From: "Kaye & Bill Dobson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8of8re$iu8@netaxs.com> Subject: Re: IBM 650 from an ex-programmer Lines: 27 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:42:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.190.33.218 X-Trace: news 967592527 209.190.33.218 (Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:42:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:42:07 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!news.informatik.uni-muenchen.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!ord-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:62748 The 650 had a 'core box' that contained 50 words of either data or instructions. If a programmer were smart, they would write tight little routines to run in the core box (your friendly multiplication function for example) that would be executed until the next little routine was called in. (What was that great invention in the 70's called virtual memory?) In class, one program I wrote took twice as long as anyone else in the class. I had tried to allow for the latency of the instruction, but had forgotten about the interlock time to get the next instruction. As a result, all of my instructions had to go completely around the drum before they could be executed. In the same class, I had suggested to the instructor and idea for having a program that would take mnemonic instructions and addresses and translate them into the real machine instructions (ADD = 60) and addresses. The program would also optimize the placement of the instructions and the data. He said what I was talking about was an assembler program and to wait until next year when we would get to work with the new stuff, an IBM 7090. ###### From: John Ahlstrom Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: IBM 650 from an ex-programmer Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:24:26 -0700 Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Lines: 17 Message-ID: <39AC543A.EA927BBB@cisco.com> References: <8of8re$iu8@netaxs.com> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cache-Post-Path: sj-nntpcache-5!unknown@dhcp-171-68-135-37.cisco.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:62727 Kaye & Bill Dobson wrote: > In class, one program I wrote took twice as long as anyone else in the > class. I had tried to allow for the > latency of the instruction, but had forgotten about the interlock time to > get the next instruction. As a result, > all of my instructions had to go completely around the drum before they > could be executed. Waiting a whole revolution only doubled the execution time?????? JKA -- Any sufficiently well-rigged demo is indistinguishable from advanced technology. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8of8re$iu8@netaxs.com> From: jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: IBM 650 from an ex-programmer Message-ID: <39ad167b$1$wg$mr2ice@news.epix.net> X-Newsreader: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v2.19zk/19zk Lines: 25 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:13:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.224.125.106 X-Complaints-To: abuse@epix.net X-Trace: news1.epix.net 967644798 199.224.125.106 (Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:13:18 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:13:18 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-xfer.epix.net!news1.epix.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:62740 In , on 08/29/00 at 11:42 PM, "Kaye & Bill Dobson" said: >In class, one program I wrote took twice as long as anyone else in the >class. I had tried to allow for the >latency of the instruction, but had forgotten about the interlock time to >get the next instruction. As a result, >all of my instructions had to go completely around the drum before they >could be executed. I heard that someone reassembled SOAP with the optimization table entries reduced by one - called it SHOAP (Simply Horrible Optimizing Assembler Program). -- Julian Thomas: jt . epix @ net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org -- -- Johnson's Corollary: computers have a reset button for a reason. ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: IBM 650 from an ex-programmer Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:42:53 -0700 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 21 Message-ID: <39AD7FDD.CF340B50@ev1.net> References: <8of8re$iu8@netaxs.com> <39AC543A.EA927BBB@cisco.com> Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:62790 John Ahlstrom wrote: > > Kaye & Bill Dobson wrote: > > > In class, one program I wrote took twice as long as anyone else in the > > class. I had tried to allow for the > > latency of the instruction, but had forgotten about the interlock time to > > get the next instruction. As a result, > > all of my instructions had to go completely around the drum before they > > could be executed. > > Waiting a whole revolution only doubled the execution time?????? > I read somewhere that the unoptomized programs on the 650 ran about 40 to 50 times slower than the SOAP optomized version. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Jim Thomas Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: IBM 650 from an ex-programmer Date: 30 Aug 2000 15:34:04 -1000 Organization: Canada France Hawai`i Telescope Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <8of8re$iu8@netaxs.com> <39AC543A.EA927BBB@cisco.com> <39AD7FDD.CF340B50@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: atlas.cfht.hawaii.edu X-Trace: news.hawaii.edu 967685645 17692 128.171.80.135 (31 Aug 2000 01:34:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@hawaii.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 2000 01:34:05 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!arclight.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.hawaii.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:62785 >>>>> "Charles" == Charles Richmond writes: Charles> John Ahlstrom wrote: >> >> Kaye & Bill Dobson wrote: >> >> > In class, one program I wrote took twice as long as anyone else in the >> > class. I had tried to allow for the >> > latency of the instruction, but had forgotten about the interlock time to >> > get the next instruction. As a result, >> > all of my instructions had to go completely around the drum before they >> > could be executed. >> >> Waiting a whole revolution only doubled the execution time?????? Charles> I read somewhere that the unoptomized programs on the 650 ran Charles> about 40 to 50 times slower than the SOAP optomized version. Since the typical instruction took 4 to 5 word times and there were 50 words per track, that is in the right range. Optimum was < 1 word time extra, sequential resulted in about 45 word times extra per instruction. Jim