Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:03:10 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <20250227080310.0000604d@gmail.com>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks>
	<1smdnSjX3YoxgWf7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com>
	<llv30aFa6uvU3@mid.individual.net>
	<vde4b8$268qv$22@dont-email.me>
	<1396870532.749421730.052473.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
	<wrapper-20241001111737@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<vpl5uk$hhk$3@reader1.panix.com>
	<vpl91g$25q46$1@dont-email.me>
	<1976765442.762208809.808387.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
	<20250225130315.00004e34@gmail.com>
	<lhqvP.1323465$if26.592741@fx13.iad>
	<20250225132209.00006cdd@gmail.com>
	<1517019530.762216070.153616.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
	<vpli68$26ur1$6@dont-email.me>
	<20250225151941.00007598@gmail.com>
	<vplkru$27ttj$2@dont-email.me>
	<mddfrk08b0z.fsf@panix5.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:03:14 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a56aac0e73bcc211f19f3a3d772b4546";
	logging-data="3338237"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LUWLO8TK8czVZFvn0F/4EN47SuSunPAI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zXAibYZ6KjBBKfPbBQzQF6BrZR4=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2453

On 26 Feb 2025 19:51:56 -0500
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

> >>> I wonder why DEC's 18-bit range weren't more popular; though I
> >>> think they had less consistency between members of the range than
> >>> DEC's other product families.  
> 
> >> I suspect that, in the computer market of the early '60s, they
> >> ended up as the awkward middle child  ...  
> 
> Mr. Ames's suspicion is unfounded.  The 18 bit systems were neither
> awkward nor unsuccessful.

I yield to those with firsthand knowledge - but I do wonder about their
eventual abandonment (per Wikipedia, the last -15 was produced in 1979,)
when both the -8 and -10 were supported well into the early '80s.