Related articles |
---|
[9 earlier articles] |
Re: History and evolution of compilers mark@hubcap.clemson.edu (1997-10-10) |
Re: History and evolution of compilers norman@kbss.bt.co.uk (Norman Hilton) (1997-10-10) |
Re: History and evolution of compilers rweaver@ix.netcom.com (1997-10-14) |
Re: History and evolution of compilers mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il (1997-10-14) |
Re: History and evolution of compilers preston@tera.com (1997-10-16) |
Re: History and evolution of compilers gray@harlequin.co.uk (1997-10-17) |
Re: History and evolution of compilers mck@pobox.com (Michael McKernan) (1997-11-02) |
Re: History and evolution of compilers johnrn@ibm.net (1997-11-03) |
From: | Michael McKernan <mck@pobox.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 2 Nov 1997 23:21:17 -0500 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 97-09-130 97-10-008 97-10-017 97-10-033 97-10-049 97-10-069 |
Keywords: | Fortran, history |
>>> The moderator wrote:
>>>> Fortran IV did get two compilers on the 360 series, Fortran G
>>>> which was fast and generated rotten code, and Fortran H which
>>>> produced very good code. -John]
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Weaver <rweaver@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Fortran G was written by another company (I've forgotten the name)
> in the POP language, for IBM. There was a technology transfer from
> that company to several existing (or merged/absorbed) companies,
> sometimes by people leaving the original company and founding their
> own company.
> Should you be able to locate/identify those people, your history
> will have solid lines (this came from there) as opposed to dashed
> lines (the concepts used here may have been based on concepts first
> used there).
I can't remember the company name (digitek? ... maybe) but the authors
were Don Ryan and Dave McFarland, now probably better known for
Ryan-McFarland COBOL. I was not aware of any "technology transfer"
since I believe, at the time, Ryan and McFarland were the whole
company, but I could be wrong about that. Their "pops fortran"
probably showed up on most of the smaller scale computers extant at
the time, so the technology was well known, and I have seen it
referred to as their "elegant little fortran compiler".
The IBM 360 was probably pretty big iron for this compiler, but I
suspect they were called in because the H compiler would have been
unacceptably late and the 360 would have been without any Fortran at
all.
Mike McKernan
[The compiler generated pretty good code on the PDP-6, but did badly on
the 360 because it didn't know anything about the 360's base register
addressing. I can believe that Fortran H was horribly late, since all
the other OS/360 software was, too. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.