From: stanb@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Early computer games Organization: Metropolis Grafix Reply-To: stanb@dial.pipex.com Message-ID: X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.2 UNIX) Date: 13 Nov 2002 20:12:13 GMT Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62-190-203-135.pdu.pipex.net X-Trace: 1037218333 news.dial.pipex.com 8507 62.190.203.135 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:120783 Hi, We were talking about computer games the other night, and that started me thinking. What is the oldest surviving computer game program? The earliest I've found so far is "OXO" (Tic-tac-toe) by A.S Douglas, 1952, written for EDSAC. Anyone know of anything older that still exists? So computer games are 50 years old, at least :-) -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb@dial.pipex.com The future was never like this! ###### Message-ID: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.69.162 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1037248669 12.237.69.162 (Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:37:49 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:37:49 GMT Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:37:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:120840 Stan Barr wrote: > > Hi, > > We were talking about computer games the other night, and that started > me thinking. What is the oldest surviving computer game program? > The earliest I've found so far is "OXO" (Tic-tac-toe) by A.S Douglas, > 1952, written for EDSAC. Anyone know of anything older that still > exists? > Is the same Tic-Tac-Toe game that Martin Campbell-Kelly distributes with his EDSAC emulator??? ISTM that it uses a face of one of the William's tubes as the output device...right??? -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: hansp@aconit.org (Hans B Pufal) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: 14 Nov 2002 08:42:04 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.251.69.193 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1037292124 9970 127.0.0.1 (14 Nov 2002 16:42:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Nov 2002 16:42:04 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:120836 Charles Richmond wrote in message news:<3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net>... > Is the same Tic-Tac-Toe game that Martin Campbell-Kelly distributes > with his EDSAC emulator??? ISTM that it uses a face of one of the > William's tubes as the output device...right??? An oscilloscope perhaps, but certainly NOT a Williams tube - the EDSAC used mercury delay line memory. -- hbp ###### From: "Simon Bowring" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:03:44 +0000 (GMT) Organization: MPC Data Limited Lines: 13 Distribution: World Message-ID: References: Reply-To: "Simon Bowring" NNTP-Posting-Host: bath.mpc-data.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1037298069 350 158.152.55.245 (14 Nov 2002 18:21:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: PMINews 2.00.1205 For OS/2 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!diablo.theplanet.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!burton.mpc-data.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:120775 On 13 Nov 2002 20:12:13 GMT, Stan Barr wrote: >The earliest I've found so far is "OXO" (Tic-tac-toe) by A.S Douglas, >1952, written for EDSAC. Anyone know of anything older that still >exists? Anyone got any more details, like if there's any "source-code" and how many (of EDSAC's 18) instructions did it take (I could't find much on the web)? Simon ###### From: stanb@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> Organization: Metropolis Grafix Reply-To: stanb@dial.pipex.com Message-ID: X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.2 UNIX) Date: 14 Nov 2002 18:27:26 GMT Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62-190-200-15.pdu.pipex.net X-Trace: 1037298446 news.dial.pipex.com 8505 62.190.200.15 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!newspeer.lavaseals.co.uk!diablo.theplanet.net!btnet-peer!btnet!lnewspeer01.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:120782 On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:37:49 GMT, Charles Richmond wrote: >Stan Barr wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> We were talking about computer games the other night, and that started >> me thinking. What is the oldest surviving computer game program? >> The earliest I've found so far is "OXO" (Tic-tac-toe) by A.S Douglas, >> 1952, written for EDSAC. Anyone know of anything older that still >> exists? >> >Is the same Tic-Tac-Toe game that Martin Campbell-Kelly distributes >with his EDSAC emulator??? ISTM that it uses a face of one of the >William's tubes as the output device...right??? Yes, that's the one. Very interesting use of available resources. I must have a go at disassembling it and see how it's done. The original question came abaout because one of my younger relations was laughing at me typing a Basic listing of a game from a 1979 magazine into my PDP-11 emulator. Like many Brits I think he imagined computer games started with the ZX81 :-) -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb@dial.pipex.com The future was never like this! ###### From: stanb@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: Organization: Metropolis Grafix Reply-To: stanb@dial.pipex.com Message-ID: X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.2 UNIX) Date: 14 Nov 2002 20:35:21 GMT Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62-190-200-69.pdu.pipex.net X-Trace: 1037306121 news.dial.pipex.com 8509 62.190.200.69 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.linkpendium.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!bnewspeer01.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!auucp0.ams.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsifeed00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:120779 On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:03:44 +0000 (GMT), Simon Bowring wrote: >On 13 Nov 2002 20:12:13 GMT, Stan Barr wrote: > >>The earliest I've found so far is "OXO" (Tic-tac-toe) by A.S Douglas, >>1952, written for EDSAC. Anyone know of anything older that still >>exists? > >Anyone got any more details, like if there's any "source-code" >and how many (of EDSAC's 18) instructions did it take (I could't >find much on the web)? See: http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~edsac/ No source code for OXO, just a tape image, but it would be easy to disassemble. I haven't counted the instructions, but the tape image is 3,185 characters. At an average of, say, 3 chars per instruction that's over 1000 instructions. As someone else pointed out, the display is a scope tube displaying the data circulating in the mercury tanks, not a Williams tube. The emulator's great fun to play with. -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb@dial.pipex.com The future was never like this! ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Sat, 16 Nov 02 11:44:09 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVY5NXsM3rKKXRWTyGGvIHpKiVhFImXJ+ZLwSurqHzRCKN5XC+RrrkTx X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Nov 2002 12:08:24 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-102-35 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:120984 In article , "David Wade" wrote: >"Stan Barr" wrote in message >news:slrnat6qro.q7m.stanb@citadel.metropolis.local... >> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:37:49 GMT, Charles Richmond >wrote: >Whilst I don't know of anything older, I do remember (and it was a long time >ago so the memories might be confused) some that might be "interesting" to >readers of this list. I know we had a reaction timer program on the IBM1620 >that I learnt Fortran II on. That would print a list of random characters, >also of Random length ending in a "?". When you saw the "?" you had to hit >the "Return" key and it timed you. > >I assume this was written in some kind of assembler, but I only ever used >Fortran on the 1620. I assume it had an Assembler? SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. Do you guys have a different "definition"? /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### X-Posting-Agent: Hamster/1.3.23.4 From: Nick Spalding Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Reply-To: Nick Spalding Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.573 enu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:19:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.203.143.51 X-Complaints-To: abuse@iol.ie X-Trace: news.iol.ie 1037459961 193.203.143.51 (Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:19:21 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 15:19:21 GMT Organization: Ireland On-Line Customer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!colt.net!newsfeed.esat.net!news.iol.ie!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121015 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote, in : > In article , > "David Wade" wrote: > >"Stan Barr" wrote in message > >news:slrnat6qro.q7m.stanb@citadel.metropolis.local... > >> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:37:49 GMT, Charles Richmond > >wrote: > > > > >Whilst I don't know of anything older, I do remember (and it was a long > time > >ago so the memories might be confused) some that might be "interesting" to > >readers of this list. I know we had a reaction timer program on the > IBM1620 > >that I learnt Fortran II on. That would print a list of random characters, > >also of Random length ending in a "?". When you saw the "?" you had to > hit > >the "Return" key and it timed you. > > > >I assume this was written in some kind of assembler, but I only ever used > >Fortran on the 1620. I assume it had an Assembler? > > SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a > symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. > > Do you guys have a different "definition"? S(ymbolic)P(rogram)S(ystem) for the 1401 was quite definitely an assembler. A very smart one too which would run nicely in a minimal machine. -- Nick Spalding ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Sun, 17 Nov 02 12:17:31 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbqCHEmShl4Up9l2dHtZINk/sh3LCSmxtg1Xi3eN8cLgs+yXvU6DzEd X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Nov 2002 12:42:00 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-102-36 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121053 In article , "keep-it-clean" wrote: > wrote in message news:ar5cfo$4au$1@bob.news.rcn.net... >> SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a >> symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. >> >> Do you guys have a different "definition"? >> > >Assemblers generate object code from source code with a 1:1 correspondence >per instruction (e.g., each executable statement of source code ---in other >words, not an assembler directive--- produces a single machine >instruction).....as opposed to, for example, compilers which typically >generate multiple machine language instructions from each executable >statement of source code. > >Assemblers maintain a symbol table which allows you to refer to storage >locations symbolically with a user-assigned label. The assembler does the >proper "bookkeeping" as it processes the source program to accurately build >& maintain the table. > >Assemblers translate mnemonics for machine language instructions (opcodes, >instruction formats, etc.) into the corresponding numeric values. > >Now how do **you** differentiate a symbolic machine language from an >assembler ? What additional/unique functionality must an assemble offer in >order to distinguish one from the other ? > > Relocation. IIRC, (and this is really a very long time ago), SPS not only did a 1-1 mapping of instruction to machine language, but it also did it absolutely in memory. I know I'm terribly Macro-10 biased since that's the only thing I've dealt with in my last dozen work years; it's entirely possible that I was spoiled rotten :-). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Message-ID: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.69.162 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc02 1037518857 12.237.69.162 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:40:57 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:40:57 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:40:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!attla2!ip.att.net!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc02.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121097 Bernie Cosell wrote: > > stanb@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) wrote: > > } We were talking about computer games the other night, and that started > } me thinking. What is the oldest surviving computer game program? > } The earliest I've found so far is "OXO" (Tic-tac-toe) by A.S Douglas, > } 1952, written for EDSAC. > > Speaking of old implementations of T-T-T, I heard that there was a "Tic tac > toe paper tape" that'd play TTT on a ASR TTY. I have no idea about when > such a thing might ahve been done, but it was only a legend when I ran > across rumors of it in '65. > > Anyone else heard of that beast? Have any of you actually SEEN it in > action. > Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, but it was *designed* for a computer... -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Dave Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: 17 Nov 2002 08:58:55 GMT Organization: CSUnet Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pegasus.cs.csubak.edu User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!enews.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!usc.edu!newshub.csu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121043 Charles Richmond wrote: > Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the > logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine > that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the > first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, > but it was *designed* for a computer... If they indeed did such a thing, I'd presume that the group that completed Babbage's Analytical Engine a few years ago must have tried running it. -- David Griffith dgriffi@cs.csubak.edu ###### From: "Ross Simpson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:59:18 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3dd784cb$0$18875$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.40.166 X-Trace: 1037534412 18875 198.142.40.166 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121090 "Dave" wrote in message... > > If they indeed did such a thing, I'd presume that the group that completed > Babbage's Analytical Engine a few years ago must have tried running it. Hi Dave, Is there a site you know of which talks about the group which completed Babbage's Analytical Machine? (just as a matter of interest). Thankyou. With Regards, Ross. ###### X-Posting-Agent: Hamster/1.3.23.4 From: Nick Spalding Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Reply-To: Nick Spalding Message-ID: References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.573 enu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:22:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.203.140.51 X-Complaints-To: abuse@iol.ie X-Trace: news.iol.ie 1037535763 193.203.140.51 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:22:43 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:22:43 GMT Organization: Ireland On-Line Customer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!news0.de.colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.esat.net!news.iol.ie!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121104 Dave wrote, in : > Charles Richmond wrote: > > Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the > > logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine > > that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the > > first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, > > but it was *designed* for a computer... > > If they indeed did such a thing, I'd presume that the group that completed > Babbage's Analytical Engine a few years ago must have tried running it. They completed just one small part of it, not a fully working machine. -- Nick Spalding ###### From: Steve Burton Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:09:30 +0000 Lines: 31 Message-ID: <2n8ftuc68haj8pscrs925kk3ngksa109kl@4ax.com> References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> Reply-To: steve@sliderule.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: sliderule.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1037542143 5994 194.222.44.251 (17 Nov 2002 14:09:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:09:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121084 On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:40:57 GMT, Charles Richmond wrote: >Bernie Cosell wrote: >> >> stanb@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) wrote: >> >> } We were talking about computer games the other night, and that started >> } me thinking. What is the oldest surviving computer game program? >> } The earliest I've found so far is "OXO" (Tic-tac-toe) by A.S Douglas, >> } 1952, written for EDSAC. >> >> Speaking of old implementations of T-T-T, I heard that there was a "Tic tac >> toe paper tape" that'd play TTT on a ASR TTY. I have no idea about when >> such a thing might ahve been done, but it was only a legend when I ran >> across rumors of it in '65. >> >> Anyone else heard of that beast? Have any of you actually SEEN it in >> action. >> >Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the >logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine >that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the >first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, >but it was *designed* for a computer... Tic-Tac-Toe? Noughts and Crosses, surely. Unless my translation matrix is wonky. Steve. ###### From: "keep-it-clean" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> Subject: Re: Early computer games Lines: 28 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:35:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.89.172.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1037543729 12.89.172.83 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:35:29 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:35:29 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn12feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121055 wrote in message news:ar82qo$ra3$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > > Relocation. IIRC, (and this is really a very long time ago), > SPS not only did a 1-1 mapping of instruction to machine language, > but it also did it absolutely in memory. > Hmmmmm, interesting observation. The concept of "relocatability" hadn't occurred to me as such; for example, the IBM 360 Assembler has the USING directive to specify which base register to use. However, I wonder if the IBM 1620 architecture lent itself to relocatable code in the same way as the IBM 360 or Intel 8086 with its CS register [only two examples which come to mind early on Sunday AM]. In any case, it certainly seems fair to include "relocatability" in this context as part of an assembler's functions assuming the underlying hardware design is amenable to it. > I know I'm terribly Macro-10 biased since that's the only thing > I've dealt with in my last dozen work years; it's entirely > possible that I was spoiled rotten :-). There are worse things, for sure :-) ###### From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:58:30 -0500 Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-151-203-19-105.bos.east.verizon.net (151.203.19.105) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1037552307 16807713 151.203.19.105 (16 [37534]) X-Orig-Path: dpbsmith User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pool-151-203-19-105.bos.east.verizon.NET!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121085 In article , "keep-it-clean" wrote: > wrote in message news:ar5cfo$4au$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > > SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a > > symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. > > > > Do you guys have a different "definition"? > > > > Assemblers generate object code from source code with a 1:1 correspondence > per instruction (e.g., each executable statement of source code ---in other > words, not an assembler directive--- produces a single machine > instruction).....as opposed to, for example, compilers which typically > generate multiple machine language instructions from each executable > statement of source code. > > Assemblers maintain a symbol table which allows you to refer to storage > locations symbolically with a user-assigned label. The assembler does the > proper "bookkeeping" as it processes the source program to accurately build > & maintain the table. > > Assemblers translate mnemonics for machine language instructions (opcodes, > instruction formats, etc.) into the corresponding numeric values. > > Now how do **you** differentiate a symbolic machine language from an > assembler ? What additional/unique functionality must an assemble offer in > order to distinguish one from the other ? The original meaning of the word "assembly" should not be forgotten. Of course, _I_ don't know for sure the actual origins of the word, but the first context in which I encountered the word "assembly" was the Symbolic Optimal Assembly Program (SOAP) for the IBM 650. This was a drum machine, and part of every instruction was the address of the next instruction. That is, every instruction had an implicit "goto" as part of it. The reason was the CPU was not fast enough to execute intructions located at consecutive drum locations, so instructions were carefully located at just the right address so that each instruction would be reached just after the previous instruction had completed execution. This process was called "assembly." It was laborious to do this by hand, so assembly programs were devised to automate the process. Then someone came up with the spiffy notion of representing instructions by alphabetical mnemonics instead of numeric codes (hence SYMBOLIC optimal assembly program). The word "assembly" gradually mutated to mean "the program that processes the output of the FORTRAN compiler" instead of "the program that puts the instructions onto the drum in the right place." -- dpbsmith@world.std.com ###### From: "Don Chiasson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> <3dd784cb$0$18875$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: Early computer games Lines: 36 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:04:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.151.189 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rogers.com X-Trace: news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com 1037552677 24.42.151.189 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:04:37 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:04:37 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-hub.siol.net!newsfeeds-atl2!news.webusenet.com!news03.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com!news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121060 "Ross Simpson" wrote in message news:3dd784cb$0$18875$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > "Dave" wrote in message... > > > > If they indeed did such a thing, I'd presume that the group that completed > > Babbage's Analytical Engine a few years ago must have tried running it. > > Hi Dave, > > Is there a site you know of which talks about the group which completed > Babbage's Analytical Machine? (just as a matter of interest). > [snip politeness...] Check the national museum of science and industry in London, http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/ Information on Babbage's work is on the site, e.g. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/treasure/objects/1862-89.asp I have the book, "The Difference Engine" by Doron Swade who lead the team to construct a Babbage engine. Good read. Re another topic I do not remember nor is there mention in the index of Tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses). ---Don e-mail: it's not not, it's hot. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Message-ID: <7kfcq9qt.fsf@earthlink.net> Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler Lines: 123 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-msvc-nt5.0.2195) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ir5RgobK2dFHDDXkLmCBYsJjx1g= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:23:42 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.83.181 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1037561022 165.247.83.181 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:23:42 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:23:42 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121052 "keep-it-clean" writes: > In any case, it certainly seems fair to include "relocatability" in this > context as part of an assembler's functions assuming the underlying hardware > design is amenable to it. 360 had registers that could be used for addressing and mechanism for establishing current address (balr rX,0) for relative addressing (to "using" off some register). "relocating" in os/360 was a combination of assembler/compiler and loader convention. assemblers & compilers generated ESD and RLD "object" entries. ESD were "entry" symbolic names (1-8 chars) and relative address in object deck. RLD entries provided mechanism for resolving internal/external address "constants". Loader (link/editor) would build symbol table (and address) from all the ESD entries .. and resolve "relocatable" adcons by looking up the the corresponding RLD information in the (ESD) symbol table. All this was (normally) done before program began execution. Once program started execution it was effectively bound to a specific physical address. The original stuff that I had done in late CP/67 time frame and ported to early vm/370 was paging access method (mapping the cms file system to a page mapped paradigm) and relocating shared segments (R/O shared segments). The CP support for relocating shared segments was physical address insensitive/agnostic (aka the same shared image/segment could appear simulataneously in different address spaces at different logical addresses). A subset of the relocating shared segment support was released in VM/370 version as "discontiguous shared segment" support. The released version of the code only supported fixed address sharing (aka the same shared object/segment had to occupy the same logical address in in every address space). At least one problem was that relocatable paradigm in os/360 ... which CMS tended to follow ... was that relocatable adcons were actually fixed addresses at execution/runtime ... they were only relocatable in the sense that the relocation was done early at bind/load time ... so what appeared in memory at runtime was a fixed address. For code that occupied truely relocatable shared segments ... I had to go thru and sensitive all the address constants for address independent operation. I had to make them "abolute" at least as far as the loader/binder was concerned (aka had no RLD entry and had difference between two ESD entries). Basically, I manually created "relative" (or displacement) adcon/address that was then combined with a dynamic (process/address space specific) address in a register (at execution/run time). A residual of all this appeared in bits and pieces of the product code shipped to customers ... including a CMS SVC202 defined in page zero (aka NUCON dsect). If the first byte following the svc202 was a zero (invalid instruction), the whole four bytes following the svc202 instruction was assumbed to be a four byte address constant field. Standard CMS SVC202 processing had a normal return to the instruction following the svc instruction, unless the first byte was zero, in which case the normal return is four bytes after the svc instruction ... and any immediately following address constant is assumed to be the non-normal/error return. Frequently this adcon was AL4(*+4) (but could be the address of an error handling routine, the "L4" was telling the assembler to ignore forcing to a four byte boundary which was normal for address constants) which is a relative adcon from the syntactical standpoint ... but is turned into a relocatable adcon ... and then is filled in with a fixed address by the loader. If there was an error and no adcon, the system call would invoke a system error handler rather than returning for application specific error handling (which might include terminating the program). To make this work in relocating shared segments ... making executable code address location insensitive, I replaced all "inline" svc202 calls with a BALR (branch and link) to a fixed svc202 system call instruction in page zero (CMS NUCON dsect) of the address space. Later CMS implemented the convention that if the adcon was AL4(1) .. i.e. absolute address of one, that return was to be made to the SVC address plus four (regardless of whether there was an error or not ... basically the equivalent of AL4(*+4) but w/o need of real address. The calling program could then determines if there was some sort of unusual return from the system call by checking the condition code and/or a register contents. Relative addresses (as opposed to what os/360 calls relocatable addresses) have not been a os/360 standard construct. note in the following: http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/read?fn=STRANGE&ft=MEMO&line=171 the code wasn't necessary for standard discontiguous shared segments released in the product ... however, it was part of all the CMS fixups that I had done to put put additional CMS code in shared segments and make that code "address location" insensitive (i.e. no inline "relocatable adcons"). while not all the CP code to support address agnostic shared segments was included in the initial "discontiguous shared segment" product offering ... all the the CMS changes that I had done shipped pretty much "as is" (i.e. they weren't going to distinquish between changes to make CMS program code "R/O" as opposed to the changes needed to make CMS program code address constant free). After doing some amount of CMS kernel code ... I also did fixup on IOS3270, BROWSE, and FULIST in similar manner. also: http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/read?fn=CMSSPR2&ft=MEMO&line=147 some past relocatable shared segment discussion: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#75 Mainframe operating systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#9 Theo Alkema some ios3270, browse, fulist: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#41 IBM 4361 CPU technology http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#60 Living legends http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#61 Living legends http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#108 IBM 9020 computers used by FAA (was Re: EPO stories (was: HELP IT'S HOT!!!!!)) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#50 VM (not VMS or Virtual Machine, the IBM sort) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#76 Is a VAX a mainframe? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#83 Z/90, S/390, 370/ESA (slightly off topic) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#8 Theo Alkema http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#9 Theo Alkema http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#5 What goes into a 3090? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#79 Fw: HONE was .. Hercules and System/390 - do we need it? page-mapped stuff http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#mmap -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | lynn@garlic.com - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: 17 Nov 2002 22:20:56 GMT Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: slytherin.ds.psu.edu X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121111 In article , David Wade wrote: >And lastley I am told, so it may be folklore, that some one once hid a >Backdoor in a game on PrimOS. If the game was ran with elevated priviledges >it would unlock the Access Control on all the system files..... Shouldn't be too hard. I was told by a Prime programmer that it took four lines of Fortan to open a window into ring 0. hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign dochawk@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of X and postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ ###### Message-ID: <3DD8469F.DB07D8C0@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 38 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.69.162 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1037577026 12.237.69.162 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:50:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:50:26 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:50:26 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!news-x2.support.nl!feed.news.nacamar.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!cox.net!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121122 "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > The original meaning of the word "assembly" should not be forgotten. > > Of course, _I_ don't know for sure the actual origins of the word, but > the first context in which I encountered the word "assembly" was the > Symbolic Optimal Assembly Program (SOAP) for the IBM 650. > > This was a drum machine, and part of every instruction was the address > of the next instruction. That is, every instruction had an implicit > "goto" as part of it. The reason was the CPU was not fast enough to > execute intructions located at consecutive drum locations, so > instructions were carefully located at just the right address so that > each instruction would be reached just after the previous instruction > had completed execution. This process was called "assembly." It was > laborious to do this by hand, so assembly programs were devised to > automate the process. > > Then someone came up with the spiffy notion of representing instructions > by alphabetical mnemonics instead of numeric codes (hence SYMBOLIC > optimal assembly program). > > The word "assembly" gradually mutated to mean "the program that > processes the output of the FORTRAN compiler" instead of "the program > that puts the instructions onto the drum in the right place." > One also might add that the difference between the worst case program and one that was optomized to run on the drum computer... was a factor of *fifty*!!! Your program could be fifty times faster with the optomization compared to a program that had the instructions placed sequentially around the drum. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Message-ID: <3DD847D5.B14409E6@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> <3dd784cb$0$18875$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.69.162 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1037577337 12.237.69.162 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:55:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:55:37 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:55:37 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn11feed!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121121 Don Chiasson wrote: > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > I have the book, "The Difference Engine" by Doron Swade who lead the > team to construct a Babbage engine. Good read. Re another topic > I do not remember nor is there mention in the index of > Tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses). > Where I came across the Tic-Tac-Toe reference was in a Dover book titled: _Charles Babbage and His Calculating Engines: Selected Writings by Charles Babbage and Others_ This book was printed in 1961, and is definitely out of print. But you can get it at or order it from your local library via inter-library loan. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Message-ID: <3DD84886.13320AE7@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> <2n8ftuc68haj8pscrs925kk3ngksa109kl@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.69.162 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1037577513 12.237.69.162 (Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:58:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:58:33 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:58:33 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.news2me.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn11feed!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121120 Steve Burton wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:40:57 GMT, Charles Richmond > wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > >Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the > >logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine > >that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the > >first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, > >but it was *designed* for a computer... > > Tic-Tac-Toe? Noughts and Crosses, surely. > > Unless my translation matrix is wonky. > That is an acurate traslation into the "Queen's English". I write mostly in "American English". My old electronics have vacuum tubes instead of valves. My cooking pots are made of aluminum instead of aluminium. Etc. Etc. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 89 Message-ID: <1037521230snz@dsl.co.uk> References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1037579336 22332 10.0.0.1 (18 Nov 2002 00:28:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:28:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18DZmX-0005o3-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:28:54 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 88 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121124 In article keep-it-clean@worldnet.att.net "keep-it-clean" writes: > Assemblers generate object code from source code with a 1:1 correspondence > per instruction (e.g., each executable statement of source code ---in other > words, not an assembler directive--- produces a single machine > instruction).....as opposed to, for example, compilers which typically > generate multiple machine language instructions from each executable > statement of source code. > > Assemblers maintain a symbol table which allows you to refer to storage > locations symbolically with a user-assigned label. The assembler does the > proper "bookkeeping" as it processes the source program to accurately build > & maintain the table. > > Assemblers translate mnemonics for machine language instructions (opcodes, > instruction formats, etc.) into the corresponding numeric values. > > Now how do **you** differentiate a symbolic machine language from an > assembler ? What additional/unique functionality must an assemble offer in > order to distinguish one from the other ? Well, there's certainly a class of symbolic machine languages that I would not consider were to be processed by an assembler. For instance, the Ferranti Argus range had very limited "symbol table" facilities, and the program that read in such input and placed it into core ready for execution was called "Initial Orders". For instance, an instruction on the Argus consisted of: 14-bit address field 3-bit accumulator designator 5-bit opcode 2-bit modifier register designator Now the hardware could read in directly from paper-tape, with the instructions written as nine octal digits (with an optional space between address and the rest). But this was obviously too inflexible for writing real programs, so the Initial Orders (which were in that machine-code format) were placed into memory to perform translation from the symbolic format. The latter still stuck to four digits to represent the accumulator, opcode, modifier part (so no mnemonics such as ADD; the programmer had to remember that this was 02), but did permit of more flexibility than absolute addresses. Again, for flexibility, these were written to the right of the rest, not the left. Addresses could be written in absolute octal, or alternatively, be relative to a symbol. Each symbol was written with a special character at the start, followed by a decimal number. (The introductory character was an italic lower-case v, looking also very much like a lower-case upsilon in Greek: this character was included along with the others to be found in the figures-shift set of the 5-bit paper-tape code.) Addresses could therefore appear in instructions as v23; offsets were also permitted, so one might have v23-5. Offsets could similarly be used to give a "symbol" its initial value, through directives such as v23=v1+400; of course, each symbol thus defined evetually had to be traceable back to something assigned an absolute address, such as v1=14000. There were no labels; no other arithmetic could take place other than adding a positive or negative offset to a single symbol. ISTR that there was some way of indication "this current instruction"; it didn't use the period that some assembly languages used, but I cannot remember at this time just what character WAS used --- perhaps the "curly n" (aka lower- case eta) that also appeared amongst the figures-shift character set. The Elliott 900 range had a slightly less restricted symbolic machine language, in that symbols were constructed of up to six letters/digits, and could acquire values by being placed as labels. However, the arithmetic permitted on them was still restricted to addition and subtraction. The "current instruction counter" was represented as ';' so one could have relative jumps. Again, as with the Argus, there were no opcode mnemonics. The program which read in such input and created an executable program in memory from it was called SIR --- Symbolic Input Routine. So yes, I would say that there exists a sub-class of symbolic machine languages that are not "assembly languages". -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Mon, 18 Nov 02 12:43:25 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZJeMZUnE82muh6eWXw0Nm+vkbxG/97S9NZMYyxjOrpcGdqpFwjoKYT X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Nov 2002 13:08:04 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!luth.se!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!208-59-181-171 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121137 In article , "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote: >In article , > "keep-it-clean" wrote: > >> wrote in message news:ar5cfo$4au$1@bob.news.rcn.net... >> > SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a >> > symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. >> > >> > Do you guys have a different "definition"? >> > >> >> Assemblers generate object code from source code with a 1:1 correspondence >> per instruction (e.g., each executable statement of source code ---in other >> words, not an assembler directive--- produces a single machine >> instruction).....as opposed to, for example, compilers which typically >> generate multiple machine language instructions from each executable >> statement of source code. >> >> Assemblers maintain a symbol table which allows you to refer to storage >> locations symbolically with a user-assigned label. The assembler does the >> proper "bookkeeping" as it processes the source program to accurately build >> & maintain the table. >> >> Assemblers translate mnemonics for machine language instructions (opcodes, >> instruction formats, etc.) into the corresponding numeric values. >> >> Now how do **you** differentiate a symbolic machine language from an >> assembler ? What additional/unique functionality must an assemble offer in >> order to distinguish one from the other ? > >The original meaning of the word "assembly" should not be forgotten. > >Of course, _I_ don't know for sure the actual origins of the word, but >the first context in which I encountered the word "assembly" was the >Symbolic Optimal Assembly Program (SOAP) for the IBM 650. > >This was a drum machine, and part of every instruction was the address >of the next instruction. That is, every instruction had an implicit >"goto" as part of it. The reason was the CPU was not fast enough to >execute intructions located at consecutive drum locations, so >instructions were carefully located at just the right address so that >each instruction would be reached just after the previous instruction >had completed execution. This process was called "assembly." It was >laborious to do this by hand, so assembly programs were devised to >automate the process. > >Then someone came up with the spiffy notion of representing instructions >by alphabetical mnemonics instead of numeric codes (hence SYMBOLIC >optimal assembly program). > >The word "assembly" gradually mutated to mean "the program that >processes the output of the FORTRAN compiler" instead of "the program >that puts the instructions onto the drum in the right place." But I never (well, except for the days when I was sloppy with nomenclature) called "the program that processes the output of the FORTRAN compiler" an assembly. That was linking and/or loading. In addition, if code had to be massaged via a compiler, I called it compiling...not assembling. Now, I do understand that DEC's usage of terms varied from IBM's usage of terms. Often that was done on purpose to distinguish DEC from IBM. I don't know what the general usage was in the computing biz. But there is a difference between assembling and linking. The fact that IBM tended to do both in the same user step was a performance win for us ;-). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: "Ross Simpson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> <3dd784cb$0$18875$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:13:55 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3dd87748$0$12761$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.40.184 X-Trace: 1037596489 12761 198.142.40.184 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!eusc.inter.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121154 "Don Chiasson" wrote in message... Hi Don, > > Is there a site you know of which talks about the group which > > completed Babbage's Analytical Machine? (just as a matter of > > interest). > > Check the national museum of science and industry in London, > > http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/ I also had a look here at: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/collections/exhiblets/babbage/analytical.asp but it doesn't give any information about the analytical machine being re-built! The Analytical Machine seems to be one project which died when Babbage passed away (since it was Babbage which processed the knowledge on building it, must of being doing it out of his memory!). > Information on Babbage's work is on the site, e.g. > > http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/treasure/objects/1862-89.asp As this site states, the Difference Engine no 2 was rebuilt in 1991 (to celebrate 200 years since Babbages birth). ###### From: "Ross Simpson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:21:00 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Lines: 32 Message-ID: <3dd878f3$0$12758$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.40.184 X-Trace: 1037596915 12758 198.142.40.184 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!cox.net!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121156 "J. Clarke" wrote in message... > > > > > Charles Richmond wrote: > > > > Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the > > > > logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine > > > > that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the > > > > first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, > > > > but it was *designed* for a computer... > > > > > > If they indeed did such a thing, I'd presume that the group that completed > > > Babbage's Analytical Engine a few years ago must have tried running it. > > > > They completed just one small part of it, not a fully working machine. > > Actually, they completed a Difference Engine, which is a different > machine from the Analytical Engine. Difference Engine No 2 to be exact (back in 1991). It's such a pity that a machine like the Analytical Engine which follows some of the concepts of computers today had to be lost when Babbage passed on. If I correctly recall from what I read the funding of this machine was very tight (due to the possibilities of the project being abandoned & money wasted), but no-one will ever be sure if this machine would have worked (I would have liked to think so) if it was completed. With Regards, Ross. ###### From: J. Clarke Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:19:30 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 99 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-564.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121141 In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com says... > In article , > "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote: > >In article , > > "keep-it-clean" wrote: > > > >> wrote in message > news:ar5cfo$4au$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > >> > SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a > >> > symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. > >> > > >> > Do you guys have a different "definition"? > >> > > >> > >> Assemblers generate object code from source code with a 1:1 > correspondence > >> per instruction (e.g., each executable statement of source code ---in > other > >> words, not an assembler directive--- produces a single machine > >> instruction).....as opposed to, for example, compilers which typically > >> generate multiple machine language instructions from each executable > >> statement of source code. > >> > >> Assemblers maintain a symbol table which allows you to refer to storage > >> locations symbolically with a user-assigned label. The assembler does > the > >> proper "bookkeeping" as it processes the source program to accurately > build > >> & maintain the table. > >> > >> Assemblers translate mnemonics for machine language instructions > (opcodes, > >> instruction formats, etc.) into the corresponding numeric values. > >> > >> Now how do **you** differentiate a symbolic machine language from an > >> assembler ? What additional/unique functionality must an assemble offer > in > >> order to distinguish one from the other ? > > > >The original meaning of the word "assembly" should not be forgotten. > > > >Of course, _I_ don't know for sure the actual origins of the word, but > >the first context in which I encountered the word "assembly" was the > >Symbolic Optimal Assembly Program (SOAP) for the IBM 650. > > > >This was a drum machine, and part of every instruction was the address > >of the next instruction. That is, every instruction had an implicit > >"goto" as part of it. The reason was the CPU was not fast enough to > >execute intructions located at consecutive drum locations, so > >instructions were carefully located at just the right address so that > >each instruction would be reached just after the previous instruction > >had completed execution. This process was called "assembly." It was > >laborious to do this by hand, so assembly programs were devised to > >automate the process. > > > >Then someone came up with the spiffy notion of representing instructions > >by alphabetical mnemonics instead of numeric codes (hence SYMBOLIC > >optimal assembly program). > > > >The word "assembly" gradually mutated to mean "the program that > >processes the output of the FORTRAN compiler" instead of "the program > >that puts the instructions onto the drum in the right place." > > But I never (well, except for the days when I was sloppy with > nomenclature) called "the program that processes the output > of the FORTRAN compiler" an assembly. That was linking and/or > loading. In addition, if code had to be massaged via a compiler, > I called it compiling...not assembling. > > Now, I do understand that DEC's usage of terms varied from > IBM's usage of terms. Often that was done on purpose to > distinguish DEC from IBM. I don't know what the general > usage was in the computing biz. But there is a difference > between assembling and linking. The fact that IBM tended > to do both in the same user step was a performance win > for us ;-). Further confusing the issue are the compilers that emit an assembly- language deck that must then be run through the assembler before being linked. One of the first compilers I used on a micro was such a critter--I don't recall now if it was Microsoft Fortran or one of the various partial C implementations that were around at the time. This did have certain advantages--if you could stomach uncommented 8080 assembler written by a not very intelligent compiler it was a bit easier to fix compiler-generated bugs than it would have been if you had to patch a binary. And this was a good thing, because that compiler had more bugs than a termite mound. > /BAH > > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. > -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net) ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Tue, 19 Nov 02 12:16:19 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 114 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbeZd3Mr4WKNXsAYB+qp8OAjUmeWWQnEQ0arXn6x5HjQsM/mHe9eGt6 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Nov 2002 12:41:09 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-216-249 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121190 In article , J. Clarke wrote: >In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com says... >> In article , >> "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote: >> >In article , >> > "keep-it-clean" wrote: >> > >> >> wrote in message >> news:ar5cfo$4au$1@bob.news.rcn.net... >> >> > SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a >> >> > symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. >> >> > >> >> > Do you guys have a different "definition"? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Assemblers generate object code from source code with a 1:1 >> correspondence >> >> per instruction (e.g., each executable statement of source code ---in >> other >> >> words, not an assembler directive--- produces a single machine >> >> instruction).....as opposed to, for example, compilers which typically >> >> generate multiple machine language instructions from each executable >> >> statement of source code. >> >> >> >> Assemblers maintain a symbol table which allows you to refer to storage >> >> locations symbolically with a user-assigned label. The assembler does >> the >> >> proper "bookkeeping" as it processes the source program to accurately >> build >> >> & maintain the table. >> >> >> >> Assemblers translate mnemonics for machine language instructions >> (opcodes, >> >> instruction formats, etc.) into the corresponding numeric values. >> >> >> >> Now how do **you** differentiate a symbolic machine language from an >> >> assembler ? What additional/unique functionality must an assemble offer >> in >> >> order to distinguish one from the other ? >> > >> >The original meaning of the word "assembly" should not be forgotten. >> > >> >Of course, _I_ don't know for sure the actual origins of the word, but >> >the first context in which I encountered the word "assembly" was the >> >Symbolic Optimal Assembly Program (SOAP) for the IBM 650. >> > >> >This was a drum machine, and part of every instruction was the address >> >of the next instruction. That is, every instruction had an implicit >> >"goto" as part of it. The reason was the CPU was not fast enough to >> >execute intructions located at consecutive drum locations, so >> >instructions were carefully located at just the right address so that >> >each instruction would be reached just after the previous instruction >> >had completed execution. This process was called "assembly." It was >> >laborious to do this by hand, so assembly programs were devised to >> >automate the process. >> > >> >Then someone came up with the spiffy notion of representing instructions >> >by alphabetical mnemonics instead of numeric codes (hence SYMBOLIC >> >optimal assembly program). >> > >> >The word "assembly" gradually mutated to mean "the program that >> >processes the output of the FORTRAN compiler" instead of "the program >> >that puts the instructions onto the drum in the right place." >> >> But I never (well, except for the days when I was sloppy with >> nomenclature) called "the program that processes the output >> of the FORTRAN compiler" an assembly. That was linking and/or >> loading. In addition, if code had to be massaged via a compiler, >> I called it compiling...not assembling. >> >> Now, I do understand that DEC's usage of terms varied from >> IBM's usage of terms. Often that was done on purpose to >> distinguish DEC from IBM. I don't know what the general >> usage was in the computing biz. But there is a difference >> between assembling and linking. The fact that IBM tended >> to do both in the same user step was a performance win >> for us ;-). > >Further confusing the issue are the compilers that emit an assembly- >language deck that must then be run through the assembler before being >linked. Actually, I don't think that confuses things; if the kiddies had to physically load a deck with each logical step of building an executable, I would have most of the conversations that I've been having :-). At the moment, there's a kid who thinks that debugging "proves" a program has no errors and is citing Dijkstra to support that claim. > ..One of the first compilers I used on a micro was such a >critter--I don't recall now if it was Microsoft Fortran or one of the >various partial C implementations that were around at the time. > >This did have certain advantages--if you could stomach uncommented 8080 >assembler written by a not very intelligent compiler it was a bit easier >to fix compiler-generated bugs than it would have been if you had to >patch a binary. And this was a good thing, because that compiler had >more bugs than a termite mound. I bet you never thought that the ASCII program was getting executed because you "saw" the interim machine language. The C-kiddies are not seeing this. The script bunnies don't even seem to be seeing letters (I don't understand how they can ignore this.. they must have some exposure to html-ese). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 55 Message-ID: <1037658002snz@dsl.co.uk> References: X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1037690811 4628 10.0.0.1 (19 Nov 2002 07:26:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:26:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18E2mU-0001CU-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:26:47 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 54 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121233 In article keep-it-clean@worldnet.att.net "keep-it-clean" writes: > wrote in message news:ar82qo$ra3$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > > > > Relocation. IIRC, (and this is really a very long time ago), > > SPS not only did a 1-1 mapping of instruction to machine language, > > but it also did it absolutely in memory. > > > > Hmmmmm, interesting observation. The concept of "relocatability" hadn't > occurred to me as such; for example, the IBM 360 Assembler has the USING > directive to specify which base register to use. Elsewhere in this thread I have mentioned the "Initial Orders" which performed the function of translating instructions in a symbolic form into an executable program on the Ferranti Argus. As I said there, Initial Orders was by no means an Assembler, well, not as I know it. In the beginning, Initial Orders (or IOs, as they were colloquially known, thus ensuring confusion all round) were written to execute at one static location in memory (IIRC, one /loaded/ them, through the hardware "read-paper-tape-into-memory" facility, at 10010 octal[1] and started execution at 10030). Later, Ferranti (with much trumpeting) released "Initial Orders Mk.III" (aka IOs3); if there were ever a Mark.II, I never heard of it. IOs3 had the advantage that they could be loaded anywhere into memory; one selected the load address on the handkeys, and then started execution at the same address. Internally, the code was[2] written for execution assuming a particula absolute address; the first actions of the program were to read the handkeys register and use this knowledge of the load address to perform modification of all instructions to change the absolute addresses used to the correct ones accounting for the position at which the IOs3 had been loaded. Now that IS self-modifying code in spades! The reason for being able to load and execute IOs anywhere in core meant that the user's program could be "assembled" into a different area; even when that area was usually occupied by the older version of IOs. [1] Locations 00000--07777 were reserved for special-purpose registers of diverse peripherals (the Argus was primarily a process-control computer, and hence might be coupled to an oil refinery or a guided missile battery, each with special-to-purpose peripherals). Locations 10000-- 10007 were "memory accessible" versions of the eight accumulators (aka x0--x7). [2] Obviously, since the hardware read the paper tape into memory -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:26:56 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 21 Message-ID: <1037658736snz@dsl.co.uk> References: <3DD8469F.DB07D8C0@ev1.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1037690816 4637 10.0.0.1 (19 Nov 2002 07:26:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:26:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18E2mb-0001CU-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:26:54 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 20 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121234 In article <3DD8469F.DB07D8C0@ev1.net> richmond@ev1.net "Charles Richmond" writes: > One also might add that the difference between the worst case > program and one that was optomized to run on the drum computer... > was a factor of *fifty*!!! Your program could be fifty times > faster with the optomization compared to a program that had > the instructions placed sequentially around the drum. The English-Electric DEUCE computer was also a drum machine, with each instruction including the location of its successor. ISTR that Randall and Russell produced a version of Whetstone Algol that optimized instructions automatically: one needed to pick up the next instruction following a divide operation from about half-way further around the drum. -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### Message-ID: <3DDA2FBD.46D4057B@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <3DD8469F.DB07D8C0@ev1.net> <1037658736snz@dsl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.237.69.162 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc01 1037702241 12.237.69.162 (Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:37:21 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:37:21 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:37:21 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn11feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc01.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121227 Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote: > > In article <3DD8469F.DB07D8C0@ev1.net> > richmond@ev1.net "Charles Richmond" writes: > > > One also might add that the difference between the worst case > > program and one that was optomized to run on the drum computer... > > was a factor of *fifty*!!! Your program could be fifty times > > faster with the optomization compared to a program that had > > the instructions placed sequentially around the drum. > > The English-Electric DEUCE computer was also a drum machine, with each > instruction including the location of its successor. ISTR that Randall > and Russell produced a version of Whetstone Algol that optimized > instructions automatically: one needed to pick up the next instruction > following a divide operation from about half-way further around the drum. > Another drum computer as the Royal McBee LGP-30... It was in use circa 1960 and was a vacuum tube (valve) machine. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:26:06 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Message-ID: <20021119202606.0fb6013c.steveo@eircom.net> References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.8.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 Organization: Wanadoo NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Nov 2002 20:36:17 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: p2550.vwr.wanadoo.nl X-Trace: DXC=Z3>MYga`kcGbNm[Z\bD4SE1`\LnN2UYYA:=5FiQ``ajJhC_lbVB6eNKE4idcNR=AgJ`T?F=I`?REE X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.nl Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.multikabel.nl!news2.euro.net!postnews1.euro.net!news.wanadoo.nl!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121208 On Tue, 19 Nov 02 12:16:19 GMT jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: JC> I bet you never thought that the ASCII program was getting executed JC> because you "saw" the interim machine language. The C-kiddies JC> are not seeing this. The script bunnies don't even seem to be JC> seeing letters (I don't understand how they can ignore this.. JC> they must have some exposure to html-ese). I think that OOP has much to answer for here, especially in conjunction with interpreted languages and distributed systems like SOAP and CORBA. There seems to be a large number of object experts who do not realise that it is all bits in the end. The worst (that I have encountered) call themselves architects and manage to completely disconnect what they do from both the hardware and the problem but do adhere strictly to some standards of how things should be designed no matter how inappropriate they may be to the problem at hand. -- C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see: | http://www.sohara.org/ ###### From: Steve Burton Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:44:08 +0000 Lines: 125 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> Reply-To: steve@sliderule.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: sliderule.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1037742219 4816 194.222.44.251 (19 Nov 2002 21:43:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:43:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121223 On Tue, 19 Nov 02 12:16:19 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >In article , > J. Clarke wrote: >>In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com says... >>> In article , >>> "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote: >>> >In article , >>> > "keep-it-clean" wrote: >>> > >>> >> wrote in message >>> news:ar5cfo$4au$1@bob.news.rcn.net... >>> >> > SPS. I'm not sure I'd call it an assembler. IIRC, it was a >>> >> > symbolic machine lanugage which, IMO, isn't an assembler. >>> >> > >>> >> > Do you guys have a different "definition"? >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> Assemblers generate object code from source code with a 1:1 >>> correspondence >>> >> per instruction (e.g., each executable statement of source code ---in >>> other >>> >> words, not an assembler directive--- produces a single machine >>> >> instruction).....as opposed to, for example, compilers which >typically >>> >> generate multiple machine language instructions from each executable >>> >> statement of source code. >>> >> >>> >> Assemblers maintain a symbol table which allows you to refer to >storage >>> >> locations symbolically with a user-assigned label. The assembler >does >>> the >>> >> proper "bookkeeping" as it processes the source program to accurately >>> build >>> >> & maintain the table. >>> >> >>> >> Assemblers translate mnemonics for machine language instructions >>> (opcodes, >>> >> instruction formats, etc.) into the corresponding numeric values. >>> >> >>> >> Now how do **you** differentiate a symbolic machine language from an >>> >> assembler ? What additional/unique functionality must an assemble >offer >>> in >>> >> order to distinguish one from the other ? >>> > >>> >The original meaning of the word "assembly" should not be forgotten. >>> > >>> >Of course, _I_ don't know for sure the actual origins of the word, but >>> >the first context in which I encountered the word "assembly" was the >>> >Symbolic Optimal Assembly Program (SOAP) for the IBM 650. >>> > >>> >This was a drum machine, and part of every instruction was the address >>> >of the next instruction. That is, every instruction had an implicit >>> >"goto" as part of it. The reason was the CPU was not fast enough to >>> >execute intructions located at consecutive drum locations, so >>> >instructions were carefully located at just the right address so that >>> >each instruction would be reached just after the previous instruction >>> >had completed execution. This process was called "assembly." It was >>> >laborious to do this by hand, so assembly programs were devised to >>> >automate the process. >>> > >>> >Then someone came up with the spiffy notion of representing >instructions >>> >by alphabetical mnemonics instead of numeric codes (hence SYMBOLIC >>> >optimal assembly program). >>> > >>> >The word "assembly" gradually mutated to mean "the program that >>> >processes the output of the FORTRAN compiler" instead of "the program >>> >that puts the instructions onto the drum in the right place." >>> >>> But I never (well, except for the days when I was sloppy with >>> nomenclature) called "the program that processes the output >>> of the FORTRAN compiler" an assembly. That was linking and/or >>> loading. In addition, if code had to be massaged via a compiler, >>> I called it compiling...not assembling. >>> >>> Now, I do understand that DEC's usage of terms varied from >>> IBM's usage of terms. Often that was done on purpose to >>> distinguish DEC from IBM. I don't know what the general >>> usage was in the computing biz. But there is a difference >>> between assembling and linking. The fact that IBM tended >>> to do both in the same user step was a performance win >>> for us ;-). >> >>Further confusing the issue are the compilers that emit an assembly- >>language deck that must then be run through the assembler before being >>linked. > >Actually, I don't think that confuses things; if the kiddies had >to physically load a deck with each logical step of building an >executable, I would have most of the conversations that I've been >having :-). At the moment, there's a kid who thinks that >debugging "proves" a program has no errors and is citing Dijkstra >to support that claim. we had a trainee PRO-IV programmer who claimed that his program must work because it 'genned'! For those protected by morals or good fortune from PRO-IV it has functions *not* programs and they're 'genned' (generated) not compiled. > >> ..One of the first compilers I used on a micro was such a >>critter--I don't recall now if it was Microsoft Fortran or one of the >>various partial C implementations that were around at the time. >> >>This did have certain advantages--if you could stomach uncommented 8080 >>assembler written by a not very intelligent compiler it was a bit easier >>to fix compiler-generated bugs than it would have been if you had to >>patch a binary. And this was a good thing, because that compiler had >>more bugs than a termite mound. > >I bet you never thought that the ASCII program was getting executed >because you "saw" the interim machine language. The C-kiddies >are not seeing this. The script bunnies don't even seem to be >seeing letters (I don't understand how they can ignore this.. >they must have some exposure to html-ese). > >/BAH > >Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: Steve Burton Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:47:54 +0000 Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> <2n8ftuc68haj8pscrs925kk3ngksa109kl@4ax.com> <3DD84886.13320AE7@ev1.net> Reply-To: steve@sliderule.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: sliderule.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1037742444 4816 194.222.44.251 (19 Nov 2002 21:47:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:47:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121237 On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:58:33 GMT, Charles Richmond wrote: >Steve Burton wrote: >> >> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:40:57 GMT, Charles Richmond >> wrote: >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> >Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the >> >logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine >> >that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the >> >first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, >> >but it was *designed* for a computer... >> >> Tic-Tac-Toe? Noughts and Crosses, surely. >> >> Unless my translation matrix is wonky. >> >That is an acurate traslation into the "Queen's English". >I write mostly in "American English". My old electronics >have vacuum tubes instead of valves. My cooking pots are >made of aluminum instead of aluminium. Etc. Etc. Don't they leak? ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Wed, 20 Nov 02 12:33:05 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZesj76nnjslQ1YRmXzK173vWXom+HrrB5GOndinhODQ9vE9kcXMm4P X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Nov 2002 12:58:03 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!208-59-182-212 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121260 In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com>, mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: >In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >> [ ... ] At the moment, there's a kid who thinks that >>debugging "proves" a program has no errors and is citing Dijkstra >>to support that claim. > > Heh! Maybe the way Dijkstra used to do it, it did. Only if he were a compiler-thinker. I don't think he was an OS-thinking guy. > > Based on the last thing of his I read, a stricture >against anthropomorphic thinking in programming He's not alone. We had editors (and eventually writers) who thought that way, too. Of course, these were people who never babysat a cranky machine. > ..(and for >strict mathematical thinking only), I hesitate to mention >his name too much, like my other hero, Gen. Joseph Stilwell. >However highly I think of them, I doubt they'd think much of >me. Was Stilwell the guy in China? (I'm too pooped to go over to my shelf room to look it up. /ABH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: 20 Nov 02 09:32:19 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 21 Message-ID: <742.89T990T5724723@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-162.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!itgate.net!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121265 In article jmfbahciv@aol.com (jmfbahciv) writes: >In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com>, >mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: > >> Based on the last thing of his I read, a stricture >>against anthropomorphic thinking in programming > >He's not alone. We had editors (and eventually writers) >who thought that way, too. Of course, these were people >who never babysat a cranky machine. You shouldn't anthropomorphize computers. They don't like it. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at moc.subyks if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Message-ID: <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> Lines: 15 X-Newsreader: VSoup v1.2.9.37Beta [95/NT] Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:37:17 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.206.39.94 X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 1037764013 205.206.39.94 (Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:46:53 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:46:53 EST Organization: WorldCom Canada Ltd. News Reader Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!news.uunet.ca!nnrp1.uunet.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121255 In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > [ ... ] At the moment, there's a kid who thinks that >debugging "proves" a program has no errors and is citing Dijkstra >to support that claim. Heh! Maybe the way Dijkstra used to do it, it did. Based on the last thing of his I read, a stricture against anthropomorphic thinking in programming (and for strict mathematical thinking only), I hesitate to mention his name too much, like my other hero, Gen. Joseph Stilwell. However highly I think of them, I doubt they'd think much of me. Regards. Mel. ###### Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:24:55 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Message-ID: <20021120082455.0ea34527.steveo@eircom.net> References: <20021119202606.0fb6013c.steveo@eircom.net> X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.8.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 31 Organization: Wanadoo NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Nov 2002 17:59:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: i0674.vwr.wanadoo.nl X-Trace: DXC=[U0kjFHDobcchJ761m31;d1`\LnN2UYYaf_RWL5Aa8[dhC_lbVB6eNkkI4eVX;@=6mJ3`\;TAfaIb X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.nl Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!news-x2.support.nl!213.51.129.3.MISMATCH!newshub1.home.nl!home.nl!news2.euro.net!postnews1.euro.net!news.wanadoo.nl!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121275 On 19 Nov 2002 23:51:36 GMT peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: PDS> In article <20021119202606.0fb6013c.steveo@eircom.net>, PDS> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: PDS> > I think that OOP has much to answer for here, PDS> PDS> Combine that with RPC that makes network connections (high latency, PDS> low reliability) look like procedure calls (low latency, high PDS> reliability) when what you really have is a message passing PDS> interface, and middleware that hides the RPC behind a bunch of PDS> objects, you get software that bogs down outside the lab or worse PDS> hides the lateny behind a write-back mechanism so the application PDS> never knows when data is really committed... In short the kind of crud we see being touted as the way forward today. I sometimes tend to the cynical thought that the reason for SOAP, J2EE and all the rest is to make sure that people keep buying lots of hardware. I know of a case where a pair of aging Suns are about to be replaced by about 70 high spec PCs to cover about half the load currently on the Suns, it's not live yet so I don't even know if the 70 PCs will cope - there are doubts apparently. I could retire on the license fees for the software on those PCs for one year ... in extravagant luxury. -- C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see: | http://www.sohara.org/ ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Thu, 21 Nov 02 12:38:50 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> <742.89T990T5724723@kltpzyxm.invalid> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZ+FH/6bWbD7hi0/Cc4vWY00M4WtObhqaID9/XrSuW4smCBsdj/G/GQ X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Nov 2002 13:03:58 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!dca6-feed2.news.algx.net!allegiance!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-97-201 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121386 In article <742.89T990T5724723@kltpzyxm.invalid>, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: >In article jmfbahciv@aol.com (jmfbahciv) >writes: > >>In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com>, >>mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: >> >>> Based on the last thing of his I read, a stricture >>>against anthropomorphic thinking in programming >> >>He's not alone. We had editors (and eventually writers) >>who thought that way, too. Of course, these were people >>who never babysat a cranky machine. > >You shouldn't anthropomorphize computers. They don't like it. > ROTFLMAO. That is true. Fortunately, they don't read what I write; they just ship it. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Thu, 21 Nov 02 12:44:27 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZnyVdYpvoY9JDw/m/84bcA3GZWUXb7Ux5C94FlF3Fn7KkHcBmufs8t X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Nov 2002 13:09:36 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-97-201 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121383 In article , mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: >In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >>In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com>, >> mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: >>>In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >>>> [ ... ] At the moment, there's a kid who thinks that >>>>debugging "proves" a program has no errors and is citing Dijkstra >>>>to support that claim. >>> Heh! Maybe the way Dijkstra used to do it, it did. >> >>Only if he were a compiler-thinker. I don't think he >>was an OS-thinking guy. > > Never sure what you mean by these terms. For 25 years, I've been trying to define my terms in ASCII English. It's not meant to be disparaging; it's my description of programming style. > ..Can only >imagine that a compiler *could* be got to stand still while >you theorized about it. I'm only partly sure about that. I >never saw an O/S core dump move around while I read. I don't think TW would agree with that. He said, "Didn't happen" a number of times just before he deleted the crash. > >>> [ ... ] my other hero, Gen. Joseph Stilwell. >> >>Was Stilwell the guy in China? (I'm too pooped to go over to >>my shelf room to look it up. > > Yup. The patron general of lost causes, thankless tasks, >Schadenfreude, biting the radiator, eating the liver, the >computer biz, etc. Noble guy, until you look at him from >the point of view of Merrill's Marauders. Never think "If I >got into management, I'd do it all differently." My only exposure to him was Barbara Tuchman's book. It was the first time I learned that WWII was in China and realized that the Viet Nam War was a continuation of WWII. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Message-ID: References: <3DD343FC.E4213C87@ev1.net> <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> Lines: 29 X-Newsreader: VSoup v1.2.9.37Beta [95/NT] Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:32:34 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.206.39.126 X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 1037838252 205.206.39.126 (Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:24:12 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:24:12 EST Organization: WorldCom Canada Ltd. News Reader Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!news.uunet.ca!nnrp1.uunet.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121384 In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com>, > mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: >>In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >>> [ ... ] At the moment, there's a kid who thinks that >>>debugging "proves" a program has no errors and is citing Dijkstra >>>to support that claim. >> Heh! Maybe the way Dijkstra used to do it, it did. > >Only if he were a compiler-thinker. I don't think he >was an OS-thinking guy. Never sure what you mean by these terms. Can only imagine that a compiler *could* be got to stand still while you theorized about it. I'm only partly sure about that. I never saw an O/S core dump move around while I read. >> [ ... ] my other hero, Gen. Joseph Stilwell. > >Was Stilwell the guy in China? (I'm too pooped to go over to >my shelf room to look it up. Yup. The patron general of lost causes, thankless tasks, Schadenfreude, biting the radiator, eating the liver, the computer biz, etc. Noble guy, until you look at him from the point of view of Merrill's Marauders. Never think "If I got into management, I'd do it all differently." Regards. Mel. ###### From: bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Dragonhill Systems Ltd Lines: 14 Message-ID: <1037821276snz@dsl.co.uk> References: <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1037837566 20981 10.0.0.1 (21 Nov 2002 00:12:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:12:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from dsl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.92.150]) by news.demon.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18EexZ-0005SG-00 for mail2news@news.demon.co.uk; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:12:45 +0000 X-Path: dsl.co.uk!bhk X-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk X-Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.31 X-Lines: 13 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!feed.news.nacamar.de!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news2.euro.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!bhk Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121488 In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> mwilson@the-wire.com "Mel Wilson" writes: > his name too much, like my other hero, Gen. Joseph Stilwell. Isn't he the guy that said "Don't worry, they cannot possibly hit us from all the way over th..." -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr- easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <20021119202606.0fb6013c.steveo@eircom.net> From: Ric Werme X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #123 Lines: 34 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.108.156 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1037840333 24.128.108.156 (Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:58:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:58:53 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:58:56 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!attcg2!ip.att.net!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121322 peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <20021119202606.0fb6013c.steveo@eircom.net>, >Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >> I think that OOP has much to answer for here, >Combine that with RPC that makes network connections (high latency, low >reliability) look like procedure calls (low latency, high reliability) >when what you really have is a message passing interface, and middleware >that hides the RPC behind a bunch of objects, you get software that bogs >down outside the lab or worse hides the lateny behind a write-back mechanism >so the application never knows when data is really committed... Hey. I work on NFS you know, network connections (or UDP) access by system calls (for I/O operations) and what you have is a message passing interface that bogs down outside of the internal LAN. Fortunately NFS V3 has a COMMIT call to tell the server it's time to get the data to disk. Which might mean another RPC to some other node in a cluster that has the real access to the file system. On the other hand, it only takes a couple Alphas and good storage to saturate a Gigabit Ethernet link. Doing that on a clustered system is a bit harder! Of course, the object-oriented stuff to call the right file system, network transport, and data representation code is just C structs with dispatch tables. And, a real OOP-zealot would be horrified I just called that OOP, but c'est la vie. -Ric Werme -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. Ric Werme http://ewerme.home.attbi.com/ | ewerme@xxxxx.com see also http://dcyf.home.attbi.com/ | Change xxxxx to attbi ###### From: greymaus Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: 21 Nov 2002 19:19:18 GMT Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> <1037821276snz@dsl.co.uk> Reply-To: greymaus@yahoo.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 159.134.255.127 X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1037906358 20073257 159.134.255.127 (16 [132592]) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.2 (Linux) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!159.134.255.127!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121440 In article <1037821276snz@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote: > In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> > mwilson@the-wire.com "Mel Wilson" writes: > >> his name too much, like my other hero, Gen. Joseph Stilwell. > > Isn't he the guy that said "Don't worry, they cannot possibly hit us from > all the way over th..." > No, That was a civil war General, and I think that the quote was ,"They couldn't hit an elephant from th...". Vinager Joe was the one who warned of the danger of paying bribes to the Chinese generals. -- Greymaus; Follow up, don't e-mail, my killfile is savage; ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games References: <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> <1037821276snz@dsl.co.uk> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) From: root@acer.reistad.priv.no (Charlie Root) Originator: root@acer.reistad.priv.no (Charlie Root) Message-ID: Lines: 21 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:30:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.186.246.195 X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.no X-Trace: news01.chello.no 1037921400 212.186.246.195 (Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:30:00 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:30:00 MET Organization: chello broadband Norway X-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:30:00 MET (news01.chello.no) 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-stu1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.f.de.plusline.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!news01.chello.no!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:121436 According to greymaus : >In article <1037821276snz@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote: >> In article <9Dq29ks/KvTF089yn@the-wire.com> >> mwilson@the-wire.com "Mel Wilson" writes: >> >>> his name too much, like my other hero, Gen. Joseph Stilwell. >> >> Isn't he the guy that said "Don't worry, they cannot possibly hit us from >> all the way over th..." >> > >No, That was a civil war General, and I think that the quote was >,"They couldn't hit an elephant from th...". Union Major-General John B. Sedgewick; near the Spotsylvania courthouse in May 1864. Here's a picture : -- Morten Reistad With applogies for bringing in facts to a.f.c. ###### From: Sam Yorko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Early computer games Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:25:48 -0800 Lines: 40 Message-ID: <3DE6FA5C.7C0C95A7@computer.org> References: <3DD76367.DDA066CB@ev1.net> <3dd878f3$0$12758$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: w034.z065106070.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net (65.106.70.34) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038547543 25816954 65.106.70.34 (16 [71567]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!feedme.news.mediaways.net!news1.dtag.de!news.comcity.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!w034.z065106070.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.NET!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:122384 Ross Simpson wrote: > > "J. Clarke" wrote in message... > > > > > > > Charles Richmond wrote: > > > > > Seems like I read that Ada or Babbage had worked out the > > > > > logic for a Tic-Tac-Toe game...for the analytical machine > > > > > that Babbage *never* finished. Would that count as the > > > > > first computer game??? I know, it *never* ran on a computer, > > > > > but it was *designed* for a computer... > > > > > > > > If they indeed did such a thing, I'd presume that the group that > completed > > > > Babbage's Analytical Engine a few years ago must have tried running > it. > > > > > > They completed just one small part of it, not a fully working machine. > > > > Actually, they completed a Difference Engine, which is a different > > machine from the Analytical Engine. > > Difference Engine No 2 to be exact (back in 1991). > > It's such a pity that a machine like the Analytical Engine which follows > some of the concepts of computers today had to be lost when Babbage passed > on. If I correctly recall from what I read the funding of this machine was > very tight (due to the possibilities of the project being abandoned & money > wasted), but no-one will ever be sure if this machine would have worked (I > would have liked to think so) if it was completed. > > With Regards, > Ross. I heard rumors that Nathan Myhrvold was commissioning the construction of a working mill, but it looks like he just donated money to build the printing unit for the Difference engine #2. Pity. If I had his bucks, that's one of the things I'd do. Sam