GECOM(ID:411/gec002)
GE Hybrid language system
for GEneral COMpiler
General Electric 1961 for the GE-255.
Hybrid language system comprised of ALGOL, COBOL, FRINGE and TABSOL. Rumour that FRINGE and TABSOL may not have actually been implemented is incorrect - TABSOL part of GE in 1963 BRL file.
from BRL manifest
"GECOM - A General Compiler, in English, with a COBOL language foundation. It includes many ALGOL features (subscripting, evaluation of Boolean and algebraic expressions, floating point calculations, etc.). GECOM accepts a source program from cards or magnetic tape and produces an object program on either media."
Places
Structures:
Related languages
| COBOL | => | GECOM | Evolution of | |
| GECOM | => | FRINGE | Subsystem | |
| GECOM | => | IDS | Subsystem of | |
| GECOM | => | TABSOL | Subsystem of |
References:
A UNIQUE CONCEPT IN COMPUTER COMMUNICATION
now available in the GE 225 ... and future General Electric general-purpose computers.
? processes COBOL, ALGOL and TABSOL
? all problem statements easily read and understood
? extended usage... re-programming unnecessary
? programs produced faster... more efficiently
GECOM?the first truly GENERAL COMPILER SYSTEM ?introduces a fresh, versatile approach to computer communication. Developed for the GE 225 computer, the GENERAL COMPILER makes available all of the various proved programming techniques in one consistent, compact package. No longer is it necessary to learn a dozen different programming systems to handle a full range of jobs effectively?each job is approached in exactly the same way, be it formula evaluation, a sort, or even a payroll. The language for describing any run is consistent, operating procedures and programming are standard, and documentation is readable and easily understood.
THE GENERAL COMPILER PROVIDES:
A FAMILIAR LANGUAGE STRUCTURE
Problems need not be stated in machine code. The GENERAL COMPILER processes English language statements (COBOL), Algebraic expressions (ALGOL) , and Structure Tables (TABSOL) . It permits you to use all or any one of the computer languages ... as your needs require. Still, you have available the capability to expand, use other languages and new techniques as your needs change.
A PROVED, ACCURATE CODER
Data Description and Problem Logic may be written in one, two, or a combination of the available languages producing a machine program of efficient, effective coding. Since the machine coding is derived directly from the logic of the problem statement, it is only at the logic level that debugging may have to be done.
A STANDARDIZED, UNDERSTANDABLE DOCUMENTATION
Because GENERAL COMPILER problems are written in familiar languages, they can be easily read and understood. In addition, problem format provides a high degree of standardization. Programs written for today's machines in GECOM format can be used for future General Electric computers?eliminating the need for re-programming.
AN EFFICIENT, ECONOMICAL USE OF COMPUTERS
Personnel training time and expense are sharply reduced .since the novice programmer may use the familiar terminology of his profession. Manual coding is eliminated and debugging cut to a minimum. Thus, a machine program may be produced much faster and more efficiently than by present manual methods.
THE GENERAL COMPILER is ANOTHER GENERAL ELECTRIC FIRST!
in [JCC 19] Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference, May 1961 view details
in Symbolic Languages in Data Processing, in the Proceedings of the Symposium organized and edited by the International Computation Centre, Rome, Italy, March 2631, 1962, Gordon and Beech Science Publishers, 1962. view details
in Symbolic Languages in Data Processing, in the Proceedings of the Symposium organized and edited by the International Computation Centre, Rome, Italy, March 2631, 1962, Gordon and Beech Science Publishers, 1962. view details
in Datamation 9(7) July 1964 view details
in ACM Computing Reviews 5(01) January-February 1964 view details
in ACM Computing Reviews 5(01) January-February 1964 view details
The GECOM system for the GE-225 was supposed to be based on COBOL-61, but there were enough changes to it, and elements deleted from and added to it, so that GECOM is worth describing very briefly. The additions are based primarily on ALGOL., either in syntax or in function. (It is assumed that the reader is familiar with both COBOL and ALGOL.) At the beginning of an article by Katz [KX62], who led the development of GECOM, he states "GECOM, the General Compiler for the GE-225 is not a new source language, but rather a compiling technique. It's [sic] sourcelanguage is made up of four parts: ALGOL, COBOL, FRINGE, and TABSOL. The construction of the compiler is such that languages can be added, extended or removed. {2} (TABSOL is a language for decision tables and FRINGE is defined by Katz as "a problem oriented language for sorting and merging of data, writing reports, and file maintenance" {3}) The specifications given in the manual [GZ61] make no mention of the latter two languages, so their exact usage is unclear to me. They are shown in a diagram contained in an article by Schwalb [SB63] discussing GECOM usage, but apparently they were not actually available because he indicates that a report writer would be desirable in GECOM and in future compilers.
Some of the changes to COBOL are
1. Data names cannot exceed 12 characters and cannot contain all numerals and the letter E. 2. Data descriptions are given in a fixed format on a printed form. 3. Several verbs are omitted, both by name and function, e.g., EXAMINE, USE, INCLUDE. 4. Several verbs have functional capabilities changed or omitted or they incorporate those from others, e.g., OPEN, CLOSE, READ, WRITE (but no ACCEPT or DISPLAY), and PERFORM (see under extensions). 5. No THEN clause is allowed in the IF statement; the latter is only of the form IF... GO TO ....
Among the more significant extensions are
1. Subscripts can be arithmetic expressions and can be subscripted. 2. Floating point numbers and arithmetic. 3 Eight elementary mathematical functions. 4. Sections specify input and output formal parameters and use a BEGIN .. END to identify the body of code. 5. The PERFORM verb specifies parameter passage for sections. The loop control function is performed by a new verb called VARY, but it is much weaker than the COBOL PERFORM. 6. Additional file description entries. 7. A verb to EXCHANGE the contents of two fields.
It should be clear, even from this very brief outline, that GECOM syntactically resembles no particular language. It is not enough like COBOL to be considered a dialect or even COBOL-like, and it is much further from ALGOL. The flavor and spirit resemble COBOL, but that is all that can be said for the resemblance. From the viewpoint of the functions it performs, the designers chose the features from both languages which they felt werenecessary. I wonder whether the ideas expressed and methods suggested in Sammet [SM61] for combining ALGOL and COBOL might have helped the GECOM designers come closer to both languages if my referenced work had been completed first. Both sets of ideas were being developed at about the same time but quite independently.
{2} Katz [KX62], p. 495. {3} Katz [KX62], p. 495.
in ACM Computing Reviews 5(01) January-February 1964 view details
in ACM Computing Reviews 5(01) January-February 1964 view details
[321 programming languages with indication of the computer manufacturers, on whose machinery the appropriate languages are used to know. Register of the 74 computer companies; Sequence of the programming languages after the number of manufacturing firms, on whose plants the language is implemented; Sequence of the manufacturing firms after the number of used programming languages.]
in ACM Computing Reviews 5(01) January-February 1964 view details
The exact number of all the programming languages still in use, and those which are no longer used, is unknown. Zemanek calls the abundance of programming languages and their many dialects a "language Babel". When a new programming language is developed, only its name is known at first and it takes a while before publications about it appear. For some languages, the only relevant literature stays inside the individual companies; some are reported on in papers and magazines; and only a few, such as ALGOL, BASIC, COBOL, FORTRAN, and PL/1, become known to a wider public through various text- and handbooks. The situation surrounding the application of these languages in many computer centers is a similar one.
There are differing opinions on the concept "programming languages". What is called a programming language by some may be termed a program, a processor, or a generator by others. Since there are no sharp borderlines in the field of programming languages, works were considered here which deal with machine languages, assemblers, autocoders, syntax and compilers, processors and generators, as well as with general higher programming languages.
The bibliography contains some 2,700 titles of books, magazines and essays for around 300 programming languages. However, as shown by the "Overview of Existing Programming Languages", there are more than 300 such languages. The "Overview" lists a total of 676 programming languages, but this is certainly incomplete. One author ' has already announced the "next 700 programming languages"; it is to be hoped the many users may be spared such a great variety for reasons of compatibility. The graphic representations (illustrations 1 & 2) show the development and proportion of the most widely-used programming languages, as measured by the number of publications listed here and by the number of computer manufacturers and software firms who have implemented the language in question. The illustrations show FORTRAN to be in the lead at the present time. PL/1 is advancing rapidly, although PL/1 compilers are not yet seen very often outside of IBM.
Some experts believe PL/1 will replace even the widely-used languages such as FORTRAN, COBOL, and ALGOL.4) If this does occur, it will surely take some time - as shown by the chronological diagram (illustration 2) .
It would be desirable from the user's point of view to reduce this language confusion down to the most advantageous languages. Those languages still maintained should incorporate the special facets and advantages of the otherwise superfluous languages. Obviously such demands are not in the interests of computer production firms, especially when one considers that a FORTRAN program can be executed on nearly all third-generation computers.
The titles in this bibliography are organized alphabetically according to programming language, and within a language chronologically and again alphabetically within a given year. Preceding the first programming language in the alphabet, literature is listed on several languages, as are general papers on programming languages and on the theory of formal languages (AAA).
As far as possible, the most of titles are based on autopsy. However, the bibliographical description of sone titles will not satisfy bibliography-documentation demands, since they are based on inaccurate information in various sources. Translation titles whose original titles could not be found through bibliographical research were not included. ' In view of the fact that nany libraries do not have the quoted papers, all magazine essays should have been listed with the volume, the year, issue number and the complete number of pages (e.g. pp. 721-783), so that interlibrary loans could take place with fast reader service. Unfortunately, these data were not always found.
It is hoped that this bibliography will help the electronic data processing expert, and those who wish to select the appropriate programming language from the many available, to find a way through the language Babel.
We wish to offer special thanks to Mr. Klaus G. Saur and the staff of Verlag Dokumentation for their publishing work.
Graz / Austria, May, 1973
in ACM Computing Reviews 5(01) January-February 1964 view details