When I started playing with VTL-2, another small and obscure language was included in the same download: MINOL. Inspired by BASIC syntax and written by a high-schooler in 1976, it “has a string-handling capability, but only single-byte, integer arithmetic and left-to-right expression evaluation.” What I am assuming is the official spec PDF was seemingly submitted over several letters to and subsequently published by the magazine, “Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Computer Calesthenics and Orthodontia.” This article described the purpose and syntax of the language, as well as the code for the Altair interpreter.
MINOL has 12 statements:
OS (to exit the interpreter).As quoted above, there is integer arithmetic (
+-*/), and there are three relational operators,
<, and the inexplicably-designated
#1 for not equal. Line numbers are single-byte, with a maximum of 254 lines. Statements can be separated with a colon. Exclamation points are random numbers. If (immediately) running a line without a line number,
GOTO calls its line number
0. Rudimentary string-handling seems to be the big sell. This basically entails automatically separating a string into individual code points and popping them into memory locations, as well as some means of inverting this process. An included sample program inputs two strings and counts the number of instances of the second string in the first; being a bunch of code points contiguous in memory, it is certainly functional.
Is MINOL interesting, as a hobbyist/golf language? I may very well try one or two string-based challenges with it. Its limitations are quirky and could make for a fun challenge. I think more than anything, however, I’m just fascinated by this scenario that the Altair and similar early micros presented. Later micros like the Commodore PET booted right into whatever version of BASIC the company had written or licensed for the machine, but these early micros were very barebones. Working within the system restrictions, making small interpreters, and designing them around specific uses was a very real thing. It’s hard to imagine languages like MINOL or VTL-2 with their terse, obscure, limited syntaxes emerging in a world where every machine boots instantly into Microsoft BASIC.
Once again, I don’t know how much value there is in preserving these homebrew languages of yore, but as I mentioned when discussing VTL-2, folks nowadays generate esoteric languages just to mimic Arnold Schwarzenegger’s speaking mannerisms. Given that climate, I think there’s a pretty strong case to keep these things alive, at least in a hobbyist capacity. And given the needs of early micro hobbyists, I find the design of these languages absolutely fascinating. I’m hopeful that I can dig up others.
- Inexplicable? A helpful reader writes: “This was taken from HP Time-Shared BASIC. TSB was very popular in the early 1970s and many of its features appeared in BASICs during that period. The basic idea is that
#looks a lot like
≠, which is more obvious than
<>. This feature was not widely copied, only a few languages supported
#. In contrast, TSBs use of array slicing for string handling was very widely used until the PC took over. Integer BASIC on the Apple, Atari BASIC, Sinclair BASIC and others all used this style of strings. MINOL takes this one step further, using C-style strings and referring to them by memory location. Such is the price of working in a 2.5k language!” ↩︎