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 22 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 30 Next page →
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drllpiFc6elU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164681 |
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:13:20 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 12:11:58 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 08:25:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:19:22 -0700, hancock4 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Funnily enough, I have always thought that COBOL is well suited >>>>>>>> to writing assemblers. And have said so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly, you could write an assembler in COBOL. Also, do lots >>>>>>> of other things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But would the resultant code be efficient? Probably not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. >>>>>> >>>>>> COBOL has plenty of useful features for assemblers. I see no reason >>>>>> why it should run any slower than code written in another language. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Huh? I remember seeing code that a guy wrote to twiddle bits in >>>>> COBOL. >>>>> To test a single bit he would do stuff like: >>>>> >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 65535 THEN SUBTRACT 65536 FROM A. >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 32767 THEN SUBTRACT 32768 FROM A. >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 16383 THEN GO TO BIT_IS_SET. >>>> >>>> There are bad programmers in every language. >>>> >>>> COBOL has bit manipulation. >>>> >>>> >>> NOW. >> >> I'm not proposing to use it in the past. >> >> > I was talking about olden days. I wasn't, and I started the discussion about COBOL and assemblers. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a521bd3-f809-4d3f-8f36-655f3f59864e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164684 |
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 10:13:40 AM UTC-6, Bob Eager wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:13:20 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: > > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 12:11:58 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: > >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 08:25:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: > >>>>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > >>>>>> COBOL has plenty of useful features for assemblers. I see no reason > >>>>>> why it should run any slower than code written in another language. > >>>>> Huh? I remember seeing code that a guy wrote to twiddle bits in > >>>>> COBOL. > >>>>> To test a single bit he would do stuff like: > >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 65535 THEN SUBTRACT 65536 FROM A. > >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 32767 THEN SUBTRACT 32768 FROM A. > >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 16383 THEN GO TO BIT_IS_SET. > >>>> There are bad programmers in every language. > >>>> > >>>> COBOL has bit manipulation. > >>> NOW. > >> I'm not proposing to use it in the past. > > I was talking about olden days. > I wasn't, and I started the discussion about COBOL and assemblers. That is all very well... but you made a *general statement* about the suitability of COBOL for writing an assembler. It is entirely reasonable for someone to respond to a general statement about the merits of COBOL, not specifically qualified to refer to _today's_ COBOL, based on what COBOL was back in the days when it was most widely used. And then you went and said "there are bad programmers in any language", which involves an incorrect inference, since the example was from "olden days" when bit manipulation was not a COBOL feature, and, hence, resorting to the technique shown was not, in fact, evidence of an egregious failure of programming technique. Expecting everyone else to have either read your mind, or at least scrutinized every single post in the entire thread before commenting, and harshly criticizing those who fail in this... is not, at least in my opinion, reasonable. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drlugiFc6elU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164691 |
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:00:39 -0700, Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 10:13:40 AM UTC-6, Bob Eager wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:13:20 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 12:11:58 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >> >>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 08:25:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>>>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > >> >>>>>> COBOL has plenty of useful features for assemblers. I see no >> >>>>>> reason why it should run any slower than code written in another >> >>>>>> language. > >> >>>>> Huh? I remember seeing code that a guy wrote to twiddle bits in >> >>>>> COBOL. >> >>>>> To test a single bit he would do stuff like: > >> >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 65535 THEN SUBTRACT 65536 FROM A. >> >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 32767 THEN SUBTRACT 32768 FROM A. >> >>>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 16383 THEN GO TO BIT_IS_SET. > >> >>>> There are bad programmers in every language. >> >>>> >> >>>> COBOL has bit manipulation. > >> >>> NOW. > >> >> I'm not proposing to use it in the past. > >> > I was talking about olden days. > >> I wasn't, and I started the discussion about COBOL and assemblers. > > That is all very well... > > but you made a *general statement* about the suitability of COBOL for > writing an assembler. > > It is entirely reasonable for someone to respond to a general statement > about the merits of COBOL, not specifically qualified to refer to > _today's_ COBOL, based on what COBOL was back in the days when it was > most widely used. > > And then you went and said "there are bad programmers in any language", > which involves an incorrect inference, since the example was from "olden > days" when bit manipulation was not a COBOL feature, and, hence, > resorting to the technique shown was not, in fact, evidence of an > egregious failure of programming technique. > > Expecting everyone else to have either read your mind, or at least > scrutinized every single post in the entire thread before commenting, > and harshly criticizing those who fail in this... is not, at least in my > opinion, reasonable. I responded like that because, in my opinion, Mr Flass was being unnecessarily harsh. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 17:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nj2703$erf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164598 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 08:25:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:19:22 -0700, hancock4 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Funnily enough, I have always thought that COBOL is well suited to >>>>>> writing assemblers. And have said so. >>>>> >>>>> Certainly, you could write an assembler in COBOL. Also, do lots of >>>>> other things. >>>>> >>>>> But would the resultant code be efficient? Probably not. >>>> >>>> Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. >>>> >>>> COBOL has plenty of useful features for assemblers. I see no reason why >>>> it should run any slower than code written in another language. >>>> >>> Huh? I remember seeing code that a guy wrote to twiddle bits in COBOL. >>> To test a single bit he would do stuff like: >>> >>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 65535 THEN SUBTRACT 65536 FROM A. >>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 32767 THEN SUBTRACT 32768 FROM A. >>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 16383 THEN GO TO BIT_IS_SET. >> >> There are bad programmers in every language. >> >> COBOL has bit manipulation. > > NOW. Back then I had COBOL routines to do char <-> hex, char <-> binary (zeros and ones). So, if I'd needed bit flipping I had it. Wang/VS is the first COBOL I remember with built-in bit flipping. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 12:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tle5z.2325$wy2.871@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #164630 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 08:25:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >>> >>>> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:19:22 -0700, hancock4 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Funnily enough, I have always thought that COBOL is well suited to >>>>>>> writing assemblers. And have said so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Certainly, you could write an assembler in COBOL. Also, do lots of >>>>>> other things. >>>>>> >>>>>> But would the resultant code be efficient? Probably not. >>>>> >>>>> Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. >>>>> >>>>> COBOL has plenty of useful features for assemblers. I see no reason why >>>>> it should run any slower than code written in another language. >>>>> >>>> Huh? I remember seeing code that a guy wrote to twiddle bits in COBOL. >>>> To test a single bit he would do stuff like: >>>> >>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 65535 THEN SUBTRACT 65536 FROM A. >>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 32767 THEN SUBTRACT 32768 FROM A. >>>> IF A IS GREATER THAN 16383 THEN GO TO BIT_IS_SET. >>> >>> There are bad programmers in every language. >>> >>> COBOL has bit manipulation. >> >> NOW. > >Back then I had COBOL routines to do char <-> hex, char <-> binary >(zeros and ones). > >So, if I'd needed bit flipping I had it. > >Wang/VS is the first COBOL I remember with built-in bit flipping. I'm pretty sure that Burroughs COBOL had it (COBOL68 by using embedded assembler), but I don't have the manual handy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f01f631a-c4dd-4d37-9a4c-837d989c2220@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164559 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 8:25:07 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > Huh? I remember seeing code that a guy wrote to twiddle bits in COBOL. To > test a single bit he would do stuff like: > > IF A IS GREATER THAN 65535 THEN SUBTRACT 65536 FROM A. > IF A IS GREATER THAN 32767 THEN SUBTRACT 32768 FROM A. > IF A IS GREATER THAN 16383 THEN GO TO BIT_IS_SET. We had an old 1960s application that used individual bits as flags. We could test via the means above, but it was simpler and faster to use a canned subroutine which exploded a byte into 8 bytes (and vice versa). As an aside, they had hoped to replace that application before Y2K. Unfortunately, they couldn't, and it was necessary to come up with some fancy footwear to handle Y2K dates. It was good only for a few years, and then the system was replaced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 16:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <466543810.487023462.266598.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164706 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 8:25:07 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Huh? I remember seeing code that a guy wrote to twiddle bits in COBOL. To >> test a single bit he would do stuff like: >> >> IF A IS GREATER THAN 65535 THEN SUBTRACT 65536 FROM A. >> IF A IS GREATER THAN 32767 THEN SUBTRACT 32768 FROM A. >> IF A IS GREATER THAN 16383 THEN GO TO BIT_IS_SET. > > We had an old 1960s application that used individual bits as > flags. We could test via the means above, but it was simpler > and faster to use a canned subroutine which exploded a byte > into 8 bytes (and vice versa). > I think we had an edict that everything had to be COBOL. > As an aside, they had hoped to replace that application before > Y2K. Unfortunately, they couldn't, and it was necessary to come > up with some fancy footwear to handle Y2K dates. It was good only > for a few years, and then the system was replaced. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f92d64c-96cf-46aa-af32-1b32974cf501@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164749 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:32:53 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > We had an old 1960s application that used individual bits as > > flags. We could test via the means above, but it was simpler > > and faster to use a canned subroutine which exploded a byte > > into 8 bytes (and vice versa). > I think we had an edict that everything had to be COBOL. Back in the 1960s, many sites had small machines where it was necessary to use assembler. In certain complex applications, assembler programmers had to use their skills to squeeze in maximum functionality in a limited space, and maximize performance from a relatively slow CPU and peripherals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 22:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31bc019729c9ed6c98a20d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164441 |
In article <4da58f61-3979-4b10-9e83-014591156ba7@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote: > > > > Funnily enough, I have always thought that COBOL is well suited to > > writing assemblers. And have said so. > > Certainly, you could write an assembler in COBOL. Also, do lots > of other things. > > But would the resultant code be efficient? Probably not. > > Properly written assembler code is usually more efficient than > higher level code. For instance, a very simple COBOL program > to copy a file won't run as fast as a utility (e.g. IEBGENER > or SYNCSORT-copy) because the utility writers have access to > more machine level features. > > Further, something like an assembler or utility program is > rolled out to many thousands of users of the machine. As such, > it pays to be written for efficiency. In contrast, an application > program might run an hour once a day (or even less). > Maintainability is more important than speed. > > In essence, the customer world has generally followed, for > good reason, of: > > --COBOL for business applications > --assembler for systems programming and specialized work > --FORTRAN for scientific applications Somebody needs to tell a certain Fortune 100 insurance company that FORTRAN is not for business applications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d6220f1-29cf-4aad-9809-ec1045cb7366@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164451 |
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:06:12 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > Somebody needs to tell a certain Fortune 100 insurance company that > FORTRAN is not for business applications. As mentioned above, various tools will get the job done, but not as efficiently. A drugstore that uses a Volkswagon to delivery prescriptions could also use a tractor trailer, although it would be far more cumbersome and less efficient. Anyway, I would dare say that insurance company doesn't have as maintainable code nor as efficient code if they had written their business systems in COBOL. (But there are other considerations, such as the particular machine being used and the existing knowledge base of the staff. Many engineering organizations used FORTRAN for the business applications (ie the payroll) because their programmers already knew FORTRAN.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d95bda1-900a-4245-8b98-532f5863dff6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164505 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:33:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Anyway, I would dare say that insurance company doesn't have as > maintainable code nor as efficient code if they had written their > business systems in COBOL. Since it's an insurance company, maybe the systems in question do some complicated actuarial math that actually belongs in FORTRAN. No doubt they would use special libraries to access things like ISAM files if they were also using the tool for things it fit less well. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31bd12bdebe582c098a216@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164505 |
In article <9d6220f1-29cf-4aad-9809-ec1045cb7366@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:06:12 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > > > Somebody needs to tell a certain Fortune 100 insurance company that > > FORTRAN is not for business applications. > > As mentioned above, various tools will get the job done, but not > as efficiently. A drugstore that uses a Volkswagon to delivery > prescriptions could also use a tractor trailer, although it would > be far more cumbersome and less efficient. > > Anyway, I would dare say that insurance company doesn't have as > maintainable code nor as efficient code if they had written their > business systems in COBOL. (But there are other considerations, > such as the particular machine being used and the existing knowledge > base of the staff. Many engineering organizations used FORTRAN for > the business applications (ie the payroll) because their programmers > already knew FORTRAN.) Since I am one of the maintainers of the Fortran code for that company, and since I see absolutely no maintenance issues that are unique to Fortran I don't accept your assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0da7b657-696f-4320-9aa8-8623bbddf635@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164512 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 5:31:45 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > > Anyway, I would dare say that insurance company doesn't have as > > maintainable code nor as efficient code if they had written their > > business systems in COBOL. (But there are other considerations, > > such as the particular machine being used and the existing knowledge > > base of the staff. Many engineering organizations used FORTRAN for > > the business applications (ie the payroll) because their programmers > > already knew FORTRAN.) > > Since I am one of the maintainers of the Fortran code for that company, > and since I see absolutely no maintenance issues that are unique to > Fortran I don't accept your assertion. How does the company handle on-line inquiries and updates? Does FORTRAN interface with CICS? Also, is IBM mainframe FORTRAN still supported? I thought the last mainframe version was pretty ancient. (If not on an IBM mainframe, what platform is this on?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <274c7b2e-7dcf-45ec-8328-3db23be7cd83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164748 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:19:50 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Also, is IBM mainframe FORTRAN still supported? I thought the > last mainframe version was pretty ancient. (If not on an IBM > mainframe, what platform is this on?) Yes, but it's a Fortran 77 and not a Fortran 90. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 00:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bduj2d-mq.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164748 |
In article <0da7b657-696f-4320-9aa8-8623bbddf635@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 5:31:45 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: >> > Anyway, I would dare say that insurance company doesn't have as >> > maintainable code nor as efficient code if they had written their >> > business systems in COBOL. (But there are other considerations, >> > such as the particular machine being used and the existing knowledge >> > base of the staff. Many engineering organizations used FORTRAN for >> > the business applications (ie the payroll) because their programmers >> > already knew FORTRAN.) >> >> Since I am one of the maintainers of the Fortran code for that company, >> and since I see absolutely no maintenance issues that are unique to >> Fortran I don't accept your assertion. > >How does the company handle on-line inquiries and updates? >Does FORTRAN interface with CICS? Last I saw, version 1.7 and fortran H, there was a need for an assembly interude. But it was pretty trivial. Getting the cics calls right is another matter entirely, and quite outside the scope of fortran/cics. >Also, is IBM mainframe FORTRAN still supported? I thought the >last mainframe version was pretty ancient. (If not on an IBM >mainframe, what platform is this on?) -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31c12c758a298fb298a22e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164748 |
In article <0da7b657-696f-4320-9aa8-8623bbddf635@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 5:31:45 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > > > Anyway, I would dare say that insurance company doesn't have as > > > maintainable code nor as efficient code if they had written their > > > business systems in COBOL. (But there are other considerations, > > > such as the particular machine being used and the existing knowledge > > > base of the staff. Many engineering organizations used FORTRAN for > > > the business applications (ie the payroll) because their programmers > > > already knew FORTRAN.) > > > > Since I am one of the maintainers of the Fortran code for that company, > > and since I see absolutely no maintenance issues that are unique to > > Fortran I don't accept your assertion. > > How does the company handle on-line inquiries and updates? > Does FORTRAN interface with CICS? Exactly. > Also, is IBM mainframe FORTRAN still supported? I thought the > last mainframe version was pretty ancient. (If not on an IBM > mainframe, what platform is this on?) IBM hasn't updated the standard but they do maintain it at a highly extended Fortran 77 level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <suA4z.4604$Ql2.2171@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #164441 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote: > > >> Funnily enough, I have always thought that COBOL is well suited to >> writing assemblers. And have said so. > >Certainly, you could write an assembler in COBOL. Also, do lots >of other things. > >But would the resultant code be efficient? Probably not. > >Properly written assembler code is usually more efficient than >higher level code. That was true then, it's not true now. Compiler back-ends (and optimizers) have become quite (even very) good, especially when they have knowledge of the processor pipeline and issue characteristics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 15:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p92b2d-j98.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164468 |
In article <suA4z.4604$Ql2.2171@fx02.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote: >> >> >>> Funnily enough, I have always thought that COBOL is well suited to >>> writing assemblers. And have said so. >> >>Certainly, you could write an assembler in COBOL. Also, do lots >>of other things. >> >>But would the resultant code be efficient? Probably not. >> >>Properly written assembler code is usually more efficient than >>higher level code. > >That was true then, it's not true now. Compiler back-ends (and optimizers) >have become quite (even very) good, especially when they have knowledge >of the processor pipeline and issue characteristics. It hasn't been true for 20+ years. The programmer may be able to super-optimise some small bit of code for a specific processor. But to do so for larger code bodies, or to do so for the several dozen processors (implementations, not apis) that exist is borderline impossible, but is realised daily with some simple options to the code generation of popular compilers. I detect around a 3:1 speed variance between the various levels of optimisations on gcc and llvm depending on optimisation and debug levels and specific processor targets. It is amazing how often -Os plus some -m= arguments tends to give a significant speed improvement in real life. Probably because caches are always too small. This is something the system builder can do without looking at the code. At all. And this makes it a very valuable addition to the toolbox. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58e10e47-535d-43e8-8a36-e246e897b8cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164468 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 9:14:02 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote: > That was true then, it's not true now. Compiler back-ends (and optimizers) > have become quite (even very) good, especially when they have knowledge > of the processor pipeline and issue characteristics. As I understand the IBM mainframe, a lot of the pipeline stuff is handled by the machine, transparent to the programmer. So, it doesn't matter what the compiler generates. In addition, as mentioned, it remains that to this day, a utility program (eg SYNCSORT or IDCAMS) performing a file copy or file selection will run faster than a COBOL program doing the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 21:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <UIqdnU9OjZAse8zKnZ2dnUU78bednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #164425 |
On 03/06/2016 17:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-06-03, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-06-02, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: >> >>> What languages would you suggest for writing an operating system >>> and associated utilities? Fortran? COBOL? >> >> Having worked on a word processor written in Fortran, I'd suggest not. > > A friend of mine wrote an 8080 assembler in COBOL. It ran rings > around the Univac-issue assembler, which was written in Fortran. > That sounds likely. I/O dominated Fortran programs need to use assembler for reading and writing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 22 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web