. They  are ICAN-6928
"Interfacing PLM Code to CDOS System  Functions" and  "ICAN-6918
"A Methodology  for Programming  COSMAC 1802  Applications Using
Higher-Level Languages".


Conclusion
----------

"When  used  with  a  CDP18S007 COSMAC  Development System,  PLM
requires 60 kilobytes of read-write memory  (...)" 60  KILOBYTES
of RAM!!! I have no idea when the  RCA COSMAC  was made,  but it
was definitely not one of the pioneers of  microprocessors. Now,
re-open your old 1976-vintage CP/M 1.4 manuals, and  re-read the
minimum size of RAM needed to run it: 16K (24K recommended).  No
wonder that the RCA COSMAC disappeared without descendents. Only
a  rich  administration  could  afford  to  make  such  a "White
Elephant".

As for "Wild" Bill idea that the above  advert proves  that Gary
Kildall ported Intel's high-level  system language  PL/M to  the
RCA COSMAC, I object the following:

1) Nowhere is Intel's PL/M mentioned (hence, it  does not  claim
to be compatible with it, the "standard" for microprocessors).

2) The name used is "PLM", not "PL/M".

3) Among other things,  it is  me who  mentioned "PLM/X"  on the
comp.os.cpm Newsgroup. This one  was advertised  in microcomputer
magazines, and is a subset of  Mainframe PL/M  that used  to run
under CP/M. (The only 8-bit version  of PL/M  was running  under
ISIS-II only, a Unix-like OS).

For all those reasons, I simply don't  believe that  this advert
proves the opinion that "Wild" Bill want us to share.


EOF

0
roche182 (635)
3/23/2007 11:15:51 AM
On 23 Mar 2007 04:15:51 -0700, roche182@laposte.net wrote:

>Conclusion

>3) Among other things,  it is  me who  mentioned "PLM/X"  on the
>comp.os.cpm Newsgroup. This one  was advertised  in microcomputer
>magazines, and is a subset of  Mainframe PL/M  that used  to run
>under CP/M. (The only 8-bit version  of PL/M  was running  under
>ISIS-II only, a Unix-like OS).

You are saying the only 8-bit PL/M compiler(s) (you are aware of)
were NOT running on any 8 bit microprocessors? 

Then the RCA PLM 1800 could be unique indeed, could it not?
Not only might you write PL/M programs on an 8 bit Cosmac, you
could also compile them?  Or, was PLM/X an 8 bit compiler?

Yes, I see the PLM 1800 compiler takes more memory to run in
than 8 bit CP/M (on an 8080 anyway). That assumes the compiler
is running on CDOS, though, and who can say how that compares
to CP/M?  We don't (yet) know how big CP/M 1800 might be. 

Kildall writes that the earliest CP/M was written entirely in PL/M,
although he does not mention disk drives nor BIOS in that section.
I believe this included the NCR cash registers, the fortune telling
machines, and Omron data terminals.

Need more input....mnmnmnmn...input.....

And, thanks for the typing. Small job for you, perhaps.....

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/23/2007 2:18:38 PM
First and foremost: I have NO RESPONSE to "Bill" series of rants,
argument-bating, or acid commentary on a number of unrelated subjects.
I'm only sorry to see my good friends and colleagues Allison and
Emmanuel Roche taken in. If "Bill" has some facts and documents to put
on the table, he can post them when he chooses to.

Any additional comments from me on "argumentive" posting can be found
at my on-line document which covers these sort of situations:

http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/offtopic.html

I'll now respond to "French Luser's" post of documents about
"PLM-1800" for the RCA COSMAC 1802. Roche was kind enough to post a
few pages from an RCA manual, which he mysteriously recieved at some
point. Exerpts of Roche's post follow my comments.

I concurr with "Luser" that it's UNLIKELY that Kildall had anything to
do with this "PLM-1800". Simply put, there was no need for him to be
involved, as any number of people and companies developed variations
of IBM's PL/I language during the 1970's. PL/I in the 1970's was a
very popular language on a very popular series of IBM mainframe and
minicomputer products. Cross-compliers were also very popular during
the period. A Web search of "PL/I" will find sites which list DOZENS
of more-or-less derivative language implemenations that can be traced
by *inspiration* to IBM's PL/I, including of course Kildall's PL/M.
That said, Dr. Kildall wrote on the subject of a PL/I derivative for a
8080 microprocessor and the PACE from National: his work could have
"inspired" RCA's, that's how things work from the academic community.

Bottom line: show documentary EVIDENCE linking Kildall with RCA's "PLM
1800". No one can prove a negative, that Kildall is NOT associated,
one can only guess without positive evidence.

I have some additional information about RCA COSMAC development, which
may be informative, and even on-topic!

I had some experience with an RCA 1802 COSMAC development system, from
RCA. It was an S-100 bus based system, with a Z80 CPU card, full of
mostly proprietary cards and running proprietary software which, based
on my recollections of my work at the time, was NOT CP/M. The floppy
controller was a Micromotion (?) FDC card which COULD and DID run CP/M
on other systems, however. There was a in-circuit emulator card with
"pod" for the 1802. When "Bill" first posted, I thought he had THIS
system, but "Bill's" system has 44-pin cards and (apparently) used an
1802 CPU card. RCA offered a number of 44-pin boards with their COSMAC
chip sets on them: small 44-pin cards were a popular choice of the
era, including the STDbus 44-pin bus and card standard.

The document "Luser" posted SEEMS to reference TWO RCA development
systems. Namely, "COSMAC DOS  Development System  (CDS III)
CDP18S007V1 or CDP18S007V3", and "COSMAC Development System IV
CDP18S008V1, V3, V5, and V7". I don't know the RCA designation for the
S-100 based system I've described; and I won't sort through
"Bill's" ...postings... to guess which of these refer to the 44-pin
bussed system he has. The "007" references below specifically mention
floppies for the compiler and the OS for the "007" model.

A Google search found only a few discussion group/Usenet posts but
they also suggest the "007" model as floppy-based. But I found a post
which had a Web link to an active site:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/o/dogas/cosmac/dev4.htm

...which describes a "008" system, apparently a "System IV", with (44-
pin) Microboards. It has a floppy drive. The manuals listed include
something on BASIC; development systems IV or II. No Pascal or PLM,
but that's merely a lack of evidence.  I'd speculate that one of the
Microborards had parallel ports to a SASI single-board floppy
controller; as no Microboard is called out as a floppy controller.

In any event, there are many BETTER FORUMS for 1802 discussions than
comp.os.cpm; especially for products which did not run CP/M! A Web
search will find active Web sites (like the one above), discussion
groups, sites with discussions. In the 1970's and still today, the RCA
1802 is an interesting processor and chip set; old kits and new are
still sold and assembled today, uses and projects still in discussion
and still active.

Herb Johnson

Exerpts from "French Luser" post:
------------------------------------

[RCA document title:?] "PLM-1800 High-Level-Language Compiler"

The PLM-1800 High-Level Language  Compiler, CDP18S839,  provided
on  a  diskette, is  a software  package designed  to accelerate
program development on the  COSMAC DOS  Development System  (CDS
III) CDP18S007V1 or CDP18S007V3, and on  the COSMAC  Development
System IV CDP18S008V1, V3, V5, and V7. It  has features  similar
to those of many well-known high-level languages, such  as PL/1,
ALGOL, and Pascal.

PLM  operates  directly  with  the  COSMAC   Development  System
CDP18S008. When used with a CDP18S007 COSMAC Development System,
PLM  requires  60  kilobytes  of  read-write  memory and  a data
terminal  or  console.   Required  software is  the CDOS  System
Diskette, version 2.2 or  later (supplied  with the  CDP18S007),
and  the  PLM-1800  High-Level-Language  Compiler  on   diskette
CDP18S839. Documentation is provided  with the  CDOS Development
System  and  with  the  PLM-1800  High-Level-Language   Compiler
diskette.

Herbert R. Johnson,  New Jersey USA
<a href="http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/"> web site</a>
<a href="http://www.retrotechnology.net/herbs_stuff/"> domain mirror</
a>
my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
"Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"

0
herbrjohnson (355)
3/23/2007 4:52:52 PM
On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Herb Johnson" <herbrjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First and foremost: I have NO RESPONSE to "Bill" series of rants,
> argument-bating, or acid commentary on a number of unrelated subjects.
> I'm only sorry to see my good friends and colleagues Allison and
> Emmanuel Roche taken in. If "Bill" has some facts and documents to put
> on the table, he can post them when he chooses to.
>
> Any additional comments from me on "argumentive" posting can be found
> at my on-line document which covers these sort of situations:
>
> http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/offtopic.html
>
> I'll now respond to "French Luser's" post of documents about
> "PLM-1800" for the RCA COSMAC 1802. Roche was kind enough to post a
> few pages from an RCA manual, which he mysteriously recieved at some
> point. Exerpts of Roche's post follow my comments.
>
> I concurr with "Luser" that it's UNLIKELY that Kildall had anything to
> do with this "PLM-1800". Simply put, there was no need for him to be
> involved, as any number of people and companies developed variations
> of IBM's PL/I language during the 1970's. PL/I in the 1970's was a
> very popular language on a very popular series of IBM mainframe and
> minicomputer products. Cross-compliers were also very popular during
> the period. A Web search of "PL/I" will find sites which list DOZENS
> of more-or-less derivative language implemenations that can be traced
> by *inspiration* to IBM's PL/I, including of course Kildall's PL/M.
> That said, Dr. Kildall wrote on the subject of a PL/I derivative for a
> 8080 microprocessor and the PACE from National: his work could have
> "inspired" RCA's, that's how things work from the academic community.
>
> Bottom line: show documentary EVIDENCE linking Kildall with RCA's "PLM
> 1800". No one can prove a negative, that Kildall is NOT associated,
> one can only guess without positive evidence.
>
> I have some additional information about RCA COSMAC development, which
> may be informative, and even on-topic!
>
> I had some experience with an RCA 1802 COSMAC development system, from
> RCA. It was an S-100 bus based system, with a Z80 CPU card, full of
> mostly proprietary cards and running proprietary software which, based
> on my recollections of my work at the time, was NOT CP/M. The floppy
> controller was a Micromotion (?) FDC card which COULD and DID run CP/M
> on other systems, however. There was a in-circuit emulator card with
> "pod" for the 1802. When "Bill" first posted, I thought he had THIS
> system, but "Bill's" system has 44-pin cards and (apparently) used an
> 1802 CPU card. RCA offered a number of 44-pin boards with their COSMAC
> chip sets on them: small 44-pin cards were a popular choice of the
> era, including the STDbus 44-pin bus and card standard.
>
> The document "Luser" posted SEEMS to reference TWO RCA development
> systems. Namely, "COSMAC DOS  Development System  (CDS III)
> CDP18S007V1 or CDP18S007V3", and "COSMAC Development System IV
> CDP18S008V1, V3, V5, and V7". I don't know the RCA designation for the
> S-100 based system I've described; and I won't sort through
> "Bill's" ...postings... to guess which of these refer to the 44-pin
> bussed system he has. The "007" references below specifically mention
> floppies for the compiler and the OS for the "007" model.
>
> A Google search found only a few discussion group/Usenet posts but
> they also suggest the "007" model as floppy-based. But I found a post
> which had a Web link to an active site:
>
> http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/o/dogas/cosmac/dev4.htm
>
> ..which describes a "008" system, apparently a "System IV", with (44-
> pin) Microboards. It has a floppy drive. The manuals listed include
> something on BASIC; development systems IV or II. No Pascal or PLM,
> but that's merely a lack of evidence.  I'd speculate that one of the
> Microborards had parallel ports to a SASI single-board floppy
> controller; as no Microboard is called out as a floppy controller.
>
> In any event, there are many BETTER FORUMS for 1802 discussions than
> comp.os.cpm; especially for products which did not run CP/M! A Web
> search will find active Web sites (like the one above), discussion
> groups, sites with discussions. In the 1970's and still today, the RCA
> 1802 is an interesting processor and chip set; old kits and new are
> still sold and assembled today, uses and projects still in discussion
> and still active.
>
> Herb Johnson
>
> Exerpts from "French Luser" post:
> ------------------------------------
>
> [RCA document title:?] "PLM-1800 High-Level-Language Compiler"
>
> The PLM-1800 High-Level Language  Compiler, CDP18S839,  provided
> on  a  diskette, is  a software  package designed  to accelerate
> program development on the  COSMAC DOS  Development System  (CDS
> III) CDP18S007V1 or CDP18S007V3, and on  the COSMAC  Development
> System IV CDP18S008V1, V3, V5, and V7. It  has features  similar
> to those of many well-known high-level languages, such  as PL/1,
> ALGOL, and Pascal.
>
> PLM  operates  directly  with  the  COSMAC   Development  System
> CDP18S008. When used with a CDP18S007 COSMAC Development System,
> PLM  requires  60  kilobytes  of  read-write  memory and  a data
> terminal  or  console.   Required  software is  the CDOS  System
> Diskette, version 2.2 or  later (supplied  with the  CDP18S007),
> and  the  PLM-1800  High-Level-Language  Compiler  on   diskette
> CDP18S839. Documentation is provided  with the  CDOS Development
> System  and  with  the  PLM-1800  High-Level-Language   Compiler
> diskette.
>
> Herbert R. Johnson,  New Jersey USA
> <a href="http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/"> web site</a>
> <a href="http://www.retrotechnology.net/herbs_stuff/"> domain mirror</
> a>
> my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
> if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
> "Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
> S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"


Herb, wasn't/isn't the acronym PL* ubiquitous for
'P_rogramming L_anguage *_'? It seems to me
the PL/M associated with Killdall and CP/M is
always _correctly_ referred to as PL/M. In this
day and age of SMS-inspired lack of attention
to punctuation and detail, I can see how some
people *might*, *maybe*, confuse PL/M and
PLM. But the / would have made mounds of
difference in the era we're discussing, IMHO.
RCA *may* have even been attempting to
capitalize on the success of the name 'PL/M'
in order to sell their 'white elephant' (wild
specualtion on my part).

OT-
  Thanks also for pointing out that the poster
was Wild Bill...because I follow the group
from Google, I don't often see the full headers,
and thought this was a different Bill...quite
confusing to say the least...

TTFN,
  Tarkin

0
Tarkin000 (374)
3/23/2007 5:11:35 PM
On 23 Mar 2007 09:52:52 -0700, "Herb Johnson" <herbrjohnson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If "Bill" has some facts and documents to put
> on the table, he can post them when he chooses to.

Seems to me this started out when I merely ASKED if anyone
had the PLM 1800 or 1802 compiler, and speculated that with it,
a CP/M 1800 might be almost 2/3 done: If the CCP and BDOS
would compile correctly; If PL/M and PLM are reasonably close.

Some things I learn are not up to me to post. I can not post
or give away copies of Kildall's 'Memoirs', for example. But
there's nothing stopping me referring to them where something
Kildall had to say explains what we know from public sources.

As far as RCA products, I'm sure everyone remembers Kildall
was at one time an Intel employee, and continued to develop
software for the Intel processors for many years after.

While he would be unlikely to have had any direct contact
with RCA, he does say he developed some version of
PL-something-or-other for Signetics and their 2650 line
of processors, so who can say for sure?

There is a curious glitch in his statements about virtually
owning the microcomputing operating system business,
accusing gates and IBM of plotting together to steal it,
yet not having his operating system running on most of
the microprocessors being made and sold at the time.

(Atari, Commodore, Apple, even Radio Shack Z-80s)

Or maybe I missed something.

Bill
0
Bill3039 (326)
3/28/2007 1:19:33 AM
On Mar 28, 1:19 am, Bill <B...@SunSouthWest.com> wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2007 09:52:52 -0700, "Herb Johnson" <herbrjohn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If "Bill" has some facts and documents to put
> > on the table, he can post them when he chooses to.
>
> Seems to me this started out when I merely ASKED if anyone
> had the PLM 1800 or 1802 compiler, and speculated that with it,
> a CP/M 1800 might be almost 2/3 done: If the CCP and BDOS
> would compile correctly; If PL/M and PLM are reasonably close.
>
> Some things I learn are not up to me to post. I can not post
> or give away copies of Kildall's 'Memoirs', for example. But
> there's nothing stopping me referring to them where something
> Kildall had to say explains what we know from public sources.
>
> As far as RCA products, I'm sure everyone remembers Kildall
> was at one time an Intel employee, and continued to develop
> software for the Intel processors for many years after.
>
> While he would be unlikely to have had any direct contact
> with RCA, he does say he developed some version of
> PL-something-or-other for Signetics and their 2650 line
> of processors, so who can say for sure?
>
> There is a curious glitch in his statements about virtually
> owning the microcomputing operating system business,
> accusing gates and IBM of plotting together to steal it,
> yet not having his operating system running on most of
> the microprocessors being made and sold at the time.
>
> (Atari, Commodore, Apple, even Radio Shack Z-80s)
>
> Or maybe I missed something.
>
> Bill

Here's what you missed:

you:
> Maybe somebody's already built this wheel?

allison:
> Far as I know PL/M was never done on 1802.

you:
> Maybe if instead of telling me what you don't know, you simply
> asked to see what I have that even suggests its existence
> we might all get someplace further along.

She was informing you that she did know of a CP/M
variant in her experience for the 1802. She didn't
say there wasn't one. You then blasted her, with some
cryptic reference to some esoteric documentation
which supports your claim for finding this 'unicorn'.

After blasting her, she then definitively states that
your 'unicorn' doesn't exist, and explains why.

Then comes an exchange relating to the prices
of RAM chips. What this has to do with your unicorn,
I'll never know.

At some point after, you sent Luser some images
from some manual you have, this being the esoteric
literature referenced earlier. It seems the basis for the
existence of your unicorn is founded on the fact that
the acronym PLM superficially resembles another acronym,
PL/M, the language Kildall used to develop CP/M. What you
are  either unaware of or are blatantly disregarding here is
the proliferation of PL* or PL/* languages in that era.
Root cause? PL was taken to mean 'Programming Language'.
Not every PL* or PL/* variant was used to develop (a) CP/M.
It's sort of like GT or X- in automobiles today. PL* != PL/M .
This was the conclusion reached by Luser, and reinforced
by Herb. Even then, they went to pains to be polite, saying
that it was 'unlikely', or that they were 'unaware'. If you have
a 'smoking gun', then by all means, please show us.

Now, you seem to be acting hurt and shocked. And you also say:
> there's nothing stopping me referring to them where something
> Kildall had to say explains what we know from public sources.

And there's nothing stopping you from posting links to the relevant
passages you are referring to. It's certainly no harder than emailing
images of some manual. With the abundance of material on even the
most esoteric, ancient, and even insignificant of technologica of
yesteryear, I find it difficult to believe that you cannot accept the
fact
that maybe *there just never was a CP/M for the 1802*. Your case for
it's existence rests on the similarity of three letters, and some as-
yet
unrevealed  interpretations of someone's memoirs. A quick and
judicious use of Occam's Razor should tell you that it doesn't exist.
Which, provides the answer to your original question: that wheel
hasn't been invented yet.

Thus, now that it has been reasonably ascertained (pending your
smoking gun) that such a creature doesn't, in fact, exist, you may
be motivated to create a CP/M for the 1802. What is most
unfortunate is that you have managed to irritate a good deal of
the people who would have valuable insight into the details of
such an endeavor.

I believe that constitutes the greater protion of what you missed.

HAND,
   Tarkin

0
Tarkin000 (374)
3/28/2007 2:53:25 AM
On 27 Mar 2007 19:53:25 -0700, "Tarkin" <Tarkin000@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 28, 1:19 am, Bill <B...@SunSouthWest.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2007 09:52:52 -0700, "Herb Johnson" <herbrjohn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > If "Bill" has some facts and documents to put
>> > on the table, he can post them when he chooses to.
>>
>> Seems to me this started out when I merely ASKED if anyone
>> had the PLM 1800 or 1802 compiler, and speculated that with it,
>> a CP/M 1800 might be almost 2/3 done: If the CCP and BDOS
>> would compile correctly; If PL/M and PLM are reasonably close.
>>
>> Some things I learn are not up to me to post. I can not post
>> or give away copies of Kildall's 'Memoirs', for example. But
>> there's nothing stopping me referring to them where something
>> Kildall had to say explains what we know from public sources.
>>
>> As far as RCA products, I'm sure everyone remembers Kildall
>> was at one time an Intel employee, and continued to develop
>> software for the Intel processors for many years after.
>>
>> While he would be unlikely to have had any direct contact
>> with RCA, he does say he developed some version of
>> PL-something-or-other for Signetics and their 2650 line
>> of processors, so who can say for sure?
>>
>> There is a curious glitch in his statements about virtually
>> owning the microcomputing operating system business,
>> accusing gates and IBM of plotting together to steal it,
>> yet not having his operating system running on most of
>> the microprocessors being made and sold at the time.
>>
>> (Atari, Commodore, Apple, even Radio Shack Z-80s)
>>
>> Or maybe I missed something.
>>
>> Bill
>
>Here's what you missed:
>
>you:
>> Maybe somebody's already built this wheel?
>
>allison:
>> Far as I know PL/M was never done on 1802.
>
>you:
>> Maybe if instead of telling me what you don't know, you simply
>> asked to see what I have that even suggests its existence
>> we might all get someplace further along.
>
>She was informing you that she did know of a CP/M
>variant in her experience for the 1802. She didn't
>say there wasn't one. You then blasted her, with some
>cryptic reference to some esoteric documentation
>which supports your claim for finding this 'unicorn'.
>
>After blasting her, she then definitively states that
>your 'unicorn' doesn't exist, and explains why.
>
>Then comes an exchange relating to the prices
>of RAM chips. What this has to do with your unicorn,
>I'll never know.
>
>At some point after, you sent Luser some images
>from some manual you have, this being the esoteric
>literature referenced earlier. It seems the basis for the
>existence of your unicorn is founded on the fact that
>the acronym PLM superficially resembles another acronym,
>PL/M, the language Kildall used to develop CP/M. What you
>are  either unaware of or are blatantly disregarding here is
>the proliferation of PL* or PL/* languages in that era.
>Root cause? PL was taken to mean 'Programming Language'.
>Not every PL* or PL/* variant was used to develop (a) CP/M.
>It's sort of like GT or X- in automobiles today. PL* != PL/M .
>This was the conclusion reached by Luser, and reinforced
>by Herb. Even then, they went to pains to be polite, saying
>that it was 'unlikely', or that they were 'unaware'. If you have
>a 'smoking gun', then by all means, please show us.
>
>Now, you seem to be acting hurt and shocked. And you also say:
>> there's nothing stopping me referring to them where something
>> Kildall had to say explains what we know from public sources.
>
>And there's nothing stopping you from posting links to the relevant
>passages you are referring to. It's certainly no harder than emailing
>images of some manual. With the abundance of material on even the
>most esoteric, ancient, and even insignificant of technologica of
>yesteryear, I find it difficult to believe that you cannot accept the
>fact
>that maybe *there just never was a CP/M for the 1802*. Your case for
>it's existence rests on the similarity of three letters, and some as-
>yet
>unrevealed  interpretations of someone's memoirs. A quick and
>judicious use of Occam's Razor should tell you that it doesn't exist.
>Which, provides the answer to your original question: that wheel
>hasn't been invented yet.
>
>Thus, now that it has been reasonably ascertained (pending your
>smoking gun) that such a creature doesn't, in fact, exist, you may
>be motivated to create a CP/M for the 1802. What is most
>unfortunate is that you have managed to irritate a good deal of
>the people who would have valuable insight into the details of
>such an endeavor.
>
>I believe that constitutes the greater protion of what you missed.
>
>HAND,
>   Tarkin

Hi Tarken,

Thanks.

My arguement is that while we can do it, does it make sense?   To copy
CP/M archetecture to a CPU where page 0 is reserved or where program
sizes that fit the 8080/z80 model are too big for other CPU models is
a project for the exercise rather than developing on OS that exploits
a new CPUs capabilities.   Soon as you go from CP/M80 to some CP/M-xx
that is not 8080 the discussion revolves around file transfer not
running the basic 8080 code on something that would crash if it tried.

Could CP/M be written for a 1802, sure.     I know of someone that 
took the 68000 version (written in C) and ported it to a VAX.    So
yes it could be done..  

What does CP/M do:  It can: 

TYPE a file, 
ERAse it, 
show a disk DIRectory,
REName a file,
SAVE a snapshot of ram starting at TPA start to disk file,
and execute a program that is 8080/z80 based starting at nominal TPA
start address (usually 100H for 8080/z80).

Anything beyond this is an application program that must load and run
at TPA start address (nominal cp/m versions 100H).  This includes:

DDT, ASM, LOAD, ED, STAT, PIP and about 20,000 programs written for
CP/M on 8080/z80.  

The 8086 version is similar but it will not RUN a system floppy from
my kaypro 4/84.  the library is also far smaller for CP/M-86, and much
of it is source ported from CP/M-80 that takes advantage of the 8086
being very similar to 8080.  But a 8086 cannot run DDT from a CP/M 80
system disk (without an emulator or V20 cpu).

One thing I'd learned early on (pre-1979) is that CP/M has meaning 
ONLY on 8080 and derivitive processors.   To  be explicit, it can be
ported to anything but, only 8080 and later derived CPUs can actually
run the library of CP/M program and third party application binaries
(ignoring emulators/SIMs).   So the only reason to "port" CP/M to any
other non-8080 family CPU is to have access to the filesystem to
transfer NON-EXECUTABLE sources, data files or text.  That is useful
and tools like RTCPM are out there for that  reason.   It's far easier
to do something that runs natively on a given CP/U and OS that allows
access to the CP/M file system for transfer.  This was widely done.
After all once you have application source code, the API (CP/M BDOS
calls and BIOS calls) and a filesystem emulation the rest of CP/M is
logically unimportant and the source code level.  This also has been
done many times as both widely known examples like various SIMs and
uniquely done one off projects. 

There are few OSs that actually span a different CPU archetectures
and the examples that come to mind are:

CP/M 8080/z80/Z180/NSC800 family, 68000 and Z8000 also 8086(and later)
were developed by DRI offically.  I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
versions are almost unknown  but they exist.

VMS runs on both VAX (32bit) and Alpha(64bit).

Unix or unix flavored OSs run on VAX, Alpha, PDP-11, PDP-7, PCs, MIPS,
ARM, 68k, powerPC  and many others.  Unix or it's clones are by far
the most ported to anything.

I'm sure there are others but they are notable by there obscurity.


Allison
0
no.spam5 (564)
3/28/2007 3:12:56 PM
On Mar 28, 3:12 pm, no.s...@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2007 19:53:25 -0700, "Tarkin" <Tarkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 28, 1:19 am, Bill <B...@SunSouthWest.com> wrote:
> >> On 23 Mar 2007 09:52:52 -0700, "Herb Johnson" <herbrjohn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > If "Bill" has some facts and documents to put
> >> > on the table, he can post them when he chooses to.
>
> >> Seems to me this started out when I merely ASKED if anyone
> >> had the PLM 1800 or 1802 compiler, and speculated that with it,
> >> a CP/M 1800 might be almost 2/3 done: If the CCP and BDOS
> >> would compile correctly; If PL/M and PLM are reasonably close.
>
> >> Some things I learn are not up to me to post. I can not post
> >> or give away copies of Kildall's 'Memoirs', for example. But
> >> there's nothing stopping me referring to them where something
> >> Kildall had to say explains what we know from public sources.
>
> >> As far as RCA products, I'm sure everyone remembers Kildall
> >> was at one time an Intel employee, and continued to develop
> >> software for the Intel processors for many years after.
>
> >> While he would be unlikely to have had any direct contact
> >> with RCA, he does say he developed some version of
> >> PL-something-or-other for Signetics and their 2650 line
> >> of processors, so who can say for sure?
>
> >> There is a curious glitch in his statements about virtually
> >> owning the microcomputing operating system business,
> >> accusing gates and IBM of plotting together to steal it,
> >> yet not having his operating system running on most of
> >> the microprocessors being made and sold at the time.
>
> >> (Atari, Commodore, Apple, even Radio Shack Z-80s)
>
> >> Or maybe I missed something.
>
> >> Bill
>
> >Here's what you missed:
>
> >you:
> >> Maybe somebody's already built this wheel?
>
> >allison:
> >> Far as I know PL/M was never done on 1802.
>
> >you:
> >> Maybe if instead of telling me what you don't know, you simply
> >> asked to see what I have that even suggests its existence
> >> we might all get someplace further along.
>
> >She was informing you that she did know of a CP/M
> >variant in her experience for the 1802. She didn't
> >say there wasn't one. You then blasted her, with some
> >cryptic reference to some esoteric documentation
> >which supports your claim for finding this 'unicorn'.
>
> >After blasting her, she then definitively states that
> >your 'unicorn' doesn't exist, and explains why.
>
> >Then comes an exchange relating to the prices
> >of RAM chips. What this has to do with your unicorn,
> >I'll never know.
>
> >At some point after, you sent Luser some images
> >from some manual you have, this being the esoteric
> >literature referenced earlier. It seems the basis for the
> >existence of your unicorn is founded on the fact that
> >the acronym PLM superficially resembles another acronym,
> >PL/M, the language Kildall used to develop CP/M. What you
> >are  either unaware of or are blatantly disregarding here is
> >the proliferation of PL* or PL/* languages in that era.
> >Root cause? PL was taken to mean 'Programming Language'.
> >Not every PL* or PL/* variant was used to develop (a) CP/M.
> >It's sort of like GT or X- in automobiles today. PL* != PL/M .
> >This was the conclusion reached by Luser, and reinforced
> >by Herb. Even then, they went to pains to be polite, saying
> >that it was 'unlikely', or that they were 'unaware'. If you have
> >a 'smoking gun', then by all means, please show us.
>
> >Now, you seem to be acting hurt and shocked. And you also say:
> >> there's nothing stopping me referring to them where something
> >> Kildall had to say explains what we know from public sources.
>
> >And there's nothing stopping you from posting links to the relevant
> >passages you are referring to. It's certainly no harder than emailing
> >images of some manual. With the abundance of material on even the
> >most esoteric, ancient, and even insignificant of technologica of
> >yesteryear, I find it difficult to believe that you cannot accept the
> >fact
> >that maybe *there just never was a CP/M for the 1802*. Your case for
> >it's existence rests on the similarity of three letters, and some as-
> >yet
> >unrevealed  interpretations of someone's memoirs. A quick and
> >judicious use of Occam's Razor should tell you that it doesn't exist.
> >Which, provides the answer to your original question: that wheel
> >hasn't been invented yet.
>
> >Thus, now that it has been reasonably ascertained (pending your
> >smoking gun) that such a creature doesn't, in fact, exist, you may
> >be motivated to create a CP/M for the 1802. What is most
> >unfortunate is that you have managed to irritate a good deal of
> >the people who would have valuable insight into the details of
> >such an endeavor.
>
> >I believe that constitutes the greater protion of what you missed.
>
> >HAND,
> >   Tarkin
>
> Hi Tarken,
>
> Thanks.
>
> My arguement is that while we can do it, does it make sense?   To copy
> CP/M archetecture to a CPU where page 0 is reserved or where program
> sizes that fit the 8080/z80 model are too big for other CPU models is
> a project for the exercise rather than developing on OS that exploits
> a new CPUs capabilities.   Soon as you go from CP/M80 to some CP/M-xx
> that is not 8080 the discussion revolves around file transfer not
> running the basic 8080 code on something that would crash if it tried.
>
> Could CP/M be written for a 1802, sure.     I know of someone that
> took the 68000 version (written in C) and ported it to a VAX.    So
> yes it could be done..
>
> What does CP/M do:  It can:
>
> TYPE a file,
> ERAse it,
> show a disk DIRectory,
> REName a file,
> SAVE a snapshot of ram starting at TPA start to disk file,
> and execute a program that is 8080/z80 based starting at nominal TPA
> start address (usually 100H for 8080/z80).
>
> Anything beyond this is an application program that must load and run
> at TPA start address (nominal cp/m versions 100H).  This includes:
>
> DDT, ASM, LOAD, ED, STAT, PIP and about 20,000 programs written for
> CP/M on 8080/z80.
>
> The 8086 version is similar but it will not RUN a system floppy from
> my kaypro 4/84.  the library is also far smaller for CP/M-86, and much
> of it is source ported from CP/M-80 that takes advantage of the 8086
> being very similar to 8080.  But a 8086 cannot run DDT from a CP/M 80
> system disk (without an emulator or V20 cpu).
>
> One thing I'd learned early on (pre-1979) is that CP/M has meaning
> ONLY on 8080 and derivitive processors.   To  be explicit, it can be
> ported to anything but, only 8080 and later derived CPUs can actually
> run the library of CP/M program and third party application binaries
> (ignoring emulators/SIMs).   So the only reason to "port" CP/M to any
> other non-8080 family CPU is to have access to the filesystem to
> transfer NON-EXECUTABLE sources, data files or text.  That is useful
> and tools like RTCPM are out there for that  reason.   It's far easier
> to do something that runs natively on a given CP/U and OS that allows
> access to the CP/M file system for transfer.  This was widely done.
> After all once you have application source code, the API (CP/M BDOS
> calls and BIOS calls) and a filesystem emulation the rest of CP/M is
> logically unimportant and the source code level.  This also has been
> done many times as both widely known examples like various SIMs and
> uniquely done one off projects.
>
> There are few OSs that actually span a different CPU archetectures
> and the examples that come to mind are:
>
> CP/M 8080/z80/Z180/NSC800 family, 68000 and Z8000 also 8086(and later)
> were developed by DRI offically.  I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
> versions are almost unknown  but they exist.
>
> VMS runs on both VAX (32bit) and Alpha(64bit).
>
> Unix or unix flavored OSs run on VAX, Alpha, PDP-11, PDP-7, PCs, MIPS,
> ARM, 68k, powerPC  and many others.  Unix or it's clones are by far
> the most ported to anything.
>
> I'm sure there are others but they are notable by there obscurity.
>
> Allison

> Thanks.

No need to thank me for doing or saying what is right,
but you're welcome.

> Could CP/M be written for a 1802, sure.     I know of someone that
> took the 68000 version (written in C) and ported it to a VAX.    So
> yes it could be done..

and

> I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
> versions are almost unknown  but they exist.

I agree with, and tells me that it's at least feasible.

> ...is a project for the exercise

Which is what I thought he was driving at, at first.
I've observed people bringing ethernet connectivity
to C=64's, file transfer capability to the TS1000/ZX81,
and build CPU cores from wire-wrapped TTL boards.
Building a project on technical merits alone is a worthwhile
endeavor to most, I think we could all agree.

Which is what disheartened me as I watched Bill's
posts devolve. Part of the reason I read this group
and others is edutainment value; I learn a lot while
satisfying my technical itch. The porting of CP/M to
a different processor like the 1802 might have an
enjoyable thread worth keeping up with, and would
have provided an opportunity to learn more about
systems programming, cross-platform development,
the 1802 architecture, and the RCA Cosmac development
system.

Thankfully, neither this nor any other group is likely
to be 'broken' by a single thread.

TTFN,
  Tarkin


0
Tarkin000 (374)
3/28/2007 5:22:52 PM
Tarkin wrote:

>> I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
>> versions are almost unknown  but they exist.

"almost unknown" by whom? They exist on Gaby's site and
have been there for years. Godbout, Stride and others sold the
68K version. It appears in magazine ads of the time. A friend
of mine bought a copy in the early 80's' for a 68K system he
and I designed, which was described in DDJ.

Olivetti was the only company that sold the Z8K version AFAIK, and
paid for its development.

> The porting of CP/M to
> a different processor like the 1802 might have an
> enjoyable thread worth keeping up with

This was NOT what he was saying. He claimed there was
a CP/M and PL/M for the 1802. There is no evidence that
this existed. Having been in contact with people in the
past associated with DR, I have never heard them mention
anything about the 1802 (or 2650, for that matter).

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
aek2 (123)
3/28/2007 5:42:58 PM
On Mar 28, 5:42 pm, Al Kossow <a...@spies.com> wrote:
> Tarkin wrote:
> >> I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
> >> versions are almost unknown  but they exist.
>
> "almost unknown" by whom? They exist on Gaby's site and
> have been there for years. Godbout, Stride and others sold the
> 68K version. It appears in magazine ads of the time. A friend
> of mine bought a copy in the early 80's' for a 68K system he
> and I designed, which was described in DDJ.
>
> Olivetti was the only company that sold the Z8K version AFAIK, and
> paid for its development.
>
> > The porting of CP/M to
> > a different processor like the 1802 might have an
> > enjoyable thread worth keeping up with
>
> This was NOT what he was saying. He claimed there was
> a CP/M and PL/M for the 1802. There is no evidence that
> this existed. Having been in contact with people in the
> past associated with DR, I have never heard them mention
> anything about the 1802 (or 2650, for that matter).
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Re-read my post and the thread (from the beginning).
It's my fault I snipped the attribution lines, though.

Al K. :
> "almost unknown" by whom?

By people like me, who are somewhat familiar
with CP/M but not the finer nuances of historical
detail(s). I've heard of both the Z8000 and 68K
versions, thanks to sites like Gaby's, but am much,
much, much more aware of the 8080/Z80 versions,
variants, hardware, etc. I was born in '74, and thus
sorely lack a certain historical perspective; in the
(early) 80's, I drooled over the TS1000 and the Atari ST,
 etc. I had never even seen a 'serious' business machine
until  '89 or so. My first brush with CP/M occured when
my parents purchased a C= 128 for me.

Al K. :
> This was NOT what he was saying.

It was strongly hinted at in his first post.

TTFN,
  Tarkin

0
Tarkin000 (374)
3/28/2007 6:30:16 PM
On Mar 28, 10:12 am, no.s...@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2007 19:53:25 -0700, "Tarkin" <Tarkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> >HAND,
> >   Tarkin
>
> Hi Tarken,
>
> Thanks.
>
> My arguement is that while we can do it, does it make sense?   To copy
> CP/M archetecture to a CPU where page 0 is reserved or where program
> sizes that fit the 8080/z80 model are too big for other CPU models is
> a project for the exercise rather than developing on OS that exploits
> a new CPUs capabilities.   Soon as you go from CP/M80 to some CP/M-xx
> that is not 8080 the discussion revolves around file transfer not
> running the basic 8080 code on something that would crash if it tried.
>
> Could CP/M be written for a 1802, sure.     I know of someone that
> took the 68000 version (written in C) and ported it to a VAX.    So
> yes it could be done..  
>
> What does CP/M do:  It can:
>
> TYPE a file,
> ERAse it,
> show a disk DIRectory,
> REName a file,
> SAVE a snapshot of ram starting at TPA start to disk file,
> and execute a program that is 8080/z80 based starting at nominal TPA
> start address (usually 100H for 8080/z80).
>
> Anything beyond this is an application program that must load and run
> at TPA start address (nominal cp/m versions 100H).  This includes:
>
> DDT, ASM, LOAD, ED, STAT, PIP and about 20,000 programs written for
> CP/M on 8080/z80.  
>
> The 8086 version is similar but it will not RUN a system floppy from
> my kaypro 4/84.  the library is also far smaller for CP/M-86, and much
> of it is source ported from CP/M-80 that takes advantage of the 8086
> being very similar to 8080.  But a 8086 cannot run DDT from a CP/M 80
> system disk (without an emulator or V20 cpu).
>
> One thing I'd learned early on (pre-1979) is that CP/M has meaning
> ONLY on 8080 and derivitive processors.   To  be explicit, it can be
> ported to anything but, only 8080 and later derived CPUs can actually
> run the library of CP/M program and third party application binaries
> (ignoring emulators/SIMs).   So the only reason to "port" CP/M to any
> other non-8080 family CPU is to have access to the filesystem to
> transfer NON-EXECUTABLE sources, data files or text.  That is useful
> and tools like RTCPM are out there for that  reason.   It's far easier
> to do something that runs natively on a given CP/U and OS that allows
> access to the CP/M file system for transfer.  This was widely done.
> After all once you have application source code, the API (CP/M BDOS
> calls and BIOS calls) and a filesystem emulation the rest of CP/M is
> logically unimportant and the source code level.  This also has been
> done many times as both widely known examples like various SIMs and
> uniquely done one off projects.
>
> There are few OSs that actually span a different CPU archetectures
> and the examples that come to mind are:
>
> CP/M 8080/z80/Z180/NSC800 family, 68000 and Z8000 also 8086(and later)
> were developed by DRI offically.  I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
> versions are almost unknown  but they exist.
>
> VMS runs on both VAX (32bit) and Alpha(64bit).
>
> Unix or unix flavored OSs run on VAX, Alpha, PDP-11, PDP-7, PCs, MIPS,
> ARM, 68k, powerPC  and many others.  Unix or it's clones are by far
> the most ported to anything.
>
> I'm sure there are others but they are notable by there obscurity.
>
> Allison- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Very well put.

 -ot-
I don't know why you have 'request not to be archived' in your message
header, Allison.  I value your posts as I imagine those who come
later, by searching, will also.  I've cheated usenet by quoting it in
its entirety here.
 -e ot-

I'm struck, in reading the CP/M 1.4 docs, that some emphasis is made
to the point that the CCP is considered a separate 'program', implying
a possible separation from the FDOS and for later versions there are
replacement CCP's, as you well know.  Yet the built-in functions you
list; TYPE..SAVE are the elements of the CCP, without which CP/M loses
its 'look and feel'.  I'm restating the obvious I guess.  I would also
guess that you would feel those other cp/m's with replacement CCPs are
no longer CP/M.

Steve

0
s_dubrovich (395)
3/29/2007 6:02:52 PM
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:42:58 -0700, Al Kossow <aek@spies.com> wrote:

>Tarkin wrote:
>
>>> I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
>>> versions are almost unknown  but they exist.
>
>"almost unknown" by whom? They exist on Gaby's site and
>have been there for years. Godbout, Stride and others sold the
>68K version. It appears in magazine ads of the time. A friend
>of mine bought a copy in the early 80's' for a 68K system he
>and I designed, which was described in DDJ.


;)  "Almost unknown" is weird english for they existed, actively sold
and not near as common as CP/M80 or the later CP/M86 cousin. 
 So happens I did a Z8000 system and I have  Compupro  
68K cpm (with cpu!) system as well.   

Yet despite what was advertized back then many newcommers and
old timers that were not looking at other flavors of CP/M never
noticed or forgot. 

>Olivetti was the only company that sold the Z8K version AFAIK, and
>paid for its development.
>
>> The porting of CP/M to
>> a different processor like the 1802 might have an
>> enjoyable thread worth keeping up with
>
>This was NOT what he was saying. He claimed there was
>a CP/M and PL/M for the 1802. There is no evidence that
>this existed. Having been in contact with people in the
>past associated with DR, I have never heard them mention
>anything about the 1802 (or 2650, for that matter).

I know,  I know,  I know...  Just trying to have some sanity in 
the conversationin a slighly different topical direction.

Allison
0
no.spam5 (564)
3/29/2007 6:03:33 PM
On 29 Mar 2007 11:02:52 -0700, s_dubrovich@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Mar 28, 10:12 am, no.s...@no.uce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2007 19:53:25 -0700, "Tarkin" <Tarkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>[snipped]
>>
>> >HAND,
>> >   Tarkin
>>
>> Hi Tarken,
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> My arguement is that while we can do it, does it make sense?   To copy
>> CP/M archetecture to a CPU where page 0 is reserved or where program
>> sizes that fit the 8080/z80 model are too big for other CPU models is
>> a project for the exercise rather than developing on OS that exploits
>> a new CPUs capabilities.   Soon as you go from CP/M80 to some CP/M-xx
>> that is not 8080 the discussion revolves around file transfer not
>> running the basic 8080 code on something that would crash if it tried.
>>
>> Could CP/M be written for a 1802, sure.     I know of someone that
>> took the 68000 version (written in C) and ported it to a VAX.    So
>> yes it could be done..  
>>
>> What does CP/M do:  It can:
>>
>> TYPE a file,
>> ERAse it,
>> show a disk DIRectory,
>> REName a file,
>> SAVE a snapshot of ram starting at TPA start to disk file,
>> and execute a program that is 8080/z80 based starting at nominal TPA
>> start address (usually 100H for 8080/z80).
>>
>> Anything beyond this is an application program that must load and run
>> at TPA start address (nominal cp/m versions 100H).  This includes:
>>
>> DDT, ASM, LOAD, ED, STAT, PIP and about 20,000 programs written for
>> CP/M on 8080/z80.  
>>
>> The 8086 version is similar but it will not RUN a system floppy from
>> my kaypro 4/84.  the library is also far smaller for CP/M-86, and much
>> of it is source ported from CP/M-80 that takes advantage of the 8086
>> being very similar to 8080.  But a 8086 cannot run DDT from a CP/M 80
>> system disk (without an emulator or V20 cpu).
>>
>> One thing I'd learned early on (pre-1979) is that CP/M has meaning
>> ONLY on 8080 and derivitive processors.   To  be explicit, it can be
>> ported to anything but, only 8080 and later derived CPUs can actually
>> run the library of CP/M program and third party application binaries
>> (ignoring emulators/SIMs).   So the only reason to "port" CP/M to any
>> other non-8080 family CPU is to have access to the filesystem to
>> transfer NON-EXECUTABLE sources, data files or text.  That is useful
>> and tools like RTCPM are out there for that  reason.   It's far easier
>> to do something that runs natively on a given CP/U and OS that allows
>> access to the CP/M file system for transfer.  This was widely done.
>> After all once you have application source code, the API (CP/M BDOS
>> calls and BIOS calls) and a filesystem emulation the rest of CP/M is
>> logically unimportant and the source code level.  This also has been
>> done many times as both widely known examples like various SIMs and
>> uniquely done one off projects.
>>
>> There are few OSs that actually span a different CPU archetectures
>> and the examples that come to mind are:
>>
>> CP/M 8080/z80/Z180/NSC800 family, 68000 and Z8000 also 8086(and later)
>> were developed by DRI offically.  I'd point out the 68k and Z8000
>> versions are almost unknown  but they exist.
>>
>> VMS runs on both VAX (32bit) and Alpha(64bit).
>>
>> Unix or unix flavored OSs run on VAX, Alpha, PDP-11, PDP-7, PCs, MIPS,
>> ARM, 68k, powerPC  and many others.  Unix or it's clones are by far
>> the most ported to anything.
>>
>> I'm sure there are others but they are notable by there obscurity.
>>
>> Allison- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Very well put.
>
> -ot-
>I don't know why you have 'request not to be archived' in your message
>header, Allison.  I value your posts as I imagine those who come
>later, by searching, will also.  I've cheated usenet by quoting it in
>its entirety here.
> -e ot-

Oops, wrong button.  I thought I'd turned noXpost off.   Having it
turned on does help with spammers that use address harvesting it to
keep their lists up to date.

>
>I'm struck, in reading the CP/M 1.4 docs, that some emphasis is made
>to the point that the CCP is considered a separate 'program', implying
>a possible separation from the FDOS and for later versions there are
>replacement CCP's, as you well know.  Yet the built-in functions you
>list; TYPE..SAVE are the elements of the CCP, without which CP/M loses
>its 'look and feel'.  I'm restating the obvious I guess.  I would also
>guess that you would feel those other cp/m's with replacement CCPs are
>no longer CP/M.

The CCP is a seperate module and can be replaced.  It's difference
from all other CP/M programs is it loads in the 2k space below the
BDOS rather than the start of the TPA (100h).  Nominally it's
overwrtten by larger programs and reloaded  by the warmboot 
code in the BIOS.  It is the user interface, the shell in more modern
terms.

Not at all.  I use ZCPR and it retains most if not all of the look and
feel.  There are otehr shells that give cpm a more unix like look and
feel.   I was illustrating that outside of the CCP built in functions
everything else depends on transient programs most of which
would also have to be ported  to a new cpu.

For example we create a new version of CP/M for the XYZ24 24bit cpu.
What would the ASM assembler for that new system put out XYZ20 or 
8080 code?  It's details like this rather than the unser looks and
feel that are meaningful.

FYI:OS/8,  RT-11 and VMS at the command line level 
are remarkably similar in look and feel to CP/M.   The DCL 
[digital command line] user interface dates back to OS/8 (pdp-8) which
predates CP/M.  OS/8 had other similarities (loadable drivers), user
interface that was overlaid to save core (ram) and a fairly modular
design for its day. it could be said the TOPS-10 (also similar
interface) system used by Killdall for cross development may have
influenced CP/M user interface development.  In the 80s I took
advanatge of that and had my CP/M, PDP11 and VAX systems all 
running a suite of native programs that made them look alike and
similar to the CP/M system just so I'd not have to remember three
very different machines to do routine editing and other tasks.


Allison
0
no.spam5 (564)
3/29/2007 8:26:00 PM
>
> > -ot-
> >I don't know why you have 'request not to be archived' in your message
> >header, Allison.  I value your posts as I imagine those who come
> >later, by searching, will also.  I've cheated usenet by quoting it in
> >its entirety here.
> > -e ot-
>
> Oops, wrong button.  I thought I'd turned noXpost off.   Having it
> turned on does help with spammers that use address harvesting it to
> keep their lists up to date.
>

I use yahoo mail, its bulk folder catches 99% of the spam, and it is
easy to retrieve mail no matter where I am.

>
>
> >I'm struck, in reading the CP/M 1.4 docs, that some emphasis is made
> >to the point that the CCP is considered a separate 'program', implying
> >a possible separation from the FDOS and for later versions there are
> >replacement CCP's, as you well know.  Yet the built-in functions you
> >list; TYPE..SAVE are the elements of the CCP, without which CP/M loses
> >its 'look and feel'.  I'm restating the obvious I guess.  I would also
> >guess that you would feel those other cp/m's with replacement CCPs are
> >no longer CP/M.
>
> The CCP is a seperate module and can be replaced.  It's difference
> from all other CP/M programs is it loads in the 2k space below the
> BDOS rather than the start of the TPA (100h).  Nominally it's
> overwrtten by larger programs and reloaded  by the warmboot
> code in the BIOS.  It is the user interface, the shell in more modern
> terms.
>
That's an important detail for someone new to programming for CP/M-80
to keep in mind.  SID and DDT relocate to below the BDOS to get out of
the way.

[regarding replacement CCPs]
> Not at all.  I use ZCPR and it retains most if not all of the look and
> feel.  There are otehr shells that give cpm a more unix like look and
> feel.   I was illustrating that outside of the CCP built in functions
> everything else depends on transient programs most of which
> would also have to be ported  to a new cpu.
>
Right, I get your point.

> For example we create a new version of CP/M for the XYZ24 24bit cpu.
> What would the ASM assembler for that new system put out XYZ20 or
> 8080 code?  It's details like this rather than the unser looks and
> feel that are meaningful.
>
It helped that most of the transient utilities are written in PL/M,
and regarding the port to the 8086, there was a PL/M-86 for it.  ED,
STAT,...and it helped that CP/M-86 kept v2.2 file structure
compatibility.

> FYI:OS/8,  RT-11 and VMS at the command line level
> are remarkably similar in look and feel to CP/M.   The DCL
> [digital command line] user interface dates back to OS/8 (pdp-8) which
> predates CP/M.  OS/8 had other similarities (loadable drivers), user
> interface that was overlaid to save core (ram) and a fairly modular
> design for its day. it could be said the TOPS-10 (also similar
> interface) system used by Killdall for cross development may have
> influenced CP/M user interface development.  In the 80s I took
> advanatge of that and had my CP/M, PDP11 and VAX systems all
> running a suite of native programs that made them look alike and
> similar to the CP/M system just so I'd not have to remember three
> very different machines to do routine editing and other tasks.
>
> Allison-

Interesting.

Steve

0
s_dubrovich (395)
3/30/2007 12:26:17 AM
s_dubrovich@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
.... snip ...
> 
> I'm struck, in reading the CP/M 1.4 docs, that some emphasis is
> made to the point that the CCP is considered a separate 'program',
> implying a possible separation from the FDOS and for later
> versions there are replacement CCP's, as you well know.  Yet the
> built-in functions you list; TYPE..SAVE are the elements of the
> CCP, without which CP/M loses its 'look and feel'.  I'm restating
> the obvious I guess.  I would also guess that you would feel those
> other cp/m's with replacement CCPs are no longer CP/M.

Because it is.  Alternatives include DDT, DDTZ, CCPLUS, ZCPR.  The
DDT* have a much different feel than CCP.  One unique point about
CCP is that it is included in the cold boot load (as can CCPLUS or
ZCPR).  All of those run in the high memory area, leaving the TPA
available.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
cbfalconer (19194)
3/30/2007 3:15:09 AM
On Mar 29, 10:15 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> s_dubrov...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> > I'm struck, in reading the CP/M 1.4 docs, that some emphasis is
> > made to the point that the CCP is considered a separate 'program',
> > implying a possible separation from the FDOS and for later
> > versions there are replacement CCP's, as you well know.  Yet the
> > built-in functions you list; TYPE..SAVE are the elements of the
> > CCP, without which CP/M loses its 'look and feel'.  I'm restating
> > the obvious I guess.  I would also guess that you would feel those
> > other cp/m's with replacement CCPs are no longer CP/M.
>
> Because it is.  Alternatives include DDT, DDTZ, CCPLUS, ZCPR.  The
> DDT* have a much different feel than CCP.  One unique point about
> CCP is that it is included in the cold boot load (as can CCPLUS or
> ZCPR).  All of those run in the high memory area, leaving the TPA
> available.
>
Yes, although in documentation for later versions, that point isn't
much promoted.  And by the time of cp/m-86, with patches in place,
this is even less so.

<ot> on on off thread question to you:

Was there ever a small-c lint type program around for the micros?

I've been messing around with Cain's small-c this weekend and it is
laughable how bad I can misbehave with the syntax.

thxs,

Steve

> --
> Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
>    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
>    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
>



0
s_dubrovich (395)
4/2/2007 3:24:31 AM
On Mar 23, 11:11 am, "Tarkin" <Tarkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Herb, wasn't/isn't the acronym PL* ubiquitous for
> 'P_rogramming L_anguage *_'? It seems to me
> the PL/M associated with Killdall and CP/M is
> always _correctly_ referred to as PL/M. In this
> day and age of SMS-inspired lack of attention
> to punctuation and detail, I can see how some
> people *might*, *maybe*, confuse PL/M and
> PLM. But the / would have made mounds of
> difference in the era we're discussing, IMHO.
> RCA *may* have even been attempting to
> capitalize on the success of the name 'PL/M'
> in order to sell their 'white elephant' (wild
> specualtion on my part).
>
[snip]
> TTFN,
>   Tarkin-

As a follow up to 'PL' there's this languages list:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.misc/msg/0a47014c9afeab21?&hl=en&q=%22G+programming+Language%22

PL/C - Slight subset of PL/I, aimed at student use.  "User's Guide to
PL/C", S. Worona et al, Cornell, June 1974.  "PL/C - A High
Performance
Compiler" H.L. Morgan et al, Proc SJCC, AFIPS 38:503-510 (1971).
Implementated on IBM 370.


PL/I - Programming Language I.  George Radin, 1964.  Originally named
NPL.
An attempt to combine the best features of FORTRAN, COBOL and ALGOL
60.
Result is large but elegant.  One of the first languages to have a
formal
semantic definition, using the Vienna Definition Language.  EPL, a
dialect
of PL/I, was used to write almost all of the Multics OS.  PL/I has no
reserved words.  Types are fixed, float, complex, character strings
with
max length, bit strings, and label variables, no user-defined types.
Dynamic arrays.  Summation, multi-level structures, structure
assignment.
Untyped pointers, side effects, aliasing.  Control flow goto, do-end
groups, do-to-by-while-end loops, external procedures, nested
procedures
and blocks.  Procedures may be declared recursive, or grouped into
generic
families.  Controlled variables.  Many implementations support
concurrency
('call task' and 'wait(event)' amount to fork/join) and compile-time
statements.  Exception handling.  "A Structural View of PL/I", D.
Beech,
Computing Surveys, 2,1 33-64 (1970).  ANS X3.53-1976.  PL/I is still
widely
used, at IBM and elsewhere.  The CFS file system used at Argonne to
manage
terabytes of data is written in PL/I.
list: P...@UIUCVMD.BITNET
ftp://wuarchive.wustl.edu/mirrors/msdos/pli/runpli1a.arc, PL/I
interpreter
version: LPI for PC's and Unix, Liant <r...@lpi.liant.com>
(508)626-0006


PL/I SUBSET - Early 70's version of PL/I for minis.


PL/I Subset G - ("General Purpose")  The commercial PL/I subset (i.e.,
what
was actually implemented by most vendors).  ANS X3.74-1981.


PL/I-FORMAC - Variant of FORMAC.  "The PL/I-FORMAC Interpreter", J.
Xenakis, Proc 2nd Symp Symbolic and Algebraic Manip, ACM (Mar 1971).
Sammet 1969, p.486.


Plisp - Pattern LISP.  1990.  A pattern-matching rewrite-rule
language,
optimized for describing syntax translation rules.  (See LISP70).


PLITS - Programming Language In The Sky.  A computational model for
concurrency with communication via asynchronous message-passing.
"High
Level Programming for Distributed Computing", J.A. Feldman, CACM 22(6):
353-
368 (Jun 1979).


PL/M - Programming Language/Microcomputers.  Gary Kildall, MAA (later
Digital Research) for Intel, 1972.  A very low level language
incorporating
ideas from PL/I, ALGOL and XPL.  Integrated macro processor.  CP/M
was
written to support development of the PL/M compiler (not the other
way
around!).  "PL/M-80 Programming Manual", Doc 98-268B, Intel 1976.  "PL/
M
Programmer's Guide", Doc 452161-003, Intel.  "A Guide to PL/M
Programming
for Microcomputer Applications", D. McCracken, A-W 1978.  Versions: PL/
M-
80, PL/M-86, PL/M-286, PL/M-386.
ftp://iecc.com/pub/file/plm.shar.gz           parser for PL/M-386
    //locke.ccil.org/pub/retro/plm2c.tar.gz   PL/M-286 to C
translator


PL/MP - C.J. Tan, IBM TJWRC, 1978.  A microprogramming language
resembling
a subset of PL/I.  "Code Optimization for Microcode Compilers", C.J.
Tan,
AFIPS Conf Proc 47:649-655 (1978).


PL/P - Programming Language, Prime.  Russ Barbour, PRIME Computer,
late
70's.  Subset of PL/I used internally for implementation of PRIMOS.
(See
SPL[4]).


PL/PROPHET - PL/I-like language for the PROPHET system, used by
pharmacologists.  "The Implementation of the PROPHET System", P.A.
Castleman et al, NCC 43, AFIPS (1974).


PL/S - Programming Language/Systems.  IBM late 60's, for the IBM 360
and
370.  A machine-oriented language derived from PL/I, permiting inline
assembly code and control over register usage.  Much of IBM 360
OS/MFT/MVT/SVS/MVS was written in it.  Used internally, never released
to
the public.  Documented by various IBM internal ZZ-? publications.
"PL/S,
Programming Language/Systems", W.R. Brittenham, Proc GUIDE Intl, GUIDE
34,
May 14, 1972, pp.540-556.  Versions: PLS1, PLSII.


PL/Seq - Programming Language for Sequences.  A DSP language.  "A
General
High Level Language for Signal Processors", J. Skytta & O. Hyvarinen,
Digital Signal Processing 84, Proc Intl Conf, Fiorence, Italy, Sep
1984,
pp.217-221.


PLZ - Zilog.  A high level language for programming microprocessors.
A
minimal block structured language, goto-less and only DO-OD loops
with
exit, repeat [from] or continue [from] placed anywhere in the loop.
Record
structures.  Used by Zilog, and by Olivetti in their S6000 series.
"Introduction to Microprocessor Programming Using PLZ", Richard Conway
et
al, Winthrop Pub 1979.  Available as PLZ/SYS.  "Report on the
Programming
Language PLZ/SYS", Tod Snook et al, Springer 1978.


PLZ/ASM - Similar to PLZ, but with assembler instructions instead of
statements.


PLUM - U. Maryland.  Compiler for a substantial subset of PL/I for
the
Univac 1100.  "PL/I Programming with PLUM", M.V. Zelkowitz, Paladin
House,
1978.






0
s_dubrovich (395)
4/13/2007 6:21:07 PM
s_dubrovich@yahoo.com wrote:
(snip)

> of PL/I, was used to write almost all of the Multics OS.  PL/I has no
> reserved words.  Types are fixed, float, complex, character strings

Attributes are either fixed or float, either real or complex, either
binary or decimal.  That is, fixed decimal complex is a legal type.

DCL X FIXED DECIMAL(10,3) COMPLEX;
X=0;
DO IMAG(X)=0.1 TO 999 BY 0.13;
    PUT SKIP LIST (SQRT(X),X**X);
END;

-- glen

0
gah (12850)
4/20/2007 5:41:28 AM
Reply:
Similar Artilces:

Help Wanted: Ruby Weather Monitoring System
I have started a Ruby based Weather Monitoring System project. Please see http://wxmonitor.sourceforge.net for details. If anyone would like to get involved, please contact me. Billy ...

ListBox.AddItems wants TObject but have Variant
ListBox.AddItems wants TObject but I have Variant's. Seems to force me to create container objects - but where to store them and not loose mixup/memleak ... How do I best handle this. Is it possible to derive a class from 2 base classes in Pascal...? robert "robert" <no-spam@no-spam-no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:em8qrl$c88$1@news.albasani.net... > ListBox.AddItems wants TObject but I have Variant's. > Seems to force me to create container objects - but where to store > them and not loose mixup/memleak ... > How do I best handle this...

(",) Do You Want To Know For Sure You Are Going To Heaven? #2
http://www.want-to-be-sure.blogspot.com << Click On Link ...

Library help wanted...
So I've got this compiler. It's the ACK, a BSD-licensed multitarget, multiplatform compiler suite dating from a few years ago, that I'm slowly knocking into shape. It's small, it's fast, it's got its own libraries, and while it doesn't generate the best code in the world it's more than adequate for most purposes. http://tack.sourceforge.net/ Modula-2 is one of the many languages that it supports. I got the compiler working, and then learnt enough of the language to write a demo program and make it go. However, I am fundamentally not a Modula-2 prog...

Need Help!! Get Mail Icon (Ctrl-M) not working properly.
I am using Eudora Pro version 6.2.3.4 paid version. PC. Windows 98SE. The problem: 1- Yesterday, when I clicked on the upper left icon (Get Mail, which is also Ctrl-M), the program logs in to my personalties, checks the mail and says there is no mail to download. 2- Just after that, when I go to my individual personalties and right click on each one and say, Get Mail, I get all my emails that have been sitting there. In other words, the GET MAIL icon (Ctrl-M) is not retrieving my email but requesting the mail from each of my individual personalties does get the mail. QUES...

Wanted: Computer Gaming World issues 2.2, 2.4, 4.1
Good day, I am looking for the following issues of Computer Gaming World magazine: 2.2, 2.4 (1982) 4.1 (1984) I'm willing to purchase or trade... thanks for your help! Steph -- cgw.vintagegaming.org The Computer Gaming World Museum ...

I want to be convinced; convince me.
Several people I know like Macs. A lot. I use Windows. I don't like it a lot. (Parse that either way -- both work.) I want to want to move to a Mac, but I'm having trouble convincing myself to do it. Today I visited an Apple store for the 2nd or 3rd time to talk about getting a mini to add to my Windows network, and for the 2nd or 3rd time I came away with less enthusiasm for the Mac than before I went there. However, I worry that the people who work there aren't terribly well versed in the products they sell, because they often can't answer my questions. I'm hoping...

python GUIs comparison (want)
Now i began to learn GUI programming. There are so many choices of GUI in the python world, wxPython, pyGTK, PyQT, Tkinter, .etc, it's difficult for a novice to decide, however. Can you draw a comparison among them on easy coding, pythonish design, beautiful and generous looking, powerful development toolkit, and sufficient documentation, .etc. It's helpful for a GUI beginner. Thank you. :)Sorry for my poor english. jiang.haiyun@gmail.com wrote: > Now i began to learn GUI programming. There are so many > choices of GUI in the python world, wxPython, pyGTK, PyQT, > Tkinter...

I'm looking for feedback about a content management system
We are again going to try to do a public beta test of the PHP/MySql stuff we've been working on. We are looking for all kinds of criticism. We put a site up here: http://www.publicpen.com/designer/ On the left you'll see a link that says "login". You can click that to get to the control panel. Use this username and password to log in: username: design password: design123 Create and delete pages, add comments, edit the template, etc. You should also be able to edit the control panel itself. Please don't do anything stupid. Be warned, I haven't updated our softw...

I want to share with you one of my prefered songs...
Hello... I want to share with you one of my prefered songs... Here is the Boney M Greatest Hits Non Stop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaykrDs79kI Amine Moulay Ramdne. On 5/7/2014 8:16 PM, axman6@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, 8 May 2014 03:20:36 UTC+10, aminer wrote: >> Hello... >> >> I want to share with you one of my prefered songs... >> >> Here is the Boney M Greatest Hits Non Stop: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaykrDs79kI >> >> Amine Moulay Ramdne. > > This nonsense is completely irrel...

Business partner wanted
I'm looking for a Business Partner for my Mid-Michigan Shop to grow and take to the next level. Here's what I have to offer. I have over 20 years as a Journeyman Tool and Die Maker. Last 10 years as the owner of my own business. I design, build and run injection molds. I have experience with stamping dies, fixtures and gages. Product developement, CAD, CAM, CNC, EDM and custom machining. The shop is well equipt 2400 sq/ft with 600 sq./ft office space located at the end of a quite street visible from US-10 hwy. Area is well known in the thermoforming industry. The equipment is Haas ...

any Rubyists want to try Yahoo 360?
I got some primo invites here for anyone who wants to beta-test Yahoo's new 360.yahoo.com service. (Kind of a friendster/blog/homepage thing.) Just email me (OFF-LIST!) at cdbaby@gmail.com if you want one. I've got plenty and am glad to use them on the Ruby folks. - Derek CD Baby wrote: > I got some primo invites here for anyone who wants to > beta-test Yahoo's new 360.yahoo.com service. (Kind of a > friendster/blog/homepage thing.) > > Just email me (OFF-LIST!) at cdbaby@gmail.com if you want > one. I've got plenty and am glad to use them on the ...

I'm an idiot!!!!!!! It's not a new Operating System!
It's been around for awhile. Possibly I have not been. ...

i want an i
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/?ca=svri5&met=media&me=srch "The System i is a leader in IBM Virtualization Engine™ system technologies which enable a System i infrastructure to support multiple operating systems and application environments simultaneously — including IBM i5/OS™, Linux®, IBM AIX 5L™, Microsoft® Windows Server 2003™, Java, WebSphere® and Lotus® Domino® software. It's true enterprise-level functionality in a business computer for small to large businesses." -- Texeme Construct ...

XML-Stream mit HTTP-Post aus PL/SQL versenden
Hallo, ich selektiere mit SQL aus einer Oracle9i DB daten als XML-Stream. Nun m�chte ich diese Daten mittels HTTP-Post an einen anderen Server senden, der die Daten dann verarbeitet. Das ganze sollte innerhalb einer PL/SQL-Procedure erfolgen. Wer kann mir helfen? Danke schon mal im vorraus. Robby Zeitfuchs ...

WANTED: Amiga Blizzard PPC
Looking for Blizzard PPC 603e for the Amiga 1200 68060 would be nice. If anybody has a blizzard ppc for sale. Will make you a good offer. Thank you! Robert J. Richardson schrieb: > Looking for Blizzard PPC 603e for the Amiga 1200 68060 would be nice. > If anybody has a blizzard ppc for sale. Will make you a good offer. Just look here: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8820524187&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 -- Ciao Christian ...

ccna/ccnp lab wanted
Guys, Please help me, I need CCNA/CCNP NETSIM with CCNA/CCNP LABS unlocked not the demo version. I bought some staff on ebay but it didn't work and I bought it twice from 2 diffrent people, got very goot working CBT videos nuggets for CCNA. I know that I can buy the Labs from Boson but can't afford it =A3170. I would buy make me an offer. my email: o_timofeev@yahoo.co.uk 07940792411 UK London=20 0208 249 57 04 o_timofeev@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Guys, > > > Please help me, I need CCNA/CCNP NETSIM with CCNA/CCNP LABS unlocked > not the demo version. I bought ...

Mega ST case wanted...
Hi folks, I've currently got an old style Mega ST case, the one with the centrally located floppy eject button. I'm looking for a later style case, the one with the floppy eject button on the right. Anyone have a case hanging about? And perhaps a keyboard too? TIA Egon -- The.Lab is really UMRK {period} ORG, bare that in mind if you want to mail :) "Egon Spengler" <Egon@the.lab> wrote in message news:3ridnd_O19WrJ4rfRVnyrg@eclipse.net.uk... > Hi folks, > > I've currently got an old style Mega ST case, the one with the ...

(",) Do You Want To Know For Sure You Are Going To Heaven? #3
http://www.want-to-be-sure.blogspot.com << Click On Link ...

define* revisited
I realized today that "define*" was a lousy name for the construct I posted about earlier. An important feature of "define" is that the variable can be later changed with a "set!", and code that uses that variable will then see the new value. My so-called "define*" does not have that property. If it did, something like (let () (define* (a 1) ((b) a)) (set! a 2) (b)) would return 2. I don't care about that. In the work I'm doing, I have no need or desire to be changing my definitions with a "set!&qu...

have Laptop; want to play games on 2nd Monitor
hi all, i have a Laptop, with a smallish monitor, and i want to play games on a 2nd much larger monitor i couldn't get the Laptop to make monitor #2 the "Primary" monitor; for some reason checking the Display boxes wouldn't stay/work does it have something to do with it being a Laptop? thanks waterboy On 10 Jan 2007 19:42:23 -0800, waterboy@financier.com wrote something that piqued my interest enough to reply with: >hi all, > >i have a Laptop, with a smallish monitor, >and i want to play games on a 2nd much larger monitor > >i couldn't get the Lap...

resample method when L & M are very large
Hi,everybody, I am doing arbitrary sample rate conversion. It may be very easy to d when the up factor L and down factor M is very small(e.g. L=3, M=4). Bu when L and M is very large, it seems difficult to me. say 8->44.1k L=80, M=441, I have tried two method. 1. windowed-sinc method. The sinc table totally have twenty lobes with 1 in left and 10 in right, each lobe has 512 samples. Then multiplied thi table with a Kaiser window (beta = 9). Take a 8KHz sweep signal as a tes stream, whose freq comes from 1hz to 4000Hz (Nyquste frq). When convertin this stream to 44.1KHz, the resampled str...

I want PLP
I want PLP. I have Matlab_7. On 11/21/2012 7:14 AM, Fathi Hassan wrote: > I want PLP. I have Matlab_7. > hi; PLP comes with Matlab when you buy it. Contact Mathworks sales dept or customer support. --Nasser ...

Which way saves memory? I'm confused!
The same function of the three. Which saves memory? The first: function getNodeTotalDisp(this) result(TotalDisp) type(Node), intent(in) :: this real(8) :: TotalDisp(30000) TotalDisp = this%DispCommit + this%DispCumInc end function getNodeTotalDisp The second: function getNodeTotalDisp(this) result(TotalDisp) type(Node), intent(in) :: this real(8), allocatable :: TotalDisp(:) allocate (TotalDisp(30000)) TotalDisp = this%DispCommit + this%DispCumInc end function getNodeTotalDisp And the third: subroutine getN...

Wanted : game Poizone by Eterna
Please make offer. I've got a huge collection of Archimedes games, so an exchange is also possible. Thanks for reading. Xavier. On Apr 14, 9:12=A0am, Xavier <xlta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please make offer. > I've got a huge collection of Archimedes games, so an exchange is also > possible. Do you need a fully boxed copy with manuals and stuff, or just the game itself (i.e., the actual software)? On Apr 14, 8:45=A0pm, filecore <filec...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 14, 9:12=A0am, Xavier <xlta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Please make ...