Re: 360 Revolution - A 40th anniversary celebration and inside look

Lee Courtney wrote:

> YOU ARE INVITED TO A FASCINATING MILESTONE EVENT...
>
> "360 REVOLUTION"

Wow! This is a must!


Thanks,


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Art Young wrote:
> I worked at the Poughkeepsie plant when that happened , it was quite a pro
ject.
>
> Did anyone notice the address where the museum is "1401" ?
>
> Now how many people remember what a "1401" was ?
>
>
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message news:<c41ul618hs@enew
s4.newsguy.com>...
> 
>
>
> Art Young Boulder


I had two... one with 4k and one with 12.

How big was yours?

(no comment.)


Remember the 1410 or 1440?
or a 1710 or 1620?
700 and 7000 series machines?
Bendex G15?

I think I date myself if I admitted to knowing what
Card Tabulation equipment was - 401, 410 printers -
81, 83 sorters - 027, 029 keypunches

Don't remember the model number for the collating punch or the
one that printed 40 columns on the top of a 80 column card deck.

I do remember the look on a buddies face when I offered to "print"
his card deck, and I handed him back a laced deck from the card repro
punch (after swapping hands when he wasn't looking).

I even remember watching a 650 running - but I never programmed it.

All right, so I am older than the hills...

...but then I walked xx Miles to school and back again, barefoot, in the
freezing snow up to my waist, uphill, both ways in a hurricane.  <grin>


40 years and running - and I still enjoy solving problems...

Happy 30th, "MVS"!

--


*******  -..-..-.. *** -..-..-.. *** -..-..-.. ***   -. * .  *******
***  Please remove the dashes and abracadabra magic to email me. ***
***  /s/ Bill Turner, Wb4alm                                     ***
*******  -..- * -... * ....- * .- * .-.. * --  ****  .- -.-   ******

Art Young wrote:

> I worked at the Poughkeepsie plant when that happened , it was quite a project.[/c
olor]

> Did anyone notice the address where the museum is "1401" ?

> Now how many people remember what a "1401" was ?

They were lucky.  It is a building previously owned by
Silicon Graphics, and already had that number.

Then again, if you try hard enough you can find a connection
between any number and a historical computer of some kind.

It would be nice if they had a running 1401, though.

-- glen

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:56:36 -0400
"George Weiss" <gfweiss@teamtechsystems.com> wrote:

:Speaking of the 1620 - is that the model that was nicknamed the CADET?  It
:stood for "Can't Add - Doesn't Even Try" because it had no math processor
:and used table lookup instead.

That is, indeed, the story which I always heard.

James L. Ryan wrote:
> I have been told (but I have never confirmed) that the instruction set for
> the 360 was described/defined in "Iverson notation" which we all know was 
the
> foundation from which APL emerged.
>
> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>
I believe you are mistaken; if I recall it was the Vienna Definition Languag
e.

James L. Ryan wrote:
> I have been told (but I have never confirmed) that the instruction set for
> the 360 was described/defined in "Iverson notation" which we all know was 
the
> foundation from which APL emerged.
>
> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Falkoff, Iverson, and Sussenguth, "A Formal Description of System/360",
IBM Sys J, Vol 3 No 3, pp 198-261 (1064).  It's in the FAQ ...

James J. Weinkam wrote:
> James L. Ryan wrote:
> 
> I believe you are mistaken; if I recall it was the Vienna Definition
> Language.
>
Sorry, my mistake; VDL was used for a formal definition of PL/I.

I thought I remembered reading a formal description of the 360 by Gene Amdah
l
and others, but perhaps I am confusing who wrote what 40 years ago.

Michael J Kingston wrote:
> In article <c6ibd7$pbu$1@morgoth.sfu.ca>, jjw@cs.sfu.ca (James J. Weinkam)
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> James L Ryan's account is correct. In Product Planning at Hursley I recall
> reading that description. Vienna Definition Language was a contemporary,
> and was used to some extent (or even a considerable extent - not qualified
> to know) in the development of PL/1.

Right.  I was momentarily .  The VDL was used to specify the semanti
cs
of PL/I.  I realized that a few hours after I posted my original message, an
d
posted a correction.  So many momentous things were appearing at the same
time, and after forty years it's all turning into a blur.  However I still
think there was also a formal description of the 360 by Gene Amdahl and
several other people whose names I don't remember that appeared about the sa
me
time, in addition to the one James L. Ryan cited by Iverson et al, but using
 a
different formalism.  Does anyone else remember such a thing?  I can picture
the article, but unfortunately, my copy is long gone.

If I had a nickel for every article or book that I lent to a student and nev
er
got back, I could retire.  Omygosh, I am retired, but where are all those ni
ckels?

In message <c6ngg9$lr2$1@morgoth.sfu.ca> - "James J. Weinkam"
<jjw@cs.sfu.ca>Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:46:48 -0700 writes:
>
>Michael J Kingston wrote: 
>
>Right.  I was momentarily .  The VDL was used to specify the semant
ics
>of PL/I.  I realized that a few hours after I posted my original message, a
nd
>posted a correction.  So many momentous things were appearing at the same
>time, and after forty years it's all turning into a blur.  However I still
>think there was also a formal description of the 360 by Gene Amdahl and
>several other people whose names I don't remember that appeared about the s
ame
>time, in addition to the one James L. Ryan cited by Iverson et al, but usin
g a
>different formalism.  Does anyone else remember such a thing?  I can pictur
e
>the article, but unfortunately, my copy is long gone.
>
>If I had a nickel for every article or book that I lent to a student and ne
ver
>got back, I could retire.  Omygosh, I am retired, but where are all those nickels?[
/color]

I am not sure it is the one to which you refer, but there was an article by
A. D. Falkoff, K. E. Iverson, and E. H. Sussenguth, "A format description of
SYSTEM/360" published in the 1964 IBM System Journal, Vol. 3, No 3. It is a
lengthy article of prose and APL notation.

Numbers 2 & 3 were in the same physical volume, and number 2 had a series of
articles under the heading "The sturcture of SYSTEM/360"

The preface to the Falfoff, Iverson and Sussenguth article read:

All SYSTEM/360 functional characteristics having programming significance
are completely and concisely described.  The description, which is formal
rather than verbal, is accomplished by a set of programs, interacting
through
common variables, used in conjunction with auxillary tables. - The language
used in the programs involves operators and notation selected from
mathematics
and logic, together with additional operators and conventions defined to
facilitate system description.

As I said, I am not sure if this is the one to which you refer.

Bob