tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286666165488170603.post3532586973095305515..comments2023-10-08T02:43:26.050+05:30Comments on Languager: Richard O'Keefe's responses to FP TimelineUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286666165488170603.post-19816105600220153792015-12-24T07:43:36.022+05:302015-12-24T07:43:36.022+05:30Heh! The manual of style part is funny! What goes ...Heh! The manual of style part is funny! What goes round comes round... Has a more exact term that eludes me at the moment.<br />[And thanks Doug for dropping by!]Rusihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03040567617543126490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286666165488170603.post-67947665177861304942015-12-24T00:22:10.966+05:302015-12-24T00:22:10.966+05:30Flexowriters, and with them lower case, were in us...Flexowriters, and with them lower case, were in use long before 1963. MIT's Whirlwind II had them in 1952. Assembler opcodes were lower case, except for some upper-case pseudo-ops. It came as a shock to learn that Whirlwind's more powerful replacement, an IBM 704, dealt exclusively with upper case, as if the 704 were a Roman artifact. Upon the advent of CTSS (1961) lower case again became customary. The manuals for pre-existing languages still expressed syntax in upper case, but users of case-sensitive terminals typically used lower case. Language implementations respected case in string literals and run-time data. <br />An amusing sidelight is that some editions of the Chicago Manual of Style deprecated upper case text in general but stipulated that computer programs should be upper case.Doug McIlroynoreply@blogger.com