The Architecture of an Information Language
C. F. Reynolds
Vol 33, pp 155-163, 1990
Full text (pdf)
This paper was drafted in 1986 and described the changes that were the result of two main changes, The first was the redesign of the software to allow interactive working when the University upgraded its teaching systems - with CODIL supporting teaching packages for classes of up to 125 students. The second was to explore whether the basic algorithms were so simple that they could fit onto one computer chip of the type that started to become available circa 1980. To test the idea it was decided to implement a demonstration package that would work on a BBC Microcomputer which had a mere 25K bytes for all functions including the display!. The need to think small actually led to a far better understanding of the approach and the resulting system was logically far more powerful than the far bigger main frame version. However because of the minute size of the BBC Computer it was not possible to fit in extra features, such as dynamic learning and fuzzy logic, at the same time.
It is therefore perhaps appropriate to look at what the1992 review by Gersh Voldman published in ACM Computing Reviews said. Two paragraphs summaries the main features and the review ended "This paper aims to investigate the design of a small multi-purpose language, but the number of demons used in the project
How very nice. I am sure that the author of the review regularly used computers which had many Mbytes of memory - plus access to much more paged memory and a processor several orders of magnitude faster than a BBC Computer. He ignored the fact that I had demonstrated that my approach was simple enough to fit (apart from a few small extras) in what, in 1992, would have been considered a very underpowered toy computer.|Because I wasn't able to demonstrate everything at once on a computer many orders of magnitude less powerful to those in common use in university research departments and elsewhere it was appropriate to tell the world my research was impossible rubbish.
As it happened (see The History of CODIL) I was not upset by the review - because I didn't see it until recently. In 1988, for health related reasons, the serious work on CODIL was abandoned, two years before the Computer Journal paper appeared in print.
For a very different opinion see the many reviews by people who have actually used MicroCODIL.