JOVIAL

Abstract: : Seven benchmark problems were each implemented twice by the same programmer, once in PL/I and once in another higher level language (COBOL, FORTRAN, or JOVIAL) appropriate to the application area represented by the problem. Overall, it was found that PL/I had advantages over both FORTRAN and JOVIAL and was about equal to COBOL for the respective application areas. The quantitative data obtained from the implementations generally indicated that the PL/I versions had fewer statements in the source programs and were coded more rapidly than their comparison-language counterparts but took longer to debug and had a higher frequency of errors. The qualitative, subjective opinions of the problem programmers and project analysis indicated that PL/I was generally superior to the comparison languages with regard to suitability for a wide range of problems, naturalness, generality, and ease of use. Inefficiencies observed in the language compilers and associated operating systems utilized for the benchmark problems indicated that improvements are required in these areas if the benefits obtainable from the use of higher level languages are to be fully realized. (Author)

Abstract: This report gives a complete specification of the latest \"official\" version I of JOVIAL, a general-purpose, procedure-oriented, and largely computer-independent programruing language developed by System Development Corporation for large-scale military systems and as a corporate standard. Work on JOVIAL, which is derived from ALGOL 58 [1] and from CLIP [2], began early in 1959. Since then, SDC has built JOVIAL compilers for several machines: the IBS~ 7090; the IBM AN/FSQ-31v (this compiler is also running on the closely related AN/FSQ-32); the IBM AN/FSQ-7; the Philco 2000; and the Control Data 1604 (this compiler has been adapted for use with the 1604A). The first two of these compilers accept an earlier and slightly different version of JOVIAL than is reported here. (And while all of the language reported here has been implemented in one compiler or another, none of them have implemented it entirely.) In addition to the compilers mentioned above, a fast, one-pass compiler accepting a restricted subset of JOVIAL has been written and is running on the IBM 7090. I t is being adapted for the AN/FSQ-32 as part of the timesharing system being developed for that computer, and it is also being adapted for the Philco 2000. SDC is also writing a full-scale JOVIAL compiler for the IBM A N / FSQ-32 that should be in operation by the time this report appears. JCVlAL has found application outside as well as inside SDC. Some thir ty computer installations have received JOVIAL compilers, mainly through the users groups: SHARE,

Abstract: SDC is currently engaged in producing a “JOVIAL” compiler for each of its computers. The compilers are being produced by a bootstrapping method similar to that described in a report on UNCOL [1]. In discussing the steps involved, we resorted to diagrams to clear up the confusion that arose when trying to describe, for example, how a JOVIAL generator for the IBM 709 could produce a JOVIAL translator to the Philco S-2000 that would run on the 709 and then use the resulting 709 - S-2000 translator to produce a JOVIAL translator to the S-2000 that would run on the S-2000.

Abstract: Of the sixteen picture books that Randolph Caldecott created between 1878 and 1885, The Three Jovial Huntsmen (1880) is one of the better remembered. Active, spirited, friendly, humorous, and oh-so-veryEnglish, the book in many respects epitomizes Caldecott's style and subject matter. With this and the others of his very successful toy books (each of which sold in the tens of thousands in their paperback format—the \"yellow backs\" that Edmund Evans printed in three colors and sold at railroad stations), Caldecott effectively established the dynamic new form of the modern picture book: a vital means for both verbal and visual storytelling. Caldecott's three droll equestrians have become virtual symbols for excellence in the art of the picture book, occurring as they do in the relief that is emblazoned on the Caldecott Medal and in the logo of the Horn Book Magazine. Yet today, for the most part, Caldecott's contributions to children's literature are taken for granted, without much discussion or study. Or, perhaps worse, there is a begrudging acceptance of the inviolate status that is often conferred upon Caldecott in the standard surveys of children's literature. \"He's something like Shakespeare,\" a local children's librarian once told me. \"You've got to have him on your shelves because you've heard for so long how good he is. But tastes have changed and his books are dust-catchers. Nobody looks at him anymore, except in library school.\" Caldecott's \"problem\" is one shared by many other \"classic\" writers or author-illustrators: their works simply are not read today, let alone analyzed and pondered, debated and reevaluated. This neglect is especially true for artists working in the mixed media of the picture book form. With the exception of a few major figures, the hierarchy of subjects in children's literature criticism deemed acceptable for serious scrutiny has tended, until rather recently, to leave out picture books in favor of what are thought to be more verbally complex and sophisticated forms. And when the critic's attention has turned to the picture book, it is usually not to the work of nineteenth-century author/illustrators like Caldecott, but rather