Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"Gary A. Gorgen" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
Rich Grise wrote:

Jon Elson wrote:
Not too many computers anymore where you can key in the bootstrap loader
program through the front panel switches.

Bootstrap loader? I had to toggle in the whole freakin' program through the
switches and pushbuttons that weren't even _debounced_!
(Scelbi 8H, 8008, mine had 256 bytes of RAM)
Wuss!

We programmed the bootloader by soldering diodes in a matrix on a
circuit board. Diode present meant a one, diode absent meant a zero.
This was the PROM of the day (SEL 32 computer, early 1970s)

You worked for SEL ? I worked for Interdata.

No, a SEL customer. I was later an Interdata (in the form of Perkin
Elmer) customer as well.

And when I started, we programmed in assembly code (~ 70,000 lines),
only later sliding over to the new thing, Fortran (~ 60,000 lines, if I
recall). There were lots of debates about the practicality of fortran
in such applications, given the inefficiency of fortran-generated code,
but the combination of the 3:1 or 4:1 reduction in coding effort of
high-order languages compared to assembly coupled with the Moores-Law
increase in computer power soon pushed assembly code to the margins. It
was cheaper to simply overpower the inefficiency.

Did you try Fortran V. It had some good optimising.

One of the support people was working on a benchmark, from a potential
customer, (10,000) lines of code. He compiled it, ran it.
He had the results, from other machines, all 60 secs.
The program printed k=123, time=0. He asked me, to have the
customer call him, time=0, because something wasn't right.

I mentioned this the next time I talked to them.
The reply was "REALLY????".
Some one had put in a lot of time, writing a program that did nothing.

When I looked at the generated code, it was obvious what the compiler
had done.

Joe Gwinn


--
Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS"
| Tunxis Design Inc.
| Cupertino, Ca. 95014