Talk:Autocode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

So how "high level" were any of the Autocodes? How "high level" was the first one? I know 1401 Autocoder is very Assembly-like, not high level. The FOLDOC says for Autocode:

1. The assembly language accepted by AUTOCODER.
2. A generic term for symbolic assembly language. Versions of Autocode were developed for Ferranti Atlas, Titan, Mercury and Pegasus and IBM 702 and IBM 705.

"Algol-like" is mentioned, which seems high level. Were these exceptional, with most being assembly-like? -R. S. Shaw 04:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Titan (and IIRC Edsac) Autocode was broadly comparable with Fortran IV, without the 'orrible I/O format statements and without a facility for separate assembly of subroutines (again from memory). It did however have a 'Copy' facility for introducing lines of assembler into the program (eg the infamous 'extracodes' of Titan/Atlas). Even a thicko-physicist could use it... (I've still got my reference manual somewhere) Linuxlad 07:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)