Was FORTRAN buggy 4354
Was FORTRAN buggy 4355
LarryWeiss on the Perq My guess would be that if the Perq people had come from a unix background, the loader (and the object file format) might not have the ability...
Was FORTRAN buggy 4356
As with the question of the storage medium for the compiler (elsewhere in this thread) bugginess is usually more related to an implementation than a language, unless the language specifications result in a functional ambiguity...
Same for me, about the same time, but I can't remember the details. I can't remember loading the compiler for each program. Is it possible that, once loaded, it remained resident to process multiple jobs?
No, there wasn't enough memory to hold the compiler and the program. Even if there were, there was no memory protection.
The IBM 1620 (model I) came in three flavors, 20,000 digits, 40,000 digits, and 60,000 digits. Most 1620's had 20 or 40,000 digits.
Kingston FORTRAN II (as opposed to the IBM Fortran II) was a one-pbutt compiler (due to effective use of inderect addressing). When we later got IBM 2311 disk drives (I think?, that model id may be wrong), the Kingston FORTRAN II came with its own monitor and was disk resident. The last thing a program did (as it STOPped) was to call the monitor back into memory (core).
If not (either the program looped or whatever), one just "IPL'ed" a very short card deck, I think it was 3 or 5 cards to call the monitor from disk. One heck of a FORTRAN compiler --- for the most part, it ran at card reader speed. Gerard S.