murlocker@watdcsu.UUCP (murlocker) (03/02/85)
I'm looking for information for someone on an affordable apl system for an IBM-PC, 256k, graphics display, and preferably 1 drive. I'm told that Watcom has a $50 apl environment... has anyone used it? Also, I've seen ads for STSC's Pocket*Apl for $95. It doesn't have to be full apl, or exceptionally fast, as long as its a useful subset for learning, and compatible with the standard apl texts... The catch is, it has to be under $100, and not require any extra hardware (ie 8087, extra RAM, or character generator). If anyone's interested, I'll post a summary. Thanks in advance... mark
ogasawar@noscvax.UUCP (Todd H. Ogasawara) (03/06/85)
> I'm looking for information for someone on an affordable apl system > for an IBM-PC, 256k, graphics display, and preferably 1 drive. > I think STSC's Pocket APL may be a good way to go. My understanding is that you can upgrade to their full package (STSC APL*PLUS/PC) for some reasonable cost (maybe the difference in price between the two packages). I have not seen the pocket version (which, I am told lacks such niceties as a full screen editor, large workspace capability, and most of the PLUS' extensions -- like graphics) but suspect it is the way to go for someone 1. unsure about APL 2. on a budget 3. considering upgrading once (1) is changed from 'unsure' to 'certain' ...todd { insert standard disclaimers here; these are only *my* opinions } Todd Ogasawara Computer Sciences Corp. at NOSC-Hawaii Laboratories ihnp4 \ decvax >---!sdcsvax!noscvax!ogasawar ucbvax / ogasawar@nosc
vlv@drux1.UUCP (Vaughn Vernon) (03/15/85)
--- >I'm looking for information for someone on an affordable apl system >for an IBM-PC, 256k, graphics display, and preferably 1 drive. >I'm told that Watcom has a $50 apl environment... has anyone used it? >Also, I've seen ads for STSC's Pocket*Apl for $95. >It doesn't have to be full apl, or exceptionally fast, as long as its >a useful subset for learning, and compatible with the standard apl texts... >The catch is, it has to be under $100, and not require any extra hardware >(ie 8087, extra RAM, or character generator). >If anyone's interested, I'll post a summary. >Thanks in advance... mark --- Sorry to post this but I have no mail path to you. Why don't you try the I.P. Sharp APL/PC? They are almost in your backyard anyway. APL/PC is about $75 (U.S.) and the character ROM is another $25. It gives you an ASM interface and emulates 370/APL very well. My wife used to work for CITIBANC N.A. (a Sharp shop) who were beta test and she and the other wizards said it blew STSC away. You may have to up your RAM a little. I think the minimum config. is 512K (a small price for this system). If you only have one disk drive you may want to consider a second. You don't need one. It is a full APL package and the manule is outstanding. The char ROM is optional but if you are used to looking at APL characters then it's the only way to go. P.S. the system is written in non other than the "C" Language! Trivia question: where did STSC sprouted from ? Vaughn Vernon AT&T ISL Denver, CO.
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/19/85)
In article <41@drux1.UUCP> vlv@drux1.UUCP (Vaughn Vernon) writes: >P.S. the system is written in non other than the >"C" Language! >Trivia question: where did STSC sprouted from ? Where did the company come from? They've been around for quite a while, producing APL for 370s, VAXen, etc. Where did the APL/PLUS*PC come from? It was written in assembler (nothing against C, but assembler runs faster). Note: I have no affiliation with STSC, but I have used their APL and am very impressed. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) (03/21/85)
STSC started in the late 60's (around '69, I think) in the midst of IBM's policy of malign neglect toward APL. APL had the misfortune to appear at about the same time that PL/I did. What, you don't see the connection? Well, the large entrenched PL/I effort at IBM saw a threat for some reason... Anyway, STSC hired off some of the gurus (notably Larry Breed) who had done APL\360 and put 'em to work doing a commercial version of the APL Big Blue was refusing to support (much less develop). APL*Plus was the first result. As near as I can tell, STSC was a startup at the time, with the explicit goal of making APL commercial. =Ned=
ljdickey@watmath.UUCP (Lee Dickey) (03/21/85)
> P.S. the system is written in non other than the > "C" Language! This claim surprises me. Can you support it?
mason@utcsri.UUCP (Dave Mason) (03/23/85)
I have a friend who works at I.P.Sharp Associates and in fact worked on the
IBM PC version of Sharp APL. The APL interpreter is actually the same as the
one that runs on 3084 and such like mainframes, i.e. it is written in S/370
assembler language. There is an interpreter for S/370 machine language
written in 8086 assembler which actually gets reasonable performance. The
support routines (such as the screen manager, session manager, and possibly the
file manager) are written in C running in 8086 mode.
This is probably the most complete APL you can get, from the industry leader
and at a bargain price too! If I owned an IBM PC, it's probably the first
software I would buy for it.
--
Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision
utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver}
!utcsri!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRI
CSNET: mason@Toronto
ARPA: mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relayljdickey@watmath.UUCP (Lee Dickey) (03/23/85)
Informed sources tell me that for Sharp APL running on the IBM PC:
(1) The emulator and session manager were written in 808x assembler code.
(2) The APL interpreter is ye olde 370 assembler code.
(3) The music AP was written in 808x assembler code, mostly to show an
example of how to write an AP.
(4) All the other APs, the SVP, and the file system, were written in C.
Did you know that you got a 370 emulator with the package?
The APL is the same as on the production system.
A bargain at twice the price.tsc2597@acf4.UUCP (Sam Chin) (03/24/85)
<<<>>>
Many years ago I seem to recall that STSC was started by people who left
IP Sharp. Although I haven't used APL for many years, I also remember
that STSC APL was much more convenient to use for file handling than
APL/360 because they used "quad" functions instead of "shared variables".
APL has apparently no standard defined file i/o interface (Has anyone
standardized it?). Although I have not used any PC APL's, I played with
STSC's APL PLUS system when it was being beta tested on VAX/VMS and it looked
excellent with a full screen editor and all (The APL characters were
generated on a DEC GIGI terminal). They also had a curious extension to APL
called APLGOL which added ALGOL like constructs (while loops etc) to APL.
I seem to recall a big debate once on major extensions to APL (numerous new
incredibly powerful functions and allowing mixed data types and strings
within single objects). I know IBM was working on it and that STSC announced
a product but did it catch on? Do any of the PC versions implement these
new functions? Is there a version of APL which will work with a generic
MS-DOS machine? If so I would probably get one. I don't care about full
screen editing or communications.
I have fond memories of creating monstrously difficult code in APL. It seemed
more of an art than with any other language. Although I have found a language
where you can write a bubble sort in a single line (without using a built in
sort function) and it is called SETL (Set Theoretic Language) and was
designed and implemented at NYU.
Sam Chin
UUCP:allegra!cmcl2!acf4!tsc2597
ARPAnet:tsc2597.acf4@nyu