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 20 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 30 Next page →
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 16:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nj1eu4$jo8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164557 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20160605123918.62874cf3917645539ebf07ac@eircom.net... > On 4 Jun 2016 10:54:17 GMT > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >> I freely admit it; I am a rubbish programmer. > I try not to disillusion my employers, but I am certainly not a > clever programmer I write my code to be as simple as I can get it. This > usually results in code that works and is easy to maintain. > I used to write complex clever code (I had one code review of a > particularly complex and critical piece of code returned in five seconds > with the comment "It works doesn't it" after everyone else in the team had > refused to even look at it) - I like simple code better. In thedays when your PDP11 only had 8 or 12K words of memory, if you were the sort of programmer who could do clever tricks to shave off from your program a word here, and a word there, you were worth your money, but if you do the same things nowadays you're a threat to the long term costs to the organisation to maintain your code!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 09:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160606092743.9a65fb2662e9557cf4e473dc@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #164591 |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 16:02:22 +0100 "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message > news:20160605123918.62874cf3917645539ebf07ac@eircom.net... > > On 4 Jun 2016 10:54:17 GMT > > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >> I freely admit it; I am a rubbish programmer. > > I try not to disillusion my employers, but I am certainly not a > > clever programmer I write my code to be as simple as I can get it. This > > usually results in code that works and is easy to maintain. > > I used to write complex clever code (I had one code review of a > > particularly complex and critical piece of code returned in five seconds > > with the comment "It works doesn't it" after everyone else in the team > > had refused to even look at it) - I like simple code better. > > In thedays when your PDP11 only had 8 or 12K words of memory, if you > were the sort of programmer who could do clever tricks to shave off > from your program a word here, and a word there, you were worth your > money, but if you do the same things nowadays you're a threat to the long > term costs to > the organisation to maintain your code! Yep, I've been programming a long time, I used to shave bytes and cycles from code now I shave complexity and obscurity from the design. It's still the same job really. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76a17cba-109f-4cb8-9a65-72a5432e322e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164444 |
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:04:29 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote: > > Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. > > I think you made the same mistake I made -- he's not talking about the > quality of the code produced by the assembler, but the "quality" of the > code that is the assembler itself. (NB that they're discussing an > assembler, not a compiler, and there is no "code generator" apart from > the programmers brain.) Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself (speed of assembly), as well as the quality of the created object code. > > COBOL has plenty of useful features for assemblers. I see no reason why > > it should run any slower than code written in another language. > This comes down to the same argument that has been going on in This Very > Froup for a quarter-century: "Is the code produced by a compiler as good > as some hand-crafted assembler", and the answer is *nearly always*: "No. > Compiler generated code is far better." See above on utility performance. > First - the metric "better" is ill-defined at best. For me, as a > manager, it has become: "Produces code that is adequate to meet the > requirements, in calendar-time that meets the budget". > Even if we change to a sillier metric of "is the most efficient use of > hardware resources" (which I posit have been cheaper than programmer > resources since about 1972, and are getting cheaper by multiple orders > of magnitude every decade) the answer is almost always "No -- The > compiler is still far better, *for a programmer within one > standard-deviation of the mean*" Machine performance is critical on big systems. As has been pointed out here, large corporations have a limited batch window to get an enormous volume of processing done. If you have a crappy batch program that takes 60 minutes to run every night, but can replace with something that takes only 15 minutes, that is something very significant. (Sure, if you have a 'baby' system that isn't very big, it won't matter, but large corporations have massive files.) > It is only because every programmer here believes himself to be the > freak outlier (and always on the right hand side of the curve) that the > argument even continues. Even for a self-selected population of "old > timer geeks", the odds of all of us being as great as we imagine > ourselves to be is infinitesimal. A lot of the old time "craftsmen" programmers of the past are gone now. To a lot programmers out there, it is just a job. Indeed, a lot of code today is written under contract, sometimes remotely, so the programmer has little vested interest in the quality of the final product. He wants to knock it out fast and get paid. It comes down to--as it always had--to using the right tool for the job. I can use a regular screwdriver in a Philips screwhead, but it would be better to use a Philips tool. Likewise in programming--a lot of available tools will accomplish the job, but which one will do it best (all things considered). In mainframe business applications, COBOL has a lot of advantages. But certain utility functions, that are utilized constantly by many programs and with many transactions, might be best written in assembler to maximize performance. (In contrast, in light-duty applications, a 4GL language like Easytrieve would do well.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 21:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drgtu9FmspuU26@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164504 |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:28:26 -0700, hancock4 wrote: > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:04:29 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Statton NK1G > wrote: > >> > Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. >> >> I think you made the same mistake I made -- he's not talking about the >> quality of the code produced by the assembler, but the "quality" of the >> code that is the assembler itself. (NB that they're discussing an >> assembler, not a compiler, and there is no "code generator" apart from >> the programmers brain.) > > Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself (speed of > assembly), as well as the quality of the created object code. I can't see how the quality of the created code could have anything to do with the language in which the assembler is written! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 03:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <me2dnUz3-7EPFc7KnZ2dnUU78fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #164509 |
On 04/06/2016 22:02, Bob Eager wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:28:26 -0700, hancock4 wrote: > >> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:04:29 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Statton NK1G >> wrote: >> >>>> Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. >>> >>> I think you made the same mistake I made -- he's not talking about the >>> quality of the code produced by the assembler, but the "quality" of the >>> code that is the assembler itself. (NB that they're discussing an >>> assembler, not a compiler, and there is no "code generator" apart from >>> the programmers brain.) >> >> Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself (speed of >> assembly), as well as the quality of the created object code. > > I can't see how the quality of the created code could have anything to do > with the language in which the assembler is written! > > > COBOL is a good language to write an assembler that does not support macros and the fields are at fixed positions on the line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 22:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nj03j6$10k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164522 |
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> writes: > On 04/06/2016 22:02, Bob Eager wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:28:26 -0700, hancock4 wrote: >> >>> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:04:29 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Statton NK1G >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. >>>> >>>> I think you made the same mistake I made -- he's not talking about the >>>> quality of the code produced by the assembler, but the "quality" of the >>>> code that is the assembler itself. (NB that they're discussing an >>>> assembler, not a compiler, and there is no "code generator" apart from >>>> the programmers brain.) >>> >>> Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself (speed of >>> assembly), as well as the quality of the created object code. >> >> I can't see how the quality of the created code could have anything to do >> with the language in which the assembler is written! >> > COBOL is a good language to write an assembler that does not support > macros and the fields are at fixed positions on the line. COBOL has always supported things at variable locations. Consider: 01 REC. 05 REC-OFFSET PIC S999 USAGE COMP. 05 FILLER PIC X OCCURS REC-OFFSET TIMES. 05 ACCOUNT-NO PIC X(8). The location of ACCOUNT-NO depends on REC-OFFSET, a halfword. Similar techniques work for variable length fields. But modern COBOL supports field offsets. Memory allocation works too. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 07:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dri256FmspuU29@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164522 |
On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 03:04:17 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 04/06/2016 22:02, Bob Eager wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:28:26 -0700, hancock4 wrote: >> >>> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:04:29 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Statton NK1G >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. >>>> >>>> I think you made the same mistake I made -- he's not talking about >>>> the quality of the code produced by the assembler, but the "quality" >>>> of the code that is the assembler itself. (NB that they're >>>> discussing an assembler, not a compiler, and there is no "code >>>> generator" apart from the programmers brain.) >>> >>> Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself (speed >>> of assembly), as well as the quality of the created object code. >> >> I can't see how the quality of the created code could have anything to >> do with the language in which the assembler is written! >> >> >> > COBOL is a good language to write an assembler that does not support > macros and the fields are at fixed positions on the line. That was my thought. I would personally use a separate macro preprocessor (I use a very good one, and it's not cpp). -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj1o1u1no0@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #164522 |
On 2016-06-05, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote: > COBOL is a good language to write an assembler that does not support > macros and the fields are at fixed positions on the line. That's not an assembler, it's an RPG compiler! :-) But seriously, COBOL can process variable formats - just treat records as arrays of characters (e.g. PIC X(80)) and step through them with subscripts or indexes. I already mentioned the 8080 assembler that a friend wrote in COBOL, and I wrote COBOL routines that would build and parse terminal I/O (including control strings). -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drjirbFmspuU52@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164607 |
On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:38:06 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-06-05, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote: > >> COBOL is a good language to write an assembler that does not support >> macros and the fields are at fixed positions on the line. > > That's not an assembler, it's an RPG compiler! :-) > > But seriously, COBOL can process variable formats - just treat records > as arrays of characters (e.g. PIC X(80)) and step through them with > subscripts or indexes. I already mentioned the 8080 assembler that a > friend wrote in COBOL, and I wrote COBOL routines that would build and > parse terminal I/O (including control strings). I've seen quite a complex compiler written in COBOL. It compiled to an interpretive code, and there was an interpreter written in COBOL. The language was not fixed format, either. I was involved in re-implementing the compiler in another language, and compiling to native code. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <845729373.486918230.849363.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164607 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-06-05, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote: > >> COBOL is a good language to write an assembler that does not support >> macros and the fields are at fixed positions on the line. > > That's not an assembler, it's an RPG compiler! :-) > > But seriously, COBOL can process variable formats - just treat records > as arrays of characters (e.g. PIC X(80)) and step through them with > subscripts or indexes. I already mentioned the 8080 assembler that > a friend wrote in COBOL, and I wrote COBOL routines that would build > and parse terminal I/O (including control strings). > At one PPOE I wrote a COBOL reformatter in COBOL. It would reformat the COBOL source and also replace identifiers, so the programmer could code using short names and let the reformatter expand them to more readable ones. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 17:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31bd117ac58392b198a215@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164504 |
In article <76a17cba-109f-4cb8-9a65-72a5432e322e@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 6:04:29 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote: > > > > Compilers are compilers. It would depend on the compiler writer. > > > > I think you made the same mistake I made -- he's not talking about the > > quality of the code produced by the assembler, but the "quality" of the > > code that is the assembler itself. (NB that they're discussing an > > assembler, not a compiler, and there is no "code generator" apart from > > the programmers brain.) > > Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself > (speed of assembly), as well as the quality of the created > object code. > > > > > > COBOL has plenty of useful features for assemblers. I see no reason why > > > it should run any slower than code written in another language. > > > This comes down to the same argument that has been going on in This Very > > Froup for a quarter-century: "Is the code produced by a compiler as good > > as some hand-crafted assembler", and the answer is *nearly always*: "No. > > Compiler generated code is far better." > > See above on utility performance. The thing is, all we have is your assertion that the utility runs faster. Do you have timings to present or is that just your opinion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <381a612a-5f18-45f2-8d7b-e2fb41cdd2b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #164510 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 5:26:14 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > > See above on utility performance. > > The thing is, all we have is your assertion that the utility runs > faster. Do you have timings to present or is that just your opinion? The next time I do a selection, I will try to remember to do a comparison run in COBOL (if I have time), and then to note the timings. However, I don't recall anyone here posting actual comparative timings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 16:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87zir0skxr.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #164504 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself
> (speed of assembly), as well as the quality of the created
> object code.
How can the quality of the created object code POSSIBLY differ?
if the assembler is given
BALR R14,R15
It's going to emit X'5A', X'EF' whether the assembler is written in
assembly language, or COBOL or BASIC or any other language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 16:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87porwskf9.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #164511 |
Oh, Dammit ... just a few minutes ago I wrote: > How can the quality of the created object code POSSIBLY differ? > > if the assembler is given > > > BALR R14,R15 > > It's going to emit X'5A', X'EF' whether the assembler is written in > assembly language, or COBOL or BASIC or any other language. Well - if it did that, it'd be a pretty lame assembler -- I was going to use an A instruction as my example, but was just SURE I'd mangle the coding of the operands, so decided at the last minute to use a single-word instruction, but forgot to look up the corrected opcode. (To my defense, I've never written a single instruction of 360 Assembler before - if I'd used some 70s micro, I'd have not made such a boneheaded mistake :) ... )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 17:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31bd14b3d0390e5498a218@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164511 |
In article <87zir0skxr.fsf@senguio.mx>, lawrence@senguio.mx says... > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > > Actually, I'm talking about both--the assembler program itself > > (speed of assembly), as well as the quality of the created > > object code. > > How can the quality of the created object code POSSIBLY differ? > > if the assembler is given > > > BALR R14,R15 > > It's going to emit X'5A', X'EF' whether the assembler is written in > assembly language, or COBOL or BASIC or any other language. I remember a guy who programmed in hex because he claimed that he got more efficient code that way than assembler. Fortunately he didn't work for me, otherwise I think we would have had a discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 16:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87lh2ksjvb.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #164514 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > I remember a guy who programmed in hex because he claimed that he got > more efficient code that way than assembler. Fortunately he didn't work > for me, otherwise I think we would have had a discussion. I can imagine there is some CPU somewhere that has multiple possible opcode sequences for a given instruction, and that one sequence might be preferred by the assembler, while some other sequence would be "more efficient", but I'd want to see some pretty conclusive evidence. I know that at least two of the popular '70s microprocessors had 'undocumented' opcodes (more accurately described as 'opocdes that when decoded have potentially useful effects) .. both of which depended on a particular mask revision for the interesting effects to be useful ... Which leads to another remembering: Using the side effects of these opcodes to know the difference between the NMOS version 6502 and its CMOS variant, for example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drh1u7FmspuU27@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164515 |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:51:36 -0500, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote: > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> I remember a guy who programmed in hex because he claimed that he got >> more efficient code that way than assembler. Fortunately he didn't >> work for me, otherwise I think we would have had a discussion. > > I can imagine there is some CPU somewhere that has multiple possible > opcode sequences for a given instruction, and that one sequence might be > preferred by the assembler, while some other sequence would be "more > efficient", but I'd want to see some pretty conclusive evidence. > > I know that at least two of the popular '70s microprocessors had > 'undocumented' opcodes (more accurately described as 'opocdes that when > decoded have potentially useful effects) .. both of which depended on a > particular mask revision for the interesting effects to be useful ... I can accept that these days a compiler can probably do a better job than someone coding in assembler. You need to know how to reorder instructions to keep the various parts of the CPU busy (in early Pentiums, it was just sharing the two pipes). A compiler can have that intelligence biult in, but an assembler should do exactly what the programmer says. I don't accept that, just because the assembler is written in a different language, it will generate worse/better code. That's just silly. (and I know you agree with me) -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 18:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31bd1e8f617ea26f98a21a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164516 |
In article <drh1u7FmspuU27@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx says... > > On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:51:36 -0500, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote: > > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> I remember a guy who programmed in hex because he claimed that he got > >> more efficient code that way than assembler. Fortunately he didn't > >> work for me, otherwise I think we would have had a discussion. > > > > I can imagine there is some CPU somewhere that has multiple possible > > opcode sequences for a given instruction, and that one sequence might be > > preferred by the assembler, while some other sequence would be "more > > efficient", but I'd want to see some pretty conclusive evidence. > > > > I know that at least two of the popular '70s microprocessors had > > 'undocumented' opcodes (more accurately described as 'opocdes that when > > decoded have potentially useful effects) .. both of which depended on a > > particular mask revision for the interesting effects to be useful ... > > I can accept that these days a compiler can probably do a better job than > someone coding in assembler. You need to know how to reorder instructions > to keep the various parts of the CPU busy (in early Pentiums, it was just > sharing the two pipes). A compiler can have that intelligence biult in, > but an assembler should do exactly what the programmer says. > > I don't accept that, just because the assembler is written in a different > language, it will generate worse/better code. That's just silly. (and I > know you agree with me) The quality of the code the assembler generates is going to depend solely on the algorithms the programmer implemented (assuming that there is no pathological bug in the compiler that causes the it to generate object code having no relation to the source code). On the other hand, the assembler may do its job rocket fast or snail slow depending on the quality of the code emitted by the compiler. On the gripping hand, the algorithms implemented might very well be influenced by the capabilities of the language in which the programmer is writing--he might make one choice over another because in a particular language one is easier to implement than another.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 23:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <drh4vpFmspuU28@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164517 |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 18:21:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <drh1u7FmspuU27@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx > says... >> >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:51:36 -0500, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote: >> >> > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> I remember a guy who programmed in hex because he claimed that he >> >> got more efficient code that way than assembler. Fortunately he >> >> didn't work for me, otherwise I think we would have had a >> >> discussion. >> > >> > I can imagine there is some CPU somewhere that has multiple possible >> > opcode sequences for a given instruction, and that one sequence might >> > be preferred by the assembler, while some other sequence would be >> > "more efficient", but I'd want to see some pretty conclusive >> > evidence. >> > >> > I know that at least two of the popular '70s microprocessors had >> > 'undocumented' opcodes (more accurately described as 'opocdes that >> > when decoded have potentially useful effects) .. both of which >> > depended on a particular mask revision for the interesting effects to >> > be useful ... >> >> I can accept that these days a compiler can probably do a better job >> than someone coding in assembler. You need to know how to reorder >> instructions to keep the various parts of the CPU busy (in early >> Pentiums, it was just sharing the two pipes). A compiler can have that >> intelligence biult in, but an assembler should do exactly what the >> programmer says. >> >> I don't accept that, just because the assembler is written in a >> different language, it will generate worse/better code. That's just >> silly. (and I know you agree with me) > > The quality of the code the assembler generates is going to depend > solely on the algorithms the programmer implemented (assuming that there > is no pathological bug in the compiler that causes the it to generate > object code having no relation to the source code). I agree. And in the vast majority of cases, it's a one to one mapping anyway (modulo things such as jump shortening, etc.; it should be "produce what I write" if it's assembler). > On the other hand, the assembler may do its job rocket fast or snail > slow depending on the quality of the code emitted by the compiler. Of course. Although I dispute the assetion made earlier that "just because it's COBOL" it's going to be slower. > On the gripping hand, the algorithms implemented might very well be > influenced by the capabilities of the language in which the programmer > is writing--he might make one choice over another because in a > particular language one is easier to implement than another. That is certainly true. But not what was said. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 23:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83j7lb9vs2uksha0n28ov3f3jl3m961n5c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #164515 |
On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:51:36 -0500, Lawrence Statton NK1G
<lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> I remember a guy who programmed in hex because he claimed that he got
>> more efficient code that way than assembler. Fortunately he didn't work
>> for me, otherwise I think we would have had a discussion.
>
>I can imagine there is some CPU somewhere that has multiple possible
>opcode sequences for a given instruction, and that one sequence might be
>preferred by the assembler, while some other sequence would be "more
>efficient", but I'd want to see some pretty conclusive evidence.
The Z-80 had relative (short) jumps (two bytes long) and long
jumps (three bytes long). I think some assemblers may have had an
optimisation to use a relative jump if the target was in range (-128
to +127 of the first byte of the following instruction).
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web