Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218117 > unrolled thread
| Started by | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 16:08 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:14 -0600
Re: s/3, s/34, s/36, and so forth not iBM System/3 FORTRAN John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-27 01:27 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-29 22:47 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 12:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 13:04 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-06-29 21:33 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-30 15:56 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-06-30 22:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-01 05:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 06:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-01 13:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-03 01:19 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-03 10:14 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 10:43 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@situ.com - 2021-11-02 07:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-02 09:26 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-02 05:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2021-11-02 15:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@hugin.membrane.com - 2021-11-16 01:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 11:25 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:34 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 15:56 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 20:57 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-02 18:26 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-05 13:39 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 14:51 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:06 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 17:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:41 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 13:30 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-10 13:29 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 17:13 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-11 13:58 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:03 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:19 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:50 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 22:40 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 23:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-17 19:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 21:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-18 15:20 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:05 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-21 05:29 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-21 11:08 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:16 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:09 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:49 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 14:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-14 10:03 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:42 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-14 00:39 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:20 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-30 07:57 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 02:23 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 21:23 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 18:46 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 20:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-07-01 19:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-11-02 08:54 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-10-05 22:56 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-05 23:13 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 03:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 12:32 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-10-06 14:11 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:00 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:49 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 17:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-07 06:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 13:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:18 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:45 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:23 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:10 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:36 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 10:32 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-04 09:13 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-07 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-07 21:19 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 17:06 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-08 05:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 19:39 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2021-06-30 17:58 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-18 14:31 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-18 16:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:47 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:40 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:20 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-06-27 11:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-06-27 13:40 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-06-27 16:00 -0500
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-17 09:47 -0800
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-17 18:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-11-17 22:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-18 01:00 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-18 01:51 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-18 06:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 10:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20210703101423.bf006879cf064694dc2fe679@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #218254 |
On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 01:19:39 -0000 (UTC) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > According to Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>: > >On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:12:05 -0000 (UTC) > >Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > > > >> Seems far more readable than m4 (which is the serious programming > >> language that I would consier most unreadable). > > > > XSLT and sendmail.cf are both less readable IMHO - XSLT control > >flow is essentially come-from with wildcards. > > Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque. Er no, there's an m4 generator for sendmail.cf these days to *simplify* it, -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 10:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ikat9tFcjglU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #218258 |
On 2021-07-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 01:19:39 -0000 (UTC)
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> According to Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>:
>> >On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:12:05 -0000 (UTC)
>> >Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Seems far more readable than m4 (which is the serious programming
>> >> language that I would consier most unreadable).
>> >
>> > XSLT and sendmail.cf are both less readable IMHO - XSLT control
>> >flow is essentially come-from with wildcards.
>>
>> Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque.
>
> Er no, there's an m4 generator for sendmail.cf these days to
> *simplify* it,
Right - sendmail.mc.
Niklas
--
For a time, I wrote data analysis code in C on VMS. I drank a lot of
tequila during that time.
-- Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes in asr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sidd@situ.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 07:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnso1rgo.2uv.sidd@hugin.membrane.com> |
| In reply to | #218254 |
On 2021-07-03, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > > Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque. I must confess that i still edit sendmail.cf by hand. Sometimes. sidd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 09:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iuceiaFasouU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #219542 |
On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 07:18:51 +0000, sidd wrote: > On 2021-07-03, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >> >> Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque. > > I must confess that i still edit sendmail.cf by hand. I gave up with it. Postfix is nicer. I try to avoid m4 anyway. I use ML/I. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 05:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c62a625-f704-4ca8-ac9c-ef17e8952f02n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #219542 |
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:18:57 AM UTC-6, si...@situ.com wrote: > On 2021-07-03, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > > > Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque. > > I must confess that i still edit sendmail.cf by hand. > > Sometimes. I did a Google search to get more information about this, and the first result I got claimed that sendmail.mc is written in m4, and is what should be edited by hand. Instead, sendmail.cf is what resdults after sendmail.mc ils compiled using the m4 compiler. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrlet$los$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #219545 |
In article <8c62a625-f704-4ca8-ac9c-ef17e8952f02n@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:18:57 AM UTC-6, si...@situ.com wrote: >> On 2021-07-03, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >> > >> > Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque. >> >> I must confess that i still edit sendmail.cf by hand. >> >> Sometimes. > >I did a Google search to get more information about this, >and the first result I got claimed that > >sendmail.mc > >is written in m4, and is what should be edited by hand. >Instead, > >sendmail.cf > >is what resdults after sendmail.mc ils compiled using >the m4 compiler. The sendmail configuration language is its own special thing, based on production rewriting systems. Legend has it that Eric Allman had taken a class on this and thought it would be a neat hack to apply it to rewriting email headers, which at the time was a big problem because of the variety of email standards and bridges between them. It was known to be nearly impossibly opaque, so eventually, a set of macros written in M4 was created to _generate_ `sendmail.cf`. However, some folks continued to edit the generated file by hand, and presumably still do. I don't really try to run email systems anymore: spam has made it require way too much effort for too little gain, but for a long time sendmail was just the way most mail was moved over the Internet. Then things like the IDA toolkit for it popped up, and then qmail and Postfix came along and some others were floating around (exim, zmailer, MMDF) and it was time to move on. Still, because of the generality of the sendmail language, it continued to move lots of email, and presumably still does in some places. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sidd@hugin.membrane.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-16 01:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsp65ir.2ui.sidd@hugin.membrane.com> |
| In reply to | #219545 |
On 2021-11-02, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:18:57 AM UTC-6, si...@situ.com wrote: >> On 2021-07-03, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >> > >> > Um, sendmail.cf uses m4, which is why it's opaque. >> >> I must confess that i still edit sendmail.cf by hand. >> >> Sometimes. > > I did a Google search to get more information about this, > and the first result I got claimed that > > sendmail.mc > > is written in m4, and is what should be edited by hand. Yes, i know. Nevertheless, i do. But only sometimes. sidd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <281782900.646856626.461544.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218226 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> schrieb: > >> One of my colleagues did his Ph.D. in the 1960s. He had also worked for >> IBM. Part of his research was the construction of a general purpose macro >> language and processor. >> >> As a piss take of IBM, he called it ML/I. (Macro Language 1) >> >> http://www.ml1.org.uk > > Seems far more readable than m4 (which is the serious programming > language that I would consier most unreadable). > > Or are there others? Joke languages like Intercal need not apply :-) > IBM’s PL/I preprocessor is fairly general-purpose. The macros are written in an interpreted subset of PL/I. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6008b75f-7196-4734-bdda-0cb70d9a7d2dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218230 |
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 2:25:41 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > IBM’s PL/I preprocessor is fairly general-purpose. The macros are written > in an interpreted subset of PL/I. How popular was PL/I in its heyday? I knew of a few programmers who really loved it and pushed it, but it never seemed to catch on that much. How popular is it today? The people who liked it at my site have retired and its faded away. IBM devoted a lot of scarce resources it didn't have to developing it as part of S/360.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <723758665.646872522.971131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218232 |
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 2:25:41 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > >> IBM’s PL/I preprocessor is fairly general-purpose. The macros are written >> in an interpreted subset of PL/I. > > How popular was PL/I in its heyday? I knew of a few programmers who really loved > it and pushed it, but it never seemed to catch on that much. It came along a little later than the S/360 COBOL compiler, it required more resources, and some programmers were already familiar with COBOL from earlier machines, so it was never as popular. I think it did somewhat better in Europe than in North America. In its heyday it was supported by quite a fre mainframe manufacturers. . > > How popular is it today? The people who liked it at my site have retired > and its faded away. I think it’s mostly “legacy” today. There are at least three compilers for personal computers. I’d like to see it get more use, it’s a powerful language, even in comparison with more recent languages. > > IBM devoted a lot of scarce resources it didn't have to developing it as part of S/360. > Yes, one system/one language for all purposes. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 20:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <465f11f2-5002-4e7e-a114-ea9ea3d30a4en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218238 |
On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 8:56:47 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote: > undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 2:25:41 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > > > > >> IBM’s PL/I preprocessor is fairly general-purpose. The macros are written > >> in an interpreted subset of PL/I. > > > > How popular was PL/I in its heyday? I knew of a few programmers who really loved > > it and pushed it, but it never seemed to catch on that much. > It came along a little later than the S/360 COBOL compiler, it required > more resources, . I do not have information on the resources required by IBM COBOL, but PL/I-F ran in as little as 64K. I think that IBM PL/I-DOS required a 32K machine. DR PL/I ran in 64K byte PC. . Compared to FORTRAN in 1966, PL/I ran rings around it. PL/I had superior syntax, superior error handling, and superior debugging facilities. Yet some FORTRAN users persisted in running programs that crashed without any indication of where they crashed; Multiple re-runs would be needed to track down the cause of an error. With PL/I-F the cause of an error and the statement number where it occurred were printed out. Furthermore, the values of variables could also be printed. . When it came to production runs, PL/I had the ability to continue after encountering bad data, carrying on to completion, without the need for a call in the early hours to patch the program. . The ability to catch integer overflow (whether decimal or binary), division by zero, floating-point overflow, subscript errors, and character string errors is an important part of the language. . > and some programmers were already familiar with COBOL from > earlier machines, so it was never as popular. I think it did somewhat > better in Europe than in North America. In its heyday it was supported by > quite a fre mainframe manufacturers. > . > > How popular is it today? The people who liked it at my site have retired > > and its faded away. > I think it’s mostly “legacy” today. There are at least three compilers for > personal computers. I’d like to see it get more use, it’s a powerful > language, even in comparison with more recent languages. . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbo7f905bp@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #218240 |
On 2021-07-02, Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not have information on the resources required by IBM COBOL, > but PL/I-F ran in as little as 64K. I think that IBM PL/I-DOS > required a 32K machine. > DR PL/I ran in 64K byte PC. > > Compared to FORTRAN in 1966, PL/I ran rings around it. FSVO "ran rings". My only contact with PL/I was at university, where everything ran under MTS. Admittedly, we were more concerned with compile time rather than execution time, but when it came to compilations PL/I was a pig, eating up more CPU time and memory (and funny money in our student accounts) than any other language processor (although Assembler G came close). Fortran G compiled like lightning. Forget about COBOL - to the CS weenies, uttering its name was an even worse profanity than GOTO. There wasn't even a COBOL compiler on the system. (If you were desperate, you could submit a compile request for overnight batch, where the operators would run it under OS/360 emulation.) Needless to say, RPG did not exist. Period. >>> How popular is it today? The people who liked it at my site >>> have retired and its faded away. >> >> I think it’s mostly “legacy” today. There are at least three >> compilers for personal computers. I’d like to see it get more >> use, it’s a powerful language, even in comparison with more >> recent languages. Apparently the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (set up by the incoming NDP government in the 1970s to take over all motor vehicle insurance from the private sector) had all their brand-new software written in PL/I on a "cost is no object" basis. Of course, being the provincial government, it was subject to the usual 100% overruns... -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-02 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e35d23a-163a-47f1-8505-94769193bfb5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218252 |
On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:29:34 AM UTC+10, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-07-02, Robin Vowels <robin....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I do not have information on the resources required by IBM COBOL, > > but PL/I-F ran in as little as 64K. I think that IBM PL/I-DOS > > required a 32K machine. > > DR PL/I ran in 64K byte PC. > > > > Compared to FORTRAN in 1966, PL/I ran rings around it. > FSVO "ran rings". My only contact with PL/I was at university, > where everything ran under MTS. Admittedly, we were more > concerned with compile time rather than execution time, but > when it came to compilations PL/I was a pig, eating up more > CPU time and memory (and funny money in our student accounts) > than any other language processor (although Assembler G came > close). Fortran G compiled like lightning. . What??!! IBM's FORTRAN G compiled at about the same speed as their PL/I-F compiler. FORTRAN H took about twice as long as FORTRAN G, and in addition required 4 times as much memory as PL/I-F. . Link time for PL/I-F took slightly longer than FORTRAN G. . WATFOR and PL/C were both high-speed compilers & were available for S/360 -- and much faster than the corresponding IBM products. . > Forget about COBOL - > to the CS weenies, uttering its name was an even worse profanity > than GOTO. There wasn't even a COBOL compiler on the system. > (If you were desperate, you could submit a compile request for > overnight batch, where the operators would run it under OS/360 > emulation.) Needless to say, RPG did not exist. Period. > >>> How popular is it today? The people who liked it at my site > >>> have retired and its faded away. > >> > >> I think it’s mostly “legacy” today. There are at least three > >> compilers for personal computers. I’d like to see it get more > >> use, it’s a powerful language, even in comparison with more > >> recent languages. > Apparently the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia > (set up by the incoming NDP government in the 1970s to take > over all motor vehicle insurance from the private sector) > had all their brand-new software written in PL/I on a > "cost is no object" basis. Of course, being the provincial > government, it was subject to the usual 100% overruns...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-05 13:39 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <87mtr05o0p.fsf@localhost> |
| In reply to | #218255 |
Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes: > What??!! IBM's FORTRAN G compiled at about the same speed as their PL/I-F > compiler. > FORTRAN H took about twice as long as FORTRAN G, and in addition > required 4 times as much memory as PL/I-F. > . > Link time for PL/I-F took slightly longer than FORTRAN G. > . > WATFOR and PL/C were both high-speed compilers & were > available for S/360 -- and much faster than the corresponding > IBM products. I took two semester hr intro to fortran/computers, univ. ran 709 tape->tape with tapes moved between 709 and 1401 that ran as front-end for unit record (card->tape, tape->printer/punch). Student fortran jobs (30-60 cards) ran under second elapsed time. Univ. was sold 360/67 originally for tss/360, but never quite came to production fruition and so ran as 360/65 with os/360. within year of taking intro class, I was hired fulltime responsible for the ibm mainframe. Initially student jobs ran well over a minute three step fortran G, compile, link-edit, go/execute. I then installed HASP which cut elapsed time about in half (nearly all job step overhead and file open/close). First os/360 sysgen I did was release 9.5. I then started tearing apart stage2 sysgen and reorganizing the cards to optimize placement of files and PDS members for arm seek and PDS directory multi-track search which improved student jobs by nearly another 2/3rds ... 12.9sec elapsed ... approx. 4.3sec/job-step. It wasn't until installed single step, batch WATFOR monitor that student jobs ran faster than 709. WATFOR ran approx. 20,000 card(statements) per min (333/sec) on 360/65. Typically a card tray (2000+ cards, 30-60 student jobs) would be batched in single step ... 4.3sec/single-step + 2000/333 secs ... 10.3sec elapsed for batching 30-60 student jobs ... around .2secs/job. WATFOR would have still been slower than 709 (i.e. 4.5sec/job) if it wasn't for batching multiple jobs per single-step execution (and w/o my careful sysgen and hasp, it would be more like 20secs if ran single student job per invokation). One of the guys up at IBM palo alto science center (that had done much of the work for the 370/145 APL microcode assist ... got APL throughput up close to 370/168) ... did a lot of optimization work on Fortran H that originally was available inside IBM as Fortran Q ... and eventually released to customers as Fortran HX. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <969561637.647053992.804097.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218252 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2021-07-02, Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I do not have information on the resources required by IBM COBOL, >> but PL/I-F ran in as little as 64K. I think that IBM PL/I-DOS >> required a 32K machine. >> DR PL/I ran in 64K byte PC. >> >> Compared to FORTRAN in 1966, PL/I ran rings around it. > > FSVO "ran rings". My only contact with PL/I was at university, > where everything ran under MTS. Admittedly, we were more > concerned with compile time rather than execution time, but > when it came to compilations PL/I was a pig, eating up more > CPU time and memory (and funny money in our student accounts) > than any other language processor (although Assembler G came > close). I think FORTRAN G was the compiler that did everything via subroutine calls. PL/I runtimes could be terrible if you used the wrong features. Worse than COBOL with its DISPLAY/COMP-3 vs. binary. I’ve got to figure out a way to make CONTROLLED storage more efficient. Fortran G compiled like lightning. Forget about COBOL - > to the CS weenies, uttering its name was an even worse profanity > than GOTO. There wasn't even a COBOL compiler on the system. > (If you were desperate, you could submit a compile request for > overnight batch, where the operators would run it under OS/360 > emulation.) Needless to say, RPG did not exist. Period. > >>>> How popular is it today? The people who liked it at my site >>>> have retired and its faded away. >>> >>> I think it’s mostly “legacy” today. There are at least three >>> compilers for personal computers. I’d like to see it get more >>> use, it’s a powerful language, even in comparison with more >>> recent languages. > > Apparently the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia > (set up by the incoming NDP government in the 1970s to take > over all motor vehicle insurance from the private sector) > had all their brand-new software written in PL/I on a > "cost is no object" basis. Of course, being the provincial > government, it was subject to the usual 100% overruns... > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-08 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76e599e0-0724-472c-b7e7-5b1a8b80789cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218252 |
On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:29:34 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Forget about COBOL - > to the CS weenies, uttering its name was an even worse profanity > than GOTO. There wasn't even a COBOL compiler on the system. > (If you were desperate, you could submit a compile request for > overnight batch, where the operators would run it under OS/360 > emulation.) Needless to say, RPG did not exist. Period. Although it's unfortunate that the PL/I compiler was not efficient, you have just given here the best argument for PL/I's existence. PL/I was a lot easier to learn for programmers used to FORTRAN than COBOL was, yet it could also do the things that COBOL and RPG could do, but FORTRAN could not. So if IBM had only implemented a decent PL/I compiler, that language could have fulfilled the plans IBM had for it. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-08 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <515302607.647474516.320690.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218317 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:29:34 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> Forget about COBOL - >> to the CS weenies, uttering its name was an even worse profanity >> than GOTO. There wasn't even a COBOL compiler on the system. >> (If you were desperate, you could submit a compile request for >> overnight batch, where the operators would run it under OS/360 >> emulation.) Needless to say, RPG did not exist. Period. > > Although it's unfortunate that the PL/I compiler was not efficient, > you have just given here the best argument for PL/I's existence. > > PL/I was a lot easier to learn for programmers used to FORTRAN > than COBOL was, yet it could also do the things that COBOL and > RPG could do, but FORTRAN could not. > > So if IBM had only implemented a decent PL/I compiler, that > language could have fulfilled the plans IBM had for it. They apparently still haven’t, although hardware has now grown powerful enough that no one notices. Here I am struggling to get the Iron Spring compiler to generate reasonably efficient code. I wanted to look at IBM’s compiler to see how they handled this particular situation. I looked at their generated “assembler” and just about choked on my morning coffee. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-08 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de80d523-e86b-4340-bd91-a3d9749d4d5bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218321 |
On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 4:06:08 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > Here I am struggling to get the Iron Spring compiler to generate reasonably > efficient code. I wanted to look at IBM’s compiler to see how they handled > this particular situation. I looked at their generated “assembler” and just > about choked on my morning coffee. In any case, thank you for providing this valuable tool for Linux and OS/2 users. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8969754f-bc7f-47b4-a55b-fc7e776a2945n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218317 |
On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 7:51:50 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:29:34 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > Forget about COBOL -
> > to the CS weenies, uttering its name was an even worse profanity
> > than GOTO. There wasn't even a COBOL compiler on the system.
> > (If you were desperate, you could submit a compile request for
> > overnight batch, where the operators would run it under OS/360
> > emulation.) Needless to say, RPG did not exist. Period.
.
> Although it's unfortunate that the PL/I compiler was not efficient,
.
Some have claimed this, and have compared run times for various
languages including FORTRAN and PL/I. A. B. Tucker ("Programming
Languages") is one.
Unfortunately, he omitted to provide the REORDER keyword
for the PROCEDURE statement in the case of IBM's PL/I compiler.
The PL/I programs ran slower than they should have.
.
I investigated claims by D. J. Kewley, who compared run times of FORTRAN,
Pascal, and PL/I programs. The PL/I version did not use COMPLEX data types,
whereas the FORTRAN version did. Modifying the PL/I version program to use
COMPLEX and REORDER gave a 47% increase in execution speed.
.
P. J. Jaliks compared COBOL and PL/I. His PL/I version ran slower by
2-3 times of because of inappropriate variable declarations and
failure to disable fixed-point interrupts.
.
> you have just given here the best argument for PL/I's existence.
>
> PL/I was a lot easier to learn for programmers used to FORTRAN
> than COBOL was, yet it could also do the things that COBOL and
> RPG could do, but FORTRAN could not.
>
> So if IBM had only implemented a decent PL/I compiler, that
> language could have fulfilled the plans IBM had for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-10 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2d90b16-7279-4784-bd9d-5a10777af085n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218336 |
On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 12:33:00 AM UTC+10, Robin Vowels wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 7:51:50 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:29:34 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > > Forget about COBOL -
> > > to the CS weenies, uttering its name was an even worse profanity
> > > than GOTO. There wasn't even a COBOL compiler on the system.
> > > (If you were desperate, you could submit a compile request for
> > > overnight batch, where the operators would run it under OS/360
> > > emulation.) Needless to say, RPG did not exist. Period.
> .
> > Although it's unfortunate that the PL/I compiler was not efficient,
> .
> Some have claimed this, and have compared run times for various
> languages including FORTRAN and PL/I. A. B. Tucker ("Programming
> Languages") is one.
> Unfortunately, he omitted to provide the REORDER keyword
> for the PROCEDURE statement in the case of IBM's PL/I compiler.
> The PL/I programs ran slower than they should have.
> .
> I investigated claims by D. J. Kewley, who compared run times of FORTRAN,
> Pascal, and PL/I programs. The PL/I version did not use COMPLEX data types,
> whereas the FORTRAN version did. Modifying the PL/I version program to use
> COMPLEX and REORDER gave a 47% increase in execution speed.
> .
> P. J. Jaliks compared COBOL and PL/I. His PL/I version ran slower by
> 2-3 times of because of inappropriate variable declarations and
> failure to disable fixed-point interrupts.
.
R. H. Prins criticized IBM's Enterprise PL/I compiler for
optimising poorly. He subsequently retracted that criticism when
he discovered that he had been compiling the program with OPT(0) --
that is, with no optimisation !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web