Talk:Autocode

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? 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)Reply

Most Autocodes were relatively simple languages - the Algol-like comment is probably referring to Atlas Autocode, which - despite the name - is not really a classic autocode: it's a full programming language very similar to Algol and the use of Autocode in its name can be seen with hindsight as a tactical mistake.

There is actually one more classic autocode that few people are aware of, and the reason it was never mentioned along with the traditional autocodes was that it was described as a "high-level assembler" rather than an autocode. That system is HAL - described in https://gtoal.com/history.dcs.ed.ac.uk/archive/docs/CSRs/CSR-29-78-HAL70.pdf with a real-life example of its use in https://gtoal.com/history.dcs.ed.ac.uk/archive/os/isys+legos/legos.hal (legos was a small kernel (less than 1700 bytes) for an Interdata 74) If you compare HAL against most of the Autocodes you'll see a strong resemblance. The only significant difference that I can see is that HAL implements many of its facilities using macros whereas the autocodes generally don't have any macro support. 70.124.38.160 (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply