Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163878 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 598 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-23 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-24 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-24 16:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-25 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-25 16:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 16:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-26 12:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-28 13:17 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-29 10:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-31 17:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 19:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-01 07:41 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 10:49 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 06:36 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-29 15:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:54 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Larry <lelmore76@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:29 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:45 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-25 17:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-25 22:04 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 00:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-26 10:07 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:55 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-26 15:57 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:00 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-27 11:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:49 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-28 13:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-28 17:53 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-29 13:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 16:33 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-05-31 14:10 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 22:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 07:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 12:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-01 10:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:22 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:11 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-01 17:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:31 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:41 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 15:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 10:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 11:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:14 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 16:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 17:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 10:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 09:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-06 10:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:59 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-08 15:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-08 15:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 10:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-08 11:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-09 16:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:00 -0700
Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-06-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Dynamic adaptive resource management (was: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-09 10:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-07 08:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:17 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 15:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 23:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:05 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:24 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 22:41 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:54 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-07 02:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 07:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:36 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 09:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 21:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 21:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 21:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-08 06:08 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 09:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-09 07:33 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-06 09:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-07 12:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:23 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 17:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 20:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:09 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:18 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 13:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-01 12:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-01 13:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-02 08:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2016-06-02 02:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-24 11:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-24 17:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-24 20:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-24 18:26 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-06-24 21:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-25 05:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 07:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-27 21:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-28 08:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-28 17:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 19:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-27 19:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-27 23:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:24 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 07:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-25 08:02 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 10:35 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 14:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-28 12:04 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-28 15:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-28 21:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-29 12:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:25 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-29 08:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-29 17:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-25 07:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-25 07:02 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 12:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-25 16:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-26 13:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-27 15:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-28 12:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-28 22:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-28 22:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-28 20:25 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 10:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 17:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 23:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-30 18:27 +0000
PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-27 16:20 -0400
Re: PDP-10 ZORK [was Re: PL/I advertising] sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-06-28 00:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:47 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-01 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-01 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 12:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:57 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 15:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-02 22:16 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:43 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-02 20:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-02 13:48 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-02 20:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 07:50 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 10:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:38 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:10 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 11:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 12:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 05:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 10:16 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-03 07:37 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 06:16 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 07:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-04 08:52 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 14:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:46 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:39 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:30 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-03 13:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-05 10:04 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:20 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 09:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-04 15:40 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 16:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-04 17:59 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 19:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 12:31 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 14:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-05 14:13 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 13:24 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:44 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:07 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:15 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-03 17:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 17:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-03 17:04 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 10:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:03 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 12:08 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 10:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:47 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:51 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:06 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:05 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 15:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:12 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 06:12 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 07:42 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:24 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 18:48 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:29 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 14:06 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 19:47 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:30 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 10:13 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 10:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 12:45 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 11:48 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 13:08 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 13:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-06 14:57 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:17 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:21 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 14:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 09:51 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:14 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-07 20:59 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-08 07:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2016-06-08 12:00 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-07 18:08 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-08 12:40 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-08 09:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-08 19:06 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 18:17 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-05 09:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 12:39 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-05 12:28 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:02 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-06 09:27 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 21:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-05 03:04 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-04 22:42 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:26 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:07 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:39 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-04 16:51 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 22:10 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 18:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 23:02 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-04 23:57 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-05 09:25 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:05 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-04 20:18 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 11:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-07 22:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 05:49 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-09 07:03 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-05 17:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:32 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 13:04 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-05 12:11 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-05 21:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 16:13 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-06 10:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-06 18:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-05 17:53 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-06 12:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:45 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-08 11:53 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 22:06 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-04 13:33 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 17:31 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-07 13:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-07 15:34 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-08 00:28 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:10 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-04 13:14 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 15:39 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-06 13:01 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-03 21:21 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:14 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-03 16:45 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-03 15:12 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 12:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:05 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:09 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:27 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 06:58 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-10 11:42 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-16 17:07 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:44 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 23:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-01 16:15 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-01 13:49 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 12:47 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-04 16:23 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-05 23:19 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:12 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 12:11 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 02:15 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 18:50 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-02 15:18 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:54 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 22:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-04 14:08 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:36 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:56 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-05-31 16:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-02 16:41 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:19 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-04 02:45 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-09 08:26 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-09 12:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-17 03:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-09 17:45 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:56 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-06-02 19:21 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-07 20:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-31 17:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-02 09:41 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-02 17:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-06-05 07:29 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 13:37 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-31 12:19 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-31 16:29 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 07:04 -0400
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-01 13:15 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-01 15:38 -0500
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-03 13:44 -0700
Re: Penn Central PL/I advertising Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 16:22 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-26 20:32 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 18:50 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 11:01 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-27 13:36 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 15:33 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 16:07 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:20 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-27 20:55 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-28 20:25 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:39 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-31 14:37 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:28 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:51 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 06:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-27 15:51 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-27 20:25 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-27 05:43 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-29 05:28 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-29 15:26 +0200
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 11:50 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:39 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-26 12:23 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 15:56 -0400
Re: PL/I advertising "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:21 -0500
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-05 05:38 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 17:53 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-29 18:58 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-06-30 07:20 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 14:27 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-30 22:29 +0100
Re: PL/I advertising Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-30 22:22 +0000
Re: PL/I advertising hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-05-25 15:03 -0700
Re: PL/I advertising Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 15:07 -0700
Page 24 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 … 30 Next page →
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534373620C99D@aca40da7.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164178 |
Scott Lurndal wrote: > usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> >>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) :-). <GROAN> /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 16:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <287751153.486246120.880429.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164114 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM000533E6E054409A@aca42436.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> In article <PM000533D1A4322DD8@aca40f3f.ipt.aol.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> Rich Alderson wrote: >>>>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >>>>>>> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >>>>>>> you replied to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She >>>>> knows >>>>>> a great deal; she simply has certain biases. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know >>>>> what he doesn't know in this matter :-). >>>>> >>>>> I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the >>>>> availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting >>>>> anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. >>>>> >>>>> I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" >>>>> would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably >>>>> use the word guys which was generic at the time. >>>>> >>>>> /BAH >>>> >>>> >>>> You are showing your DEC background. >>> >>> I've never claimed differently. >>> >>>> The mainframes generally all >>>> had pl/1, or pl/g (a subset) if not. Prime had pl/1 or pl/g compilers, >>>> no less than three of them. (PLP, SPL and full PL/1). >>> >>> In the 1960s? >> >> Yes, the mainframes had PL/1 pretty early. >> >> Prime was only founded in the 1970s and delivered the first iron to >> customers in 1975, >> >> PLP was from the pre-hardware days (Primos originally was built on >> a Honeywell machine, and the Prime 50series kept a compatabilty mode >> for this processor). This predates 1975, when they made the first >> commercial hardware. SPL came a year or two later, and the full >> pl/1 after that. The first two were included with the OS, the last >> one was a commercial product. > > That's in the 70s which is a long time after the 60s in the computing biz. > Did Univac have PL/I? > 11xx did, although all I have been able to find about it is a ref card (contributions to bitsavers welcome). i helped a customer port their Univac PL/I programs to Linux with Iron Spring PL/I. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 23:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a146ed2-b808-4d76-891d-c8cc0d8c66bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164127 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 2:41:35 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > 11xx did, although all I have been able to find about it is a ref card > (contributions to bitsavers welcome). i helped a customer port their > Univac PL/I programs to Linux with Iron Spring PL/I. I see that although it is a commercial product, it's currently in beta, and the beta is available free of charge. There is a project for a GCC-based PL/I compiler, but it isn't at the stage of generating code yet. This is unlike the case of Ada, for which there is a GPL compiler - although it doesn't use the Ada name, not being certified. I'm thinking of GNAT. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 23:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63a57bcf-cc73-4bde-b44f-2f2b202053b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164130 |
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 12:44:52 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 2:41:35 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > > > 11xx did, although all I have been able to find about it is a ref card > > (contributions to bitsavers welcome). i helped a customer port their > > Univac PL/I programs to Linux with Iron Spring PL/I. > I see that although it is a commercial product, it's currently in beta, and the > beta is available free of charge. > There is a project for a GCC-based PL/I compiler, but it isn't at the stage of > generating code yet. > This is unlike the case of Ada, for which there is a GPL compiler - although it > doesn't use the Ada name, not being certified. I'm thinking of GNAT. In searching for information on this topic, I ran across this: http://www.raincode.com/mainframe-rehosting/cobol-compiler/ They do charge for their PL/I compiler for Windows, but only for support for their COBOL compiler! John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <574dc927.9567667@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164114 |
On 29 May 2016 13:38:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. It didn't make sense to use much BLISS in LCG because most of the s/w was already written in MACRO. BLISS did see widespread use on VAXes and -11s. >It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >A security review would have to be done for every change, including >a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >security review would have to include looking at everything which >depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're not explaining it very clearly. In any case, you are hobbled by the notion that two compiles of the same source by the same compiler will produce the same object with the same checksum. That's not an assumption that can be made with some HLLs, including BLISS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 16:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1023760461.486417787.237696.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164169 |
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: > On 29 May 2016 13:38:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >> created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. > > It didn't make sense to use much BLISS in LCG because most of the s/w was > already written in MACRO. BLISS did see widespread use on VAXes and -11s. > > >> It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >> was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >> behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >> A security review would have to be done for every change, including >> a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >> security review would have to include looking at everything which >> depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >> checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >> builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. > > Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're not explaining > it very clearly. In any case, you are hobbled by the notion that two compiles > of the same source by the same compiler will produce the same object with > the same checksum. That's not an assumption that can be made with some > HLLs, including BLISS. > > Or assemblers if, for example, the assembly date and time is assembled as a constant in the object code. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005343779524772@aca40da7.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164169 |
Questor wrote: > On 29 May 2016 13:38:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >>created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. > > It didn't make sense to use much BLISS in LCG because most of the s/w was > already written in MACRO. BLISS did see widespread use on VAXes and -11s. That is only because of the Bell edict. > > >>It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >>was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >>behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >>A security review would have to be done for every change, including >>a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >>security review would have to include looking at everything which >>depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >>checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >>builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. > > Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're not explaining > it very clearly. In any case, you are hobbled by the notion that two compiles > of the same source by the same compiler will produce the same object with > the same checksum. That's not an assumption that can be made with some > HLLs, including BLISS. > I do know what I'm talking about. I ensured that what we shipped on tape could be built by the customers with the software shipped on that tape. I didn't make the assumption; I ensured the fact would happen. The explanation is difficult because most people think that the phrase "build of a compiler" means the output of some code using the compiler. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about creating the comiler's EXEs and LIBs which are used by customers to create other sofftware. For example, I'm talking about the builds which create FORTA.EXE, FORTB.EXE, FORTC.EXE, FORTD.EXE, FORTF.EXE, FORTG.EXE, FORLIB.REL and FOROTS.EXE. If this FORTRAN package were written in FORTRAN, then a change to FORTG.FOR would create a differnt result in, possibly, all of the FORT?.FOR executables and FORLIB.REL. Changing a value in any of these sources affect the EXEs of theose sources. Chnaging locations is even worse. Making an EXE set of a languages files which will match the checksums if a customer builds the EXEs was a useful debugging fact in the language development and maintenance groups. It tells a person if the sources had be modified on site. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 16:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a8732d-149.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164243 |
In article <PM0005343779524772@aca40da7.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Questor wrote: >> On 29 May 2016 13:38:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >>>created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. >> >> It didn't make sense to use much BLISS in LCG because most of the s/w was >> already written in MACRO. BLISS did see widespread use on VAXes and -11s. > >That is only because of the Bell edict. > >> >> >>>It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >>>was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >>>behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >>>A security review would have to be done for every change, including >>>a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >>>security review would have to include looking at everything which >>>depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >>>checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >>>builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. >> >> Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're not explaining >> it very clearly. In any case, you are hobbled by the notion that two >compiles >> of the same source by the same compiler will produce the same object with >> the same checksum. That's not an assumption that can be made with some >> HLLs, including BLISS. >> >I do know what I'm talking about. I ensured that what we shipped on >tape could be built by the customers with the software shipped on that >tape. I didn't make the assumption; I ensured the fact would happen. > >The explanation is difficult because most people think that the >phrase "build of a compiler" means the output of some code using >the compiler. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking >about creating the comiler's EXEs and LIBs which are used by >customers to create other sofftware. For example, I'm talking >about the builds which create FORTA.EXE, FORTB.EXE, FORTC.EXE, >FORTD.EXE, FORTF.EXE, FORTG.EXE, FORLIB.REL and FOROTS.EXE. The three stage build of compilers should be well known to this audience. >If this FORTRAN package were written in FORTRAN, then a change >to FORTG.FOR would create a differnt result in, possibly, all >of the FORT?.FOR executables and FORLIB.REL. Changing a value >in any of these sources affect the EXEs of theose sources. >Chnaging locations is even worse. > >Making an EXE set of a languages files which will match the checksums >if a customer builds the EXEs was a useful debugging fact >in the language development and maintenance groups. It tells >a person if the sources had be modified on site. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005344A136EB32C@aca41013.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164249 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM0005343779524772@aca40da7.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Questor wrote: >>> On 29 May 2016 13:38:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >>>>created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. >>> >>> It didn't make sense to use much BLISS in LCG because most of the s/w was >>> already written in MACRO. BLISS did see widespread use on VAXes and -11s. >> >>That is only because of the Bell edict. >> >>> >>> >>>>It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >>>>was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >>>>behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >>>>A security review would have to be done for every change, including >>>>a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >>>>security review would have to include looking at everything which >>>>depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >>>>checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >>>>builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. >>> >>> Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're not explaining >>> it very clearly. In any case, you are hobbled by the notion that two >>compiles >>> of the same source by the same compiler will produce the same object with >>> the same checksum. That's not an assumption that can be made with some >>> HLLs, including BLISS. >>> >>I do know what I'm talking about. I ensured that what we shipped on >>tape could be built by the customers with the software shipped on that >>tape. I didn't make the assumption; I ensured the fact would happen. >> >>The explanation is difficult because most people think that the >>phrase "build of a compiler" means the output of some code using >>the compiler. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking >>about creating the comiler's EXEs and LIBs which are used by >>customers to create other sofftware. For example, I'm talking >>about the builds which create FORTA.EXE, FORTB.EXE, FORTC.EXE, >>FORTD.EXE, FORTF.EXE, FORTG.EXE, FORLIB.REL and FOROTS.EXE. > > The three stage build of compilers should be well known to > this audience. I agree it should be but I've read posts where the output of the build of a compiler was confused with the output of a build using that compiler. It's a common confusion when people don't normally deal with OS and compiler development. There were people in our development groups who didn't know the difference. I retrained them by forcing them to do the builds by hand rather than submitting a batch job; I don't think they ever looked at the batch log files and realized it was a canned user interative script. /BAH > >>If this FORTRAN package were written in FORTRAN, then a change >>to FORTG.FOR would create a differnt result in, possibly, all >>of the FORT?.FOR executables and FORLIB.REL. Changing a value >>in any of these sources affect the EXEs of theose sources. >>Chnaging locations is even worse. >> >>Making an EXE set of a languages files which will match the checksums >>if a customer builds the EXEs was a useful debugging fact >>in the language development and maintenance groups. It tells >>a person if the sources had be modified on site. > > -- mrr > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1809307348.486485797.567430.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164243 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Questor wrote: >> On 29 May 2016 13:38:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >>> created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. >> >> It didn't make sense to use much BLISS in LCG because most of the s/w was >> already written in MACRO. BLISS did see widespread use on VAXes and -11s. > > That is only because of the Bell edict. By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I don't know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. > >> >> >>> It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >>> was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >>> behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >>> A security review would have to be done for every change, including >>> a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >>> security review would have to include looking at everything which >>> depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >>> checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >>> builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. >> This has been the case since time immemorial. That was the story with Burroughs ESPOL, they made a change, compiled it, compiled it using the changed compiler, and than recompiled it again. I do this with Iron Spring PL/I, and there have been cases where a bug didn't show up until the third compile. >> Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're not explaining >> it very clearly. In any case, you are hobbled by the notion that two > compiles >> of the same source by the same compiler will produce the same object with >> the same checksum. That's not an assumption that can be made with some >> HLLs, including BLISS. >> > I do know what I'm talking about. I ensured that what we shipped on > tape could be built by the customers with the software shipped on that > tape. I didn't make the assumption; I ensured the fact would happen. > > The explanation is difficult because most people think that the > phrase "build of a compiler" means the output of some code using > the compiler. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking > about creating the comiler's EXEs and LIBs which are used by > customers to create other sofftware. For example, I'm talking > about the builds which create FORTA.EXE, FORTB.EXE, FORTC.EXE, > FORTD.EXE, FORTF.EXE, FORTG.EXE, FORLIB.REL and FOROTS.EXE. > > If this FORTRAN package were written in FORTRAN, then a change > to FORTG.FOR would create a differnt result in, possibly, all > of the FORT?.FOR executables and FORLIB.REL. Changing a value > in any of these sources affect the EXEs of theose sources. > Chnaging locations is even worse. > > Making an EXE set of a languages files which will match the checksums > if a customer builds the EXEs was a useful debugging fact > in the language development and maintenance groups. It tells > a person if the sources had be modified on site. So what did you do about compile dates/times? -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qhiukb5v1r9cjg7ovcf9pjlj08k44tgs11@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164253 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:13:53 -0400, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>This has been the case since time immemorial. That was the story with
>Burroughs ESPOL, they made a change, compiled it, compiled it using the
>changed compiler, and than recompiled it again. I do this with Iron Spring
>PL/I, and there have been cases where a bug didn't show up until the third
>compile.
Please, do tell. It sounds interesting.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 17:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <406587778.486508876.651451.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164283 |
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:13:53 -0400, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > [snip] > >> This has been the case since time immemorial. That was the story with >> Burroughs ESPOL, they made a change, compiled it, compiled it using the >> changed compiler, and than recompiled it again. I do this with Iron Spring >> PL/I, and there have been cases where a bug didn't show up until the third >> compile. > > Please, do tell. It sounds interesting. Not much to tell. I make a change and compile it. All this shows is that the syntax is correct. Second compile runs but generates incorrect code. Third compile everything hits the fan. > > [snip] > > Sincerely, > > Gene Wirchenko > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005344A05B08242@aca41013.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164253 |
Peter Flass wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Questor wrote: >>> On 29 May 2016 13:38:20 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >>>> created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. >>> >>> It didn't make sense to use much BLISS in LCG because most of the s/w was >>> already written in MACRO. BLISS did see widespread use on VAXes and -11s. >> >> That is only because of the Bell edict. > > By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I don't > know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. That edict was fine (but not BLISS) for brand new files using the code. It was not fine trying to force compiler output into MACRO-10-generated code. I still don't know how we were supposed to write DDT patches using BLISS. The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings all the time. > >> >>> >>> >>>> It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >>>> was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >>>> behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >>>> A security review would have to be done for every change, including >>>> a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >>>> security review would have to include looking at everything which >>>> depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >>>> checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >>>> builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. >>> > > This has been the case since time immemorial. That was the story with > Burroughs ESPOL, they made a change, compiled it, compiled it using the > changed compiler, and than recompiled it again. I do this with Iron Spring > PL/I, and there have been cases where a bug didn't show up until the third > compile. > >>> Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're not explaining >>> it very clearly. In any case, you are hobbled by the notion that two >> compiles >>> of the same source by the same compiler will produce the same object with >>> the same checksum. That's not an assumption that can be made with some >>> HLLs, including BLISS. >>> >> I do know what I'm talking about. I ensured that what we shipped on >> tape could be built by the customers with the software shipped on that >> tape. I didn't make the assumption; I ensured the fact would happen. >> >> The explanation is difficult because most people think that the >> phrase "build of a compiler" means the output of some code using >> the compiler. That is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking >> about creating the comiler's EXEs and LIBs which are used by >> customers to create other sofftware. For example, I'm talking >> about the builds which create FORTA.EXE, FORTB.EXE, FORTC.EXE, >> FORTD.EXE, FORTF.EXE, FORTG.EXE, FORLIB.REL and FOROTS.EXE. >> >> If this FORTRAN package were written in FORTRAN, then a change >> to FORTG.FOR would create a differnt result in, possibly, all >> of the FORT?.FOR executables and FORLIB.REL. Changing a value >> in any of these sources affect the EXEs of theose sources. >> Chnaging locations is even worse. >> >> Making an EXE set of a languages files which will match the checksums >> if a customer builds the EXEs was a useful debugging fact >> in the language development and maintenance groups. It tells >> a person if the sources had be modified on site. > > So what did you do about compile dates/times? File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5752406a.1552973@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164313 |
On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:38 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Peter Flass wrote: >> By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I don't >> know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. > >The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings >all the time. BLISS produces cross-referenced listings that are no less useless than the ones produced by MACRO. >> So what did you do about compile dates/times? > >File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning >any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). >A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time >later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer >has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. You missed the point. The compile timestamp is not the file creation date; it would be in the compiler output -- in the .REL file.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 12:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f7oa2d-8m7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164455 |
In article <5752406a.1552973@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: >On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:38 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Peter Flass wrote: >>> By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I don't >>> know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. >> >>The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings >>all the time. > >BLISS produces cross-referenced listings that are no less useless than the >ones produced by MACRO. > >>> So what did you do about compile dates/times? >> >>File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning >>any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). >>A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time >>later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer >>has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. > >You missed the point. The compile timestamp is not the file creation date; >it would be in the compiler output -- in the .REL file. You also confirm in heaps and spades what I asserted; DEC never trusted their compilers. They made as good, or better, cref and other crossrefs as macro did. They had lots better possibilities for packaging, and you could generate patches from a "diff" of the object code just as well as you could with macro. This applied for fortran, cobol, not quite for the pascal, and for the algol. Worked with all of them. Even basic. (The basic-plus was a really good basic). But is wasn'd macro. I changed macro for 'fail' the instant I tried it. Lots faster, and had some very useful extra features. But you never trusted the compilers. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053473513308E8@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164465 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <5752406a.1552973@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: >>On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:38 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Peter Flass wrote: >>>> By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I don't >>>> know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. >>> >>>The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings >>>all the time. >> >>BLISS produces cross-referenced listings that are no less useless than the >>ones produced by MACRO. >> >>>> So what did you do about compile dates/times? >>> >>>File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning >>>any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). >>>A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time >>>later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer >>>has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. >> >>You missed the point. The compile timestamp is not the file creation date; >>it would be in the compiler output -- in the .REL file. > > You also confirm in heaps and spades what I asserted; DEC never trusted > their compilers. They made as good, or better, cref and other crossrefs > as macro did. They had lots better possibilities for packaging, and you > could generate patches from a "diff" of the object code just as well > as you could with macro. > > This applied for fortran, cobol, not quite for the pascal, and for > the algol. Worked with all of them. Even basic. (The basic-plus was > a really good basic). > > But is wasn'd macro. > > I changed macro for 'fail' the instant I tried it. Lots faster, and > had some very useful extra features. > > But you never trusted the compilers. We were developing new stuff. Compiler development schedules were longer than monitor development schedules which were delayed by hardware development schedules. Depending on a compiler ship before shipping any new hadware or monitor software was NOT feasible. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 16:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <br4b2d-bub.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164482 |
In article <PM00053473513308E8@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <5752406a.1552973@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> >wrote: >>>On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:38 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Peter Flass wrote: >>>>> By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I don't >>>>> know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. >>>> >>>>The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings >>>>all the time. >>> >>>BLISS produces cross-referenced listings that are no less useless than the >>>ones produced by MACRO. >>> >>>>> So what did you do about compile dates/times? >>>> >>>>File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning >>>>any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). >>>>A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time >>>>later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer >>>>has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. >>> >>>You missed the point. The compile timestamp is not the file creation date; >>>it would be in the compiler output -- in the .REL file. >> >> You also confirm in heaps and spades what I asserted; DEC never trusted >> their compilers. They made as good, or better, cref and other crossrefs >> as macro did. They had lots better possibilities for packaging, and you >> could generate patches from a "diff" of the object code just as well >> as you could with macro. >> >> This applied for fortran, cobol, not quite for the pascal, and for >> the algol. Worked with all of them. Even basic. (The basic-plus was >> a really good basic). >> >> But is wasn'd macro. >> >> I changed macro for 'fail' the instant I tried it. Lots faster, and >> had some very useful extra features. >> >> But you never trusted the compilers. > >We were developing new stuff. Compiler development schedules were >longer than monitor development schedules which were delayed by >hardware development schedules. Depending on a compiler ship >before shipping any new hadware or monitor software was NOT >feasible. Sheesh. Everyone else (that has been remotely successful) know that you must decouple compilers and OS development. You make a compiler that compiles X language to Y API. Then you support that API on the next (and the following) hardware generations. If you make any API extensions the NEXT compiler generation gets a backend for them. This is how Prime got 6 different instruction sets on their 50-series. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053488A4664EF5@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164496 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM00053473513308E8@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <5752406a.1552973@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> >>wrote: >>>>On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:38 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>> By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I don't >>>>>> know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. >>>>> >>>>>The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings >>>>>all the time. >>>> >>>>BLISS produces cross-referenced listings that are no less useless than the >>>>ones produced by MACRO. >>>> >>>>>> So what did you do about compile dates/times? >>>>> >>>>>File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning >>>>>any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). >>>>>A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time >>>>>later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer >>>>>has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. >>>> >>>>You missed the point. The compile timestamp is not the file creation date; >>>>it would be in the compiler output -- in the .REL file. >>> >>> You also confirm in heaps and spades what I asserted; DEC never trusted >>> their compilers. They made as good, or better, cref and other crossrefs >>> as macro did. They had lots better possibilities for packaging, and you >>> could generate patches from a "diff" of the object code just as well >>> as you could with macro. >>> >>> This applied for fortran, cobol, not quite for the pascal, and for >>> the algol. Worked with all of them. Even basic. (The basic-plus was >>> a really good basic). >>> >>> But is wasn'd macro. >>> >>> I changed macro for 'fail' the instant I tried it. Lots faster, and >>> had some very useful extra features. >>> >>> But you never trusted the compilers. >> >>We were developing new stuff. Compiler development schedules were >>longer than monitor development schedules which were delayed by >>hardware development schedules. Depending on a compiler ship >>before shipping any new hadware or monitor software was NOT >>feasible. > > Sheesh. Everyone else (that has been remotely successful) know that > you must decouple compilers and OS development. You make a compiler > that compiles X language to Y API. Then you support that API on the > next (and the following) hardware generations. If you make any API > extensions the NEXT compiler generation gets a backend for them. > > This is how Prime got 6 different instruction sets on their 50-series. BLISS was decoupled from VMS. A bug in VMS caused by a bug in BLISS would take 3 years to get fixed IF the fix had to be done in BLISS. To get the current VMS development out the door, the fix went into VMS, not the compiler. In the late 60s and early 70s, DEC could not depend on that kind of scheduling to sell hardware. You keep forgetting that our primary business was hardware manufacturing and not a software development. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 23:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bjhe2d-33h.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164579 |
In article <PM00053488A4664EF5@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM00053473513308E8@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> In article <5752406a.1552973@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> >>>wrote: >>>>>On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:38 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>>> By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I >don't >>>>>>> know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. >>>>>> >>>>>>The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings >>>>>>all the time. >>>>> >>>>>BLISS produces cross-referenced listings that are no less useless than the >>>>>ones produced by MACRO. >>>>> >>>>>>> So what did you do about compile dates/times? >>>>>> >>>>>>File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning >>>>>>any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). >>>>>>A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time >>>>>>later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer >>>>>>has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. >>>>> >>>>>You missed the point. The compile timestamp is not the file creation >date; >>>>>it would be in the compiler output -- in the .REL file. >>>> >>>> You also confirm in heaps and spades what I asserted; DEC never trusted >>>> their compilers. They made as good, or better, cref and other crossrefs >>>> as macro did. They had lots better possibilities for packaging, and you >>>> could generate patches from a "diff" of the object code just as well >>>> as you could with macro. >>>> >>>> This applied for fortran, cobol, not quite for the pascal, and for >>>> the algol. Worked with all of them. Even basic. (The basic-plus was >>>> a really good basic). >>>> >>>> But is wasn'd macro. >>>> >>>> I changed macro for 'fail' the instant I tried it. Lots faster, and >>>> had some very useful extra features. >>>> >>>> But you never trusted the compilers. >>> >>>We were developing new stuff. Compiler development schedules were >>>longer than monitor development schedules which were delayed by >>>hardware development schedules. Depending on a compiler ship >>>before shipping any new hadware or monitor software was NOT >>>feasible. >> >> Sheesh. Everyone else (that has been remotely successful) know that >> you must decouple compilers and OS development. You make a compiler >> that compiles X language to Y API. Then you support that API on the >> next (and the following) hardware generations. If you make any API >> extensions the NEXT compiler generation gets a backend for them. >> >> This is how Prime got 6 different instruction sets on their 50-series. > >BLISS was decoupled from VMS. A bug in VMS caused by a bug in BLISS >would take 3 years to get fixed IF the fix had to be done in BLISS. >To get the current VMS development out the door, the fix went into >VMS, not the compiler. > >In the late 60s and early 70s, DEC could not depend on that kind >of scheduling to sell hardware. You keep forgetting that our >primary business was hardware manufacturing and not a software >development. Yes, you are showing a massive distrust in compilers, generally. They MAY have been bad enough to warrant that. Code does not spontaneously blow up just because it has been through a compiler, even a pretty bad one. You may need to fiddle your source and your compiles a little to make it spit out what you want. But that will be reproducible with the same compiler. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005349C1DC5E229@aca407c0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164631 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM00053488A4664EF5@aca41e70.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <PM00053473513308E8@aca202a8.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> In article <5752406a.1552973@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> >>>>wrote: >>>>>>On 2 Jun 2016 12:09:38 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>>>> By this time everyone was moving to HLLs for system development. I >>don't >>>>>>>> know much about BLISS, it seems no better or worse than the others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The CREFs and GLOBs would be useless. We relied on those listings >>>>>>>all the time. >>>>>> >>>>>>BLISS produces cross-referenced listings that are no less useless than the >>>>>>ones produced by MACRO. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what did you do about compile dates/times? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>File creation dates/times were not in the file; data concerning >>>>>>>any file were stored in the file's RIB (retrieval information block). >>>>>>>A customer who is rebuilding a product would always have a date/time >>>>>>>later than the files we shipped. If it's earlier, the customer >>>>>>>has a lot more problems to deal with than a recompilation. >>>>>> >>>>>>You missed the point. The compile timestamp is not the file creation >>date; >>>>>>it would be in the compiler output -- in the .REL file. >>>>> >>>>> You also confirm in heaps and spades what I asserted; DEC never trusted >>>>> their compilers. They made as good, or better, cref and other crossrefs >>>>> as macro did. They had lots better possibilities for packaging, and you >>>>> could generate patches from a "diff" of the object code just as well >>>>> as you could with macro. >>>>> >>>>> This applied for fortran, cobol, not quite for the pascal, and for >>>>> the algol. Worked with all of them. Even basic. (The basic-plus was >>>>> a really good basic). >>>>> >>>>> But is wasn'd macro. >>>>> >>>>> I changed macro for 'fail' the instant I tried it. Lots faster, and >>>>> had some very useful extra features. >>>>> >>>>> But you never trusted the compilers. >>>> >>>>We were developing new stuff. Compiler development schedules were >>>>longer than monitor development schedules which were delayed by >>>>hardware development schedules. Depending on a compiler ship >>>>before shipping any new hadware or monitor software was NOT >>>>feasible. >>> >>> Sheesh. Everyone else (that has been remotely successful) know that >>> you must decouple compilers and OS development. You make a compiler >>> that compiles X language to Y API. Then you support that API on the >>> next (and the following) hardware generations. If you make any API >>> extensions the NEXT compiler generation gets a backend for them. >>> >>> This is how Prime got 6 different instruction sets on their 50-series. >> >>BLISS was decoupled from VMS. A bug in VMS caused by a bug in BLISS >>would take 3 years to get fixed IF the fix had to be done in BLISS. >>To get the current VMS development out the door, the fix went into >>VMS, not the compiler. >> >>In the late 60s and early 70s, DEC could not depend on that kind >>of scheduling to sell hardware. You keep forgetting that our >>primary business was hardware manufacturing and not a software >>development. > > Yes, you are showing a massive distrust in compilers, generally. > > They MAY have been bad enough to warrant that. > > Code does not spontaneously blow up just because it has been through > a compiler, even a pretty bad one. You may need to fiddle your source > and your compiles a little to make it spit out what you want. But > that will be reproducible with the same compiler. What "same compiler"? we had a development environment; there was no "same compiler". If we had used a field image compiler, then a ship of a monitor version (which was the first code to support the new hardware) depended on a previous ship of the compiler. We would have never shipped a monitor nor started manufacturing the hardware. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 24 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 22 23 [24] 25 26 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web