Talk:FOCAL (Hewlett-Packard)

There was also a DEC language called FOCAL:

FOCAL, an interpretive language comparable to BASIC, was available on all models of the family, including the PDP-5 and PDP-8/S. Versions of FOCAL run under OS/8, P?S/8 and other systems, and there were many special purpose overlays for FOCAL developed by DEC and by various users. DEC's later FOCAL releases for the PDP-8 included code to deliberately introduce subtle bugs when run on a DCC 112 computer! Various versions of FOCAL are available from:

ftp://russ.ucs.indiana.edu/pub/DEC/PDP8/Langs/Focal/

ftp://ftp.cs.uiowa.edu/public/jones/pdp8/coreimages.txt.Z

Is there already a listing for the DEC Focal?

Yes, See FOCAL. I agree there should be a disambig page.

FOCAL -- Where did that come from?[edit]

I was an HP-41c enthusiast in the HP-41c's hayday, and I do not recall FOCAL ever being a name that was used in conjunction with the HP-41c's programming language. I don't deny that it's a cool name, and I wish we'd had the name to use at the time; but, I'm concerned that this WP entry is implying that the name FOCAL was historically used to describe the HP-41c's programming language.

Where did this name come from? Christopher Rath (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some further digging: I emailed Jake Schwarz, who maintains a repository of all documents related to HP calculators, to see if he knew where the name originated. His recollection is that FOCAL was the name chosen through HP Key Notes' contest to choose a name for the HP-41 programming language.

I checked the HP Key Notes archive, and in the final edition of that publication (V8N2)[1] the editor notes that the contest initiated two years earlier, in V6N3, has resulted in HP seeking worldwide registered trademark for a name; but, the name was not yet finalised.

I haven't yet been able to find any source for the final name chosen by HP.

Christopher Rath (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOTO Controversy should go elsewhere[edit]

This section needs to be rewritten. It looks like a promo for the spaghetti page. Which is irrelevant in this context. First of all we are talking about a limited resources programable calculator with production constraints of its own. I am fine with leaving the GOTO computed GOTO information, but to name this a "maintenance nightmare" I would like to see concrete data about these nightmares. The size of the programs, even with later expansion modules, never allowed for overly complex code (compared to say 10 of thousands of lines of code in a modern program). Moreover, the user manual highlighted the use of modules, and functions. So if one wanted they could organize their code in more more structural friendly manner, without being forced into this. In smaller code, the GOTO is often more efficient, which in the 70s was a real constraint.

This paradigm made Focal programming relatively easy for the newcomer, but program maintenance could be a nightmare. Add to that the use of GOTO instructions—including going to a program step based on a value in a data register ("GTO IND"), a technique known as computed goto—and you had all the ingredients for the dreaded spaghetti code syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.111.213 (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]