On 1/20/22 2:49 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>
> On 1/20/22 11:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/20/22 11:26 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2022 10:25 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/22 9:19 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>
>>>>> but Perl
>>>>> and Python are not *nix specific.
>>>>
>>>> Both were originally developed in the Unix environment.  Use in any
>>>> other environment is an afterthought.
>>>
>>> They were developed on Unix but I don't think calling usage on
>>> other platforms an afterthought is proper description.
>
> In fact it's an offensive and ignorant description.  It's more or less
> like saying Fortran on VMS is an afterthought because it ran on
> something else first.
>

Don't take my word for it. From "PERL in a Nutshell"

"While Perl was developed on Unix and is closely entwined with
Unix culture...."

It goes on to mention other places it runs and ends with "even VMS"
as if that surprised the authors.

Real programming languages like FORTRAN were explicitly written for
use on multiple disparate systems and OSes.

bill

On 1/20/2022 2:49 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 1/20/22 11:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/20/22 11:26 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> When Larry Wall released the first public version of Perl the build
>>> configuration included:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> /* EUNICE:
>>>   *    This symbol, if defined, indicates that the program is being
>>> compiled
>>>   *    under the EUNICE package under VMS.  The program will need to
>>> handle
>>>   *    things like files that don't go away the first time you unlink
>>> them,
>>>   *    due to version numbering.  It will also need to compensate for
>>> lack
>>>   *    of a respectable link() command.
>>>   */
>>> /* VMS:
>>>   *    This symbol, if defined, indicates that the program is running
>>> under
>>>   *    VMS.  It is currently only set in conjunction with the EUNICE
>>> symbol.
>>>   */
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> so definitely Unix centric but VMS aware.
>>
>> EUNICE?  That's Unix running on top of VMS. :-)
>> Can it be compiled and run if you set the VMS flag?
>
> I've been involved with maintaining Perl on VMS for over twenty years
> and it is certainly not an afterthought.  The EUNICE support came and
> went before my time and really has nothing to do with the current port,
> which I believe originated in one of the early Perl 5 releases, maybe
> about 1997 or so.

I don't think Eunice was popular so no surprise.

Arne

On 1/20/2022 3:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/20/22 2:49 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> On 1/20/22 11:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 1/20/22 11:26 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/2022 10:25 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/22 9:19 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> but Perl
>>>>>> and Python are not *nix specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both were originally developed in the Unix environment.  Use in any
>>>>> other environment is an afterthought.
>>>>
>>>> They were developed on Unix but I don't think calling usage on
>>>> other platforms an afterthought is proper description.
>>
>> In fact it's an offensive and ignorant description.  It's more or less
>> like saying Fortran on VMS is an afterthought because it ran on
>> something else first.
>
> Don't take my word for it.  From "PERL in a Nutshell"
>
> "While Perl was developed on Unix and is closely entwined with
> Unix culture...."
>
> It goes on to mention other places it runs and ends with "even VMS"
> as if that surprised the authors.

Since the first public release of Python ran on Unix and Mac, and the
first public release of Perl ran on Unix and VMS, then I find it
difficult to see other platforms as an afterthought.

The Perl language does have some Unix heritage as it was inspired
by / intended to replace awk and sed. But being inspired from is
different from targetting.

Arne

PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.

On 1/20/22 3:31 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 3:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/20/22 2:49 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> On 1/20/22 11:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/22 11:26 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/2022 10:25 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/20/22 9:19 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> but Perl
>>>>>>> and Python are not *nix specific.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both were originally developed in the Unix environment.  Use in any
>>>>>> other environment is an afterthought.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were developed on Unix but I don't think calling usage on
>>>>> other platforms an afterthought is proper description.
>>>
>>> In fact it's an offensive and ignorant description.  It's more or less
>>> like saying Fortran on VMS is an afterthought because it ran on
>>> something else first.
>>
>> Don't take my word for it.  From "PERL in a Nutshell"
>>
>> "While Perl was developed on Unix and is closely entwined with
>> Unix culture...."
>>
>> It goes on to mention other places it runs and ends with "even VMS"
>> as if that surprised the authors.
>
> Since the first public release of Python ran on Unix and Mac, and the
> first public release of Perl ran on Unix and VMS, then I find it
> difficult to see other platforms as an afterthought.
>
> The Perl language does have some Unix heritage as it was inspired
> by / intended to replace awk and sed. But being inspired from is
> different from targetting.
>
> Arne
>
> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>     BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.

I don't think it ran on VMS either. :-)

bill

On 1/20/22 3:17 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 2:49 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> On 1/20/22 11:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 1/20/22 11:26 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> When Larry Wall released the first public version of Perl the build
>>>> configuration included:
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> /* EUNICE:
>>>>   *    This symbol, if defined, indicates that the program is being
>>>> compiled
>>>>   *    under the EUNICE package under VMS.  The program will need to
>>>> handle
>>>>   *    things like files that don't go away the first time you
>>>> unlink them,
>>>>   *    due to version numbering.  It will also need to compensate
>>>> for lack
>>>>   *    of a respectable link() command.
>>>>   */
>>>> /* VMS:
>>>>   *    This symbol, if defined, indicates that the program is
>>>> running under
>>>>   *    VMS.  It is currently only set in conjunction with the EUNICE
>>>> symbol.
>>>>   */
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> so definitely Unix centric but VMS aware.
>>>
>>> EUNICE?  That's Unix running on top of VMS. :-)
>>> Can it be compiled and run if you set the VMS flag?
>>
>> I've been involved with maintaining Perl on VMS for over twenty years
>> and it is certainly not an afterthought.  The EUNICE support came and
>> went before my time and really has nothing to do with the current port,
>> which I believe originated in one of the early Perl 5 releases, maybe
>> about 1997 or so.
>
> I don't think Eunice was popular so no surprise.

I don't know about that. I found it running on the first VMS machine
I ever used. And it was popular even giving how poorly it performed.

bill

On 1/20/2022 3:34 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/20/22 3:31 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>      BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>
> I don't think it ran on VMS either.   :-)

First when it became BASIC-Plus-2.

Arne

On 1/20/2022 3:34 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/20/22 3:31 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/20/2022 3:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 1/20/22 2:49 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/22 11:37 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/22 11:26 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 10:25 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/20/22 9:19 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>>> but Perl
>>>>>>>> and Python are not *nix specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both were originally developed in the Unix environment. Use in any
>>>>>>> other environment is an afterthought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were developed on Unix but I don't think calling usage on
>>>>>> other platforms an afterthought is proper description.
>>>>
>>>> In fact it's an offensive and ignorant description. It's more or less
>>>> like saying Fortran on VMS is an afterthought because it ran on
>>>> something else first.
>>>
>>> Don't take my word for it. From "PERL in a Nutshell"
>>>
>>> "While Perl was developed on Unix and is closely entwined with
>>> Unix culture...."
>>>
>>> It goes on to mention other places it runs and ends with "even VMS"
>>> as if that surprised the authors.
>>
>> Since the first public release of Python ran on Unix and Mac, and the
>> first public release of Perl ran on Unix and VMS, then I find it
>> difficult to see other platforms as an afterthought.
>>
>> The Perl language does have some Unix heritage as it was inspired
>> by / intended to replace awk and sed. But being inspired from is
>> different from targetting.
>>
>> Arne
>>
>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>> BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>
> I don't think it ran on VMS either. :-)
>
> bill
>

No, but it's descendants sure do ..

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 1/20/2022 3:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 3:34 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/20/22 3:31 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>> BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>>
>> I don't think it ran on VMS either. :-)
>
> First when it became BASIC-Plus-2.

Strictly speaking, that never was. The progression is:

Basic+ - interpreter
BP2 - compiled on RSX, RSTS, and VAX
VAX Basic - compiled with immediate mode
DEC Basic - on Alpha, no immediate mode
Compaq Basic - renamed
HP Basic - ported to itanic
VSI Basic

But really mostly the same language.

I'm not willing to do the testing, but, I'm betting a Basic+ program would run
with no changes on VSI Basic.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 1/20/2022 6:46 PM, Dave Froble wrote:

> I'm not willing to do the testing,  but, I'm betting a Basic+ program would run with no changes on VSI Basic.

I think the support for DEF* functions was dropped at some point.

--

-- Rob

On 1/20/2022 6:59 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 6:46 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>> I'm not willing to do the testing, but, I'm betting a Basic+ program would
>> run with no changes on VSI Basic.
>
> I think the support for DEF* functions was dropped at some point.
>

I've got many such usage running on IA64 systems with up to date VMS and Basic.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 1:08:15 PM UTC-8, hb wrote:

(snip)

> Same command works in bash, although one would prefer
> $ grep '\\end' helloworld.tex

This is reminding me years ago of:

grep \\\\\\\\ file.tex

since \ is the escape character of both the shell and grep.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:34:00 AM UTC-8, Simon Clubley wrote:
> This suggestion follows the current discussion about using special
> characters as data, which shows just how horrible DCL is when it
> comes to using special characters as data in a command line.

The one I remember is that quoting on the DCL command line is
different from quoting in COM file of DCL commands.

Seems to be that it should be consistent between them.

But otherwise, I don't see that it should follow Unix escape characters.

In article <7a88c8ac-422c-4389-87c4-b0c2b7824217n@googlegroups.com>, gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> writes:
>On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:34:00 AM UTC-8, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> This suggestion follows the current discussion about using special
>> characters as data, which shows just how horrible DCL is when it
>> comes to using special characters as data in a command line.
>
>The one I remember is that quoting on the DCL command line is
>different from quoting in COM file of DCL commands.
>
>Seems to be that it should be consistent between them.

???

Short of where DCL reads its input (terminal or file via an RMS $GET), I don't
see why/where processing should be any different.

>But otherwise, I don't see that it should follow Unix escape characters.

<thumbs-up>

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
> BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.

Ok, that's a new one. :-)

How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 1/21/22 12:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>
>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>> BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>
> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>
> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)

I've never seen BASIC-PLUS but my guess would be that some form of BASIC
provided the inspiration for duck typing. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing

On 2022-01-20, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/20/22 2:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-01-20, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/20/22 1:31 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-01-19, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the shell is that important for a platforms success or failure,
>>>>> Linux whould have been dead by now. A more user-unfriendly interface
>>>>> is hard do find.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about JCL ? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Bash is cryptic, but it is also powerful.
>>>
>>> What's cryptic about bash?
>>>
>>
>> When you start doing serious scripting with bash it can become cryptic
>> but at the same time, it is also a powerful shell.
>>
>
> I say it again, What is cryptic about bash?
> Show me one.
>

Basically, the test syntax in control blocks when you start using it
a lot and especially when constructing complex tests. The one letter
symbols preceeded by a $ that make up the special parameters are not
the most readable either.

It would be nice if the test syntax was more conventional, such as
how DCL does it.

OTOH, bash has so much more functionality than DCL, especially when
using it interactively and its cleaner than DCL when escaping input.

It's just a pity bash scripts are not as readable as some scripting
languages that are not Unix shell based. OTOH, it would be nice if
DCL had the proper looping constructs and interactive functionality
that bash does.

The Unix shell environments were created when terseness was required
for multiple reasons, but to me, long-term readability of your code
and scripts is much more important than saving a few characters and
a little bit of time when creating them in the first place.

An ideal shell would be something that looks loosely like DCL but has
the power of bash, has all the bash structured mechanisms, and all the
bash interactive functionality.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 1/21/2022 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>
>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>> BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>
> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>
> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)
>
> Simon.
>

Basic+ is a interpreter and also allowed immediate execution of instructions.
Perhaps those features could be an inspiration?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 1/21/22 3:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>>      BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>>
>> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>>
>> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Basic+ is a interpreter and also allowed immediate execution of
> instructions. Perhaps those features could be an inspiration?
>

Basic+ was compilable. File extension BAC.

bill

On 1/21/2022 4:03 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/21/22 3:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 1/21/2022 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>>>      BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>>>
>>> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>>>
>>> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)
>>
>> Basic+ is a interpreter and also allowed immediate execution of
>> instructions. Perhaps those features could be an inspiration?
>
> Basic+ was compilable. File extension BAC.

This is before my time, so I don't know anything about.

Should such a .BAC file contain native PDP-11 code (like
a VMS EXE file) or does it contain some binary version
of the source code (like Python .pyc or Java .class)?

Arne

On 2022-01-21 22:46, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 4:03 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/21/22 3:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2022 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>>>>      BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>>>>
>>>> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)
>>>
>>> Basic+ is a interpreter and also allowed immediate execution of
>>> instructions. Perhaps those features could be an inspiration?
>>
>> Basic+ was compilable. File extension BAC.
>
> This is before my time, so I don't know anything about.
>
> Should such a .BAC file contain native PDP-11 code (like
> a VMS EXE file) or does it contain some binary version
> of the source code (like Python .pyc or Java .class)?

BASIC+ just compiled to tokens. So it wasn't really "compiled".
But I could thing that various string handling in Perl could have been
inspired by BASIC+.

BASIC+2 was a bit more properly compiled. But it can also run in
interactive mode.

Johnny

On 1/21/2022 5:13 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2022-01-21 22:46, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/21/2022 4:03 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 1/21/22 3:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2022 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>>>>> BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Basic+ is a interpreter and also allowed immediate execution of
>>>> instructions. Perhaps those features could be an inspiration?
>>>
>>> Basic+ was compilable. File extension BAC.
>>
>> This is before my time, so I don't know anything about.
>>
>> Should such a .BAC file contain native PDP-11 code (like
>> a VMS EXE file) or does it contain some binary version
>> of the source code (like Python .pyc or Java .class)?
>
> BASIC+ just compiled to tokens. So it wasn't really "compiled".
> But I could thing that various string handling in Perl could have been inspired
> by BASIC+.
>
> BASIC+2 was a bit more properly compiled. But it can also run in interactive mode.
>
> Johnny

That's not what I remember, but, I've tried very hard to forget.

With BP2, one compiled to object modules, then (gasp) there was the dreaded
<<<TKB>>> ...

I'll admit to learning much from overlays, but, it was still torture ..

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 2022-01-22 01:09, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 5:13 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2022-01-21 22:46, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2022 4:03 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/22 3:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2022 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>>>>>>      BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic+ is a interpreter and also allowed immediate execution of
>>>>> instructions. Perhaps those features could be an inspiration?
>>>>
>>>> Basic+ was compilable. File extension BAC.
>>>
>>> This is before my time, so I don't know anything about.
>>>
>>> Should such a .BAC file contain native PDP-11 code (like
>>> a VMS EXE file) or does it contain some binary version
>>> of the source code (like Python .pyc or Java .class)?
>>
>> BASIC+ just compiled to tokens. So it wasn't really "compiled".
>> But I could thing that various string handling in Perl could have been
>> inspired
>> by BASIC+.
>>
>> BASIC+2 was a bit more properly compiled. But it can also run in
>> interactive mode.
>>
>>   Johnny
>
> That's not what I remember, but, I've tried very hard to forget.
>
> With BP2, one compiled to object modules, then (gasp) there was the
> dreaded <<<TKB>>> ...
>
> I'll admit to learning much from overlays, but, it was still torture ..

..set /host
Host=MIM RSX-11M-PLUS V4.6 BL87mP
..bp2

PDP-11 BASIC-PLUS-2 V2.7-C

BASIC2

print ert$(i) for i=1 to 10

?Bad directory for device
?Illegal file name
?Account or device in use
?No room for user on device
?Can't find file or account
?Not a valid device
?I/O channel already open
?Device not available
?I/O channel not open
?Protection violation

BASIC2

show
PDP-11 BASIC-PLUS-2 V2.7-C using FPU with run support
ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION: RMS FILE ORGANIZATION:
Current edit line : 0 NO Index
NO Modules loaded NO Relative
NO Main module loaded NO Sequential
NO Virtual
DEFAULT DATA TYPE INFORMATION: LISTING FILE INFORMATION:
Data type : REAL NO Source
Real size : SINGLE NO Cross Reference
Integer size : WORD NO Keywords
Scale factor : 0 60 lines by 132 columns
COMPILATION QUALIFIERS: BUILD QUALIFIERS:
Object NO Dump
NO Macro NO Map
Lines NO Cluster
Warnings I- and D-Space
NO Debug records Task extend : 512
NO Syntax checking RMS ODL file : LB:[1,1]RMS11X
Flag : Declining BP2 Disk lib : LB:[1,1]BP2OTS
Variant : 0 BP2 Resident lib : NONE
RMS Resident lib : NONE

BASIC2

Interactive and run support was optional. You are able to choose whether
to include that or not when you do the installation.
Maybe wherever you was using it, they had not included it then?

Johnny

On 1/22/2022 3:37 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2022-01-22 01:09, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 1/21/2022 5:13 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-21 22:46, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2022 4:03 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/22 3:25 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2022 1:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-01-20, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> PS: In the original post Larry Wall also claimed to be inspired by
>>>>>>>> BASIC-PLUS, which did not run on Unix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, that's a new one. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you get from BASIC-PLUS to Perl ? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basic+ is a interpreter and also allowed immediate execution of
>>>>>> instructions. Perhaps those features could be an inspiration?
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic+ was compilable. File extension BAC.
>>>>
>>>> This is before my time, so I don't know anything about.
>>>>
>>>> Should such a .BAC file contain native PDP-11 code (like
>>>> a VMS EXE file) or does it contain some binary version
>>>> of the source code (like Python .pyc or Java .class)?
>>>
>>> BASIC+ just compiled to tokens. So it wasn't really "compiled".
>>> But I could thing that various string handling in Perl could have been inspired
>>> by BASIC+.
>>>
>>> BASIC+2 was a bit more properly compiled. But it can also run in interactive
>>> mode.
>>>
>>> Johnny
>>
>> That's not what I remember, but, I've tried very hard to forget.
>>
>> With BP2, one compiled to object modules, then (gasp) there was the dreaded
>> <<<TKB>>> ...
>>
>> I'll admit to learning much from overlays, but, it was still torture ..
>
> .set /host
> Host=MIM RSX-11M-PLUS V4.6 BL87mP
> .bp2
>
> PDP-11 BASIC-PLUS-2 V2.7-C
>
> BASIC2
>
> print ert$(i) for i=1 to 10
>
>
> ?Bad directory for device
> ?Illegal file name
> ?Account or device in use
> ?No room for user on device
> ?Can't find file or account
> ?Not a valid device
> ?I/O channel already open
> ?Device not available
> ?I/O channel not open
> ?Protection violation
>
> BASIC2
>
> show
> PDP-11 BASIC-PLUS-2 V2.7-C using FPU with run support
> ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION: RMS FILE ORGANIZATION:
> Current edit line : 0 NO Index
> NO Modules loaded NO Relative
> NO Main module loaded NO Sequential
> NO Virtual
> DEFAULT DATA TYPE INFORMATION: LISTING FILE INFORMATION:
> Data type : REAL NO Source
> Real size : SINGLE NO Cross Reference
> Integer size : WORD NO Keywords
> Scale factor : 0 60 lines by 132 columns
> COMPILATION QUALIFIERS: BUILD QUALIFIERS:
> Object NO Dump
> NO Macro NO Map
> Lines NO Cluster
> Warnings I- and D-Space
> NO Debug records Task extend : 512
> NO Syntax checking RMS ODL file : LB:[1,1]RMS11X
> Flag : Declining BP2 Disk lib : LB:[1,1]BP2OTS
> Variant : 0 BP2 Resident lib : NONE
> RMS Resident lib : NONE
>
> BASIC2
>
>
> Interactive and run support was optional. You are able to choose whether to
> include that or not when you do the installation.
> Maybe wherever you was using it, they had not included it then?
>
> Johnny

That is interesting. I never used RSX. Other than the RSX runtime on RSTS. It
has been a very long time, some might say a "lifetime", since I saw a RSTS system.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 1/22/22 11:08 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>
> That is interesting.  I never used RSX.  Other than the RSX runtime on
> RSTS.  It has been a very long time, some might say a "lifetime", since
> I saw a RSTS system.
>

Your right. At my age it seems like a lifetime since last week. Which
was the last time I saw a RSTS System. :-)

bill

On 2022-01-22 17:08, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/22/2022 3:37 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2022-01-22 01:09, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2022 5:13 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2022-01-21 22:46, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> Should such a .BAC file contain native PDP-11 code (like
>>>>> a VMS EXE file) or does it contain some binary version
>>>>> of the source code (like Python .pyc or Java .class)?
>>>>
>>>> BASIC+ just compiled to tokens. So it wasn't really "compiled".
>>>> But I could thing that various string handling in Perl could have
>>>> been inspired
>>>> by BASIC+.
>>>>
>>>> BASIC+2 was a bit more properly compiled. But it can also run in
>>>> interactive
>>>> mode.
>>>>
>>>>   Johnny
>>>
>>> That's not what I remember, but, I've tried very hard to forget.
>>>
>>> With BP2, one compiled to object modules, then (gasp) there was the
>>> dreaded
>>> <<<TKB>>> ...
>>>
>>> I'll admit to learning much from overlays, but, it was still torture ..
>>
>> .set /host
>> Host=MIM RSX-11M-PLUS V4.6  BL87mP
>> .bp2

[...]

> That is interesting.  I never used RSX.  Other than the RSX runtime on
> RSTS.  It has been a very long time, some might say a "lifetime", since
> I saw a RSTS system.

Well, I should say that it might not work in RSTS/E. RSTS/E were more
limited than RSX in many ways. This might very well be one of those cases.
I think that in RSX, the interactive stuff makes use of an additional
process. And that's not really possible to do with RSTS/E since each
terminal only have one process.

But I haven't tried (or can't remember). I haven't played much in RSTS/E
in a long time.

Johnny