Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Huge Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PL/I advertising Date: 2 Jun 2016 16:45:24 GMT Organization: Piglet's Pickles & Preserves Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <873a27e2-6baf-4772-9dc8-45a8f1bc466e@googlegroups.com> <574dc93b.9587566@nntp2.rawbw.com> Reply-To: usenet@huge.org.uk X-Trace: individual.net yhvWr9IECAyF+DR3tFdOngPVUKys+1H379eRxlhelQ3HU/SjLF Cancel-Lock: sha1:dRlChVLMm10LIlFFnrr6SA9mRjM= X-No-Archive: Yes X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux) Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:164330 On 2016-06-01, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-06-01, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> "J. Clarke" writes: >> >>> In article , scott@slp53.sl.home >>> says... >>> >>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>>>>> in-house compilers. >>>>> >>>>> This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively >>>>> on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost >>>>> all products were written in either the respective assembly language >>>>> or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am not aware of any, >>>>> there may have been some odd product DEC sold that was written in >>>>> something else. >>>> >>>> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). >>> >>> If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that >>> there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason for >>> not using them. >> >> Hmm. Nobody got the MDL joke, poor as it was :-( > > I did. I was going to make an Adventure reference, but waited for > someone else to do so. "Nothing happens." Me too. I kind-of assumed everyone here would "get it". -- Today is Pungenday, the 7th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182 I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.