Re: 360 Revolution - A 40th anniversary celebration and inside look at the $5 billion bet that changed computing and business forever.

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

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 Language.

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 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
> 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 Amdahl
and others, but perhaps I am confusing who wrote what 40 years ago.

In article <c6ibvo$cckrk$1@ID-134751.news.uni-berlin.de>, mkent@acm.org
(Mike Kent) wrote:

> 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 ...
>
For info, my copy is IBM Form Number 321-0001. It's Volume Three, Numbers
Two and Three. I have a faint recollection that this is a reprint,
combining two and three, previously published as separate volumes.

In article <c6ibd7$pbu$1@morgoth.sfu.ca>, jjw@cs.sfu.ca (James J. Weinkam)
wrote:

> 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
> Language.
>
>
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.

Michael J Kingston wrote:
> In article <c6ibd7$pbu$1@morgoth.sfu.ca>, jjw@cs.sfu.ca (James J. Weinkam)
> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>>Language.
>>
>>
>
> 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 confused. The VDL was used to specify the semantics
of PL/I. I realized that a few hours after I posted my original message, and
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 same
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 never
got back, I could retire. Omygosh, I am retired, but where are all those nickels?

In message <c6ngg9$lr2$1@morgoth.sfu.ca> - "James J. Weinkam"
<jjw@cs.sfu.ca>Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:46:48 -0700 writes:
>
>Michael J Kingston wrote:
>> In article <c6ibd7$pbu$1@morgoth.sfu.ca>, jjw@cs.sfu.ca (James J. Weinkam)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>Language.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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 confused. The VDL was used to specify the semantics
>of PL/I. I realized that a few hours after I posted my original message, and
>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 same
>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 never
>got back, I could retire. Omygosh, I am retired, but where are all those nickels?

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