John W. Kennedy wrote:
Rick DeNatale wrote:
As I recall, the [IBM 1627] plotter was a bit of badge-engineering, it
was really
from calcomp with an IBM badge.That’s always been my impression, though, never having been a plotter
guy, I can’t swear to it.
Yep … we had one and we even called it the Calcomp Plotter. 
I wrote
a couple of assembly-language plot routines for it that ran rings
around what it could do in FORTRAN.
Robert D. wrote:
On 7/18/07, Damjan R. [email protected] wrote:
Location:Slovenia, on the sunny side of the Alps.
I know that will reveal my origin, but what the heck
That is not funny, well that’s why I left;)
Nc bat. Se vedno brcamo 
In Engslish. Don’t worry. We are still alive and kicking.
by
TheR
Rick DeNatale wrote:
As I recall, the [IBM 1627] plotter was a bit of badge-engineering, it was really
from calcomp with an IBM badge.
That’s always been my impression, though, never having been a plotter
guy, I can’t swear to it.
On 7/21/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
Yep … we had one and we even called it the Calcomp Plotter.
I wrote
a couple of assembly-language plot routines for it that ran rings
around what it could do in FORTRAN.
We had a neat little orbital-mechanics game for ours. It drew two
crosses to represent the earth and the moon and started plotting an
earth orbit. You fire thrusters with the sense switches on the
console to fire ‘thrusters’ to try to go to ‘lunar’ orbit.
–
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
IPMS/USA Region 12 Coordinator
http://ipmsr12.denhaven2.com/
Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site
http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/
male 54y
Karlsruhe (Germany)
Systems: CDC-Cyber72, DEC-System10, Telefunken TR440, Siemens 7.760, IBM
370, Vax, DECstation2000/3000, sun workstations (sunOS, later solaris),
PCs (mainly DOS and Windows).
Languages (longer used): Algol60, Fortran, Assembler (several), Teco
programs, Bliss10, BCPL, early Lisps, Mortran, several macro processors,
Snobol4 (very long time), Icon, C, PL/I, C#, Perl5, Python, Ruby
Several other languages, but only for evaluation purposes or for short
time.
John C. wrote:
…mortran…
The first time I hear “Mortran” since a long time. We adapted Mortran to
the Telefunken TR440 computer around 1980 in the “Grossrechenzentrum für
die Wissenschaft in Berlin” (now “ZIB - Zuse Institut Berlin”) as part
of out SAMOS project (Software Adaption and Maintenance Organization
System) and because we were responsible for porting SPSS, SCSS, NAG and
IMSL to German computers. I made several experiments using Mortran as
stand alone macro processor… - unfortunately the Language was real
“write only”, much more than Teco programs.
Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner
Robert D. wrote:
Robert
female 26 yr old
Dephi, Haskell, Prolog, Jess, Java, PHP, Perl, Python, Bash, C++, C, VB6
working as: Software Engineer
Location: brisbane, australia
aiofe.
Yet another male (Maybe YAM will replace YAPH some day? sigh)
age: 19
background: BASIC, Visual Basic, the scripting language included in
TI-83 Plus graphing calculators, C++, Java
Presently learning: Perl and Ruby, with plans to learn Lisp, Lua, and
Ada. My goal is to become a true polyglot.
I’m currently enrolled at Rochester Institute of Technology and will
be starting my second year of a Bachelor’s in Software Engineering
this fall. I’ve been interning at a government contractor this summer
doing a lot of grunt work with their file system, which has gotten me
some basic knowledge of regexps and all the nifty low-level stuff Perl
and Ruby offer.
Location: I sort of count double at the moment. I live near
Philadelphia, PA, but I go to college in Rochester, NY.
Kaldrenon wrote:
I started on Perl because at the time it was the most un-Java language
I knew about, and I know it’s considered beneficial to learn languages
that are very different from each other. I have since gained a lot of
exposure to just how many language choices there are (and better ones
than Perl, at that), but I still would like to learn a little more
about Perl from a pure academic interest/curiosity standpoint.
I wasn’t aware there was anything “academic” in Perl – it’s just an
immensely practical and pragmatic way of getting stuff done on
computers. I don’t know if there’s anything inside a Perl implementation
(at least not until Parrot) that would be as Earth-shaking as, say, call
with concurrent continuation, tail recursion, or even what’s in the Java
Virtual Machine.
And perhaps when I said I want to learn Lisp I should have said “a
Lisp”, since I know there are many. Common Lisp and Scheme are the two
I’ve heard the most about, so it will probably be one of those, but I
haven’t decided yet. By “better tutorial language” are you saying that
Scheme is probably easier to learn? What makes it a good tutorial?
Well, for openers, “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs”
is based on Scheme. For another, Scheme cleaned up some weaknesses in
Lisp 1.5 that only with much wrangling got cleaned up in Common Lisp.
It’s less bloated. The performance of a decent Scheme compiler is
probably about on a par with that of a decent Common Lisp compiler, and
the Common Lisp libraries and applications are much broader. But I don’t
know of anything out there in the Common Lisp world like Dr. Scheme.
2007/7/22, Wolfgang Nádasi-donner [email protected]:
male 54y
Karlsruhe (Germany)
One more from Germany:
male 46y
First computer: Commodore PET 2001 (1978)
Best computer ever: NeXTcube (1989, still with me)
Languages used at work: Assembler (6502, 680x0), Basic, Visual Basic,
Pascal, Modula-2, PL/SQL, C, C++, Objective-C, Java, Common-Lisp,
Smalltalk, Shell scripting (awk, sed, …), Perl, Python, Ruby
Currently using PL/SQL, Java and Ruby in my jobs as a freelancer.
Regards,
Pit
On Jul 23, 12:30 pm, “M. Edward (Ed) Borasky” [email protected]
wrote:
Unless there’s a financial reason, I’d skip Perl and focus on Ruby. And
Scheme is probably a better tutorial language than (Common) Lisp. Check
out “Dr. Scheme”, for example.
I started on Perl because at the time it was the most un-Java language
I knew about, and I know it’s considered beneficial to learn languages
that are very different from each other. I have since gained a lot of
exposure to just how many language choices there are (and better ones
than Perl, at that), but I still would like to learn a little more
about Perl from a pure academic interest/curiosity standpoint.
And perhaps when I said I want to learn Lisp I should have said “a
Lisp”, since I know there are many. Common Lisp and Scheme are the two
I’ve heard the most about, so it will probably be one of those, but I
haven’t decided yet. By “better tutorial language” are you saying that
Scheme is probably easier to learn? What makes it a good tutorial?
Chad P. wrote:
I don’t think it’s necessary to wait for Perl 6 – but I’m certainly
looking forward to it.
I’m just totally bored with Perl – Perl 4 was a great improvement over
awk, but I only maintain old code in it. I don’t like to write new Perl
code, and I am not willing to wait for Perl 6 when there are other
languages I like – Erlang, Ruby, and maybe Smalltalk (assuming a decent
Smalltalk shows up on the AMD64 in Gentoo before I die. Perl 5.8 is
good enough, Ruby and R are better
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:30:23AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Unless there’s a financial reason, I’d skip Perl and focus on Ruby. And
Scheme is probably a better tutorial language than (Common) Lisp. Check
out “Dr. Scheme”, for example.
Unless you’re Ed, I wouldn’t skip Perl. I actually like the the
language. Why limit yourself?
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:37:18PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
computers. I don’t know if there’s anything inside a Perl implementation
(at least not until Parrot) that would be as Earth-shaking as, say, call
with concurrent continuation, tail recursion, or even what’s in the Java
Virtual Machine.
Considering Perl was created by a linguist, I’d think you might take
that
as a cue for how to approach looking for its academic value. It has an
approach to language design all its own – and it’s an approach that has
proven incredibly practical for producing a language worth using.
On Jul 23, 2007, at 12:30 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Kaldrenon wrote:
Presently learning: Perl and Ruby, with plans to learn Lisp, Lua, and
Ada. My goal is to become a true polyglot.Unless there’s a financial reason, I’d skip Perl and focus on Ruby.
And
Scheme is probably a better tutorial language than (Common) Lisp.
Check
out “Dr. Scheme”, for example.
I second that. Scheme over Common Lisp for sure. Also, I’d go for
Eiffel over Ada, and I would recommend Forth – anyone who aspires to
becoming a broad-band programmer should be familiar with Forth.
Regards, Morton
Kaldrenon wrote:
Yet another male (Maybe YAM will replace YAPH some day? sigh)
age: 19
background: BASIC, Visual Basic, the scripting language included in
TI-83 Plus graphing calculators, C++, JavaPresently learning: Perl and Ruby, with plans to learn Lisp, Lua, and
Ada. My goal is to become a true polyglot.
Unless there’s a financial reason, I’d skip Perl and focus on Ruby. And
Scheme is probably a better tutorial language than (Common) Lisp. Check
out “Dr. Scheme”, for example.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:12:32PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
good enough, Ruby and R are better
Well . . . that’s another sense in which I don’t think it’s necessary to
“wait for” Perl 6: keep learning other languages, and learning to be
better with the languages you already know. Still, I’m looking forward
to it. I think Perl 6 will be one of the coolest languages going when
it’s finally release-worthy.
I know I’ve said so in this venue before – I don’t think of Ruby as
being “better” than Perl. It’s better at some things, and worse at
others. As such, I still use (and quite like) both.
On 7/24/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
TI-83 Plus graphing calculators, C++, Java
I don’t think it’s necessary to wait for Perl 6 – but I’m certainly
looking forward to it.I’m just totally bored with Perl – Perl 4 was a great improvement over
awk, but I only maintain old code in it. I don’t like to write new Perl
code, and I am not willing to wait for Perl 6 when there are other
languages I like – Erlang, Ruby, and maybe Smalltalk (assuming a decent
Smalltalk shows up on the AMD64 in Gentoo before I die.
good enough, Ruby and R are better
Well I dunno if I followed correctly there will be nothing like Perl6
elsewhere, it might be overkill, we’ll see
Robert
–
We’re on a mission from God. ~ Elwood,
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:08:41 +0900, Victor “Zverok” Shepelev wrote:
male 24y
bg: Pascal (Turbo Pascal, then Delphi), C++; Perl, D a little; Ruby now
and forever!
wk: hacker and writer
location: Kharkov/UkraineV.
male 24y
bg: GW-BASIC, QBASIC, Turbo Pascal, Hypercard, AppleScript, Userland
Frontier, C++, VB6, tcsh, bash, Java, Prolog, Ruby
wk: grad student
loc: Illinois/USA
Morton G. wrote:
I second that. Scheme over Common Lisp for sure. Also, I’d go for Eiffel
over Ada, and I would recommend Forth – anyone who aspires to becoming
a broad-band programmer should be familiar with Forth.Regards, Morton
Actually, if you know both Scheme and Forth well, I wouldn’t bother with
any other languages. They are the two most perfect programming languages
ever made. I’m just sorry I didn’t invent either one of them.
They’re also the most addicting programming languages. That’s probably
why there are so few professional Forth programmers and almost no
professional Scheme programmers.
On 7/23/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
Ada. My goal is to become a true polyglot.
Unless there’s a financial reason, I’d skip Perl and focus on Ruby. And
Scheme is probably a better tutorial language than (Common) Lisp. Check
out “Dr. Scheme”, for example.Unless you’re Ed, I wouldn’t skip Perl. I actually like the the
language. Why limit yourself?
Another variation on the perl theme: Wait for Perl 6 though – you
will be in good company too ;).
Robert
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs