Browse Prior Art Database

HIGH-LEVEL LANGUAGE TRANSLATION I N SYMBOL 2R

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000127987D
Original Publication Date: 1973-Dec-31
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2005-Sep-14
Document File: 7 page(s) / 28K

Publishing Venue

Software Patent Institute

Related People

James W. Anderberg: AUTHOR [+4]

Abstract

The SYMBOL 2R Computing System represents an attempt to bridge the gap between machine lan-guages and higher level programming languages. This gap has always limited the users' ability to communicate with the machine, thus creating a communication problem. Early attempts at solving this communication problem consisted of developing a series of user=oriented programming languages, i.e., assembler languages and higher level lan-guages, supplemented with a host of translator programs that would transform the higher level languages into machine language. For several years it seemed that this approach represented the only economically feasible solution. In 1965, W. H. Burkhardt (2) suggested the development of high-level language computers but also listed the following arguments against such an approach:

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 14% of the total text.

Page 1 of 7

THIS DOCUMENT IS AN APPROXIMATE REPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL.

HIGH-LEVEL LANGUAGE TRANSLATION I N SYMBOL 2R

James W. Anderberg Carol L. Smith

October 1973 This paper was presented at the Symposium on the High-Level Language Computer Architecture University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland November 1973

I. INTRODUCTION

The SYMBOL 2R Computing System represents an attempt to bridge the gap between machine lan-guages and higher level programming languages. This gap has always limited the users' ability to communicate with the machine, thus creating a communication problem. Early attempts at solving this communication problem consisted of developing a series of user=oriented programming languages, i.e., assembler languages and higher level lan-guages, supplemented with a host of translator programs that would transform the higher level languages into machine language. For several years it seemed that this approach represented the only economically feasible solution. In 1965, W. H. Burkhardt (2) suggested the development of high-level language computers but also listed the following arguments against such an approach:

(1) The inappropriateness of contemporary programming languages as candidates for high-level machine languages.

(2) The high cost of the circuitry required to implement a high-level machine language.

Burkhardt did suggest that the availability of low cost components would make high-level lan- guage computers an economically feasible solution. In fact, the recent decline in the cost of com-ponents as compared with the steady, if not in-creasing cost of the software needed to develop and maintain compilers for high-level languages, has made the high-level language computer so-lution seem even more attractive.

In selecting a language for implementation, the designers of SYMBOL 2R also maintained that contemporary high-level languages were unsuitable candidates (3). The decision was therefore made to design the SYMBOL Programming Language (SPL)

1J. W. Anderberg is employed by the Engineering Research Institute at Iowa State University. His work on the SYMBOL 2R project is supported by the National Science Foundation grant GJ- 33097X.

2C. L. Smith is employed by Ames Laboratory, USAEC Her work on the SYMBOL 2R project is supported by the Atomic Energy Commission under contract W-7405-eng-82. for implementation. The main objective in design-ing SPL was to create a high-level language that was as powerful as PL/I or ALGOL 60, but to avoid the ambiguities and irregularities present in these languages. SPL was also designed to be a general purpose language as opposed to a'problem-oriented language designed to handle a specific type of problem. The reader is- referred to the accompaning paper on SPL (5) for a further dis-cussion on the nature of the language chosen for implementation on SYMBOL.

Iowa State University Page 1 Dec 31, 1973

Page 2 of 7

HIGH-LEVEL LANGUAGE TRANSLATION I N SYMBOL 2R

The translation of SPL programs is...