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 3 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 30 Next page →
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 15:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddiny0mw2w.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163993 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his
> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster
> you replied to.
Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She knows
a great deal; she simply has certain biases.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 20:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ni82h1$gep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164035 |
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > >> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >> you replied to. > > Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. > She knows a great deal; she simply has certain biases. You must have some magical technique that you use to distinguish the biased crap that comes out her from the "great deal" of knowledge that she has never demonstrated on this board. She's spitting because of PL/I? I doubt she knows anything about PL/I. Which would be all too typical of her misinformed, ignorant, past comments. If she's your friend, I guess you feel compelled to support her. A bias is: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. I have friends with biases too. I overlook the biases because I'm not perfect either. So I can see your issue but I'm going to continue to call it like I see it. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 11:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533D1A4322DD8@aca40f3f.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164035 |
Rich Alderson wrote: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > >> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >> you replied to. > > Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She knows > a great deal; she simply has certain biases. > Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know what he doesn't know in this matter :-). I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably use the word guys which was generic at the time. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 15:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <prydnfRYSKHrw9XKnZ2dnUU78KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #164055 |
On 27/05/2016 12:55, jmfbahciv wrote: > Rich Alderson wrote: >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >> >>> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >>> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >>> you replied to. >> >> Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She > knows >> a great deal; she simply has certain biases. >> > > Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know > what he doesn't know in this matter :-). > > I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the > availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting > anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. > > I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" > would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably > use the word guys which was generic at the time. > > /BAH > Girl covers any human female except between 14 and 24. Females are girls by definition if she is 16 or under. When 24 or older because she is trying to persuade everyone that she is younger than she is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v7gm1d-cd6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164055 |
In article <PM000533D1A4322DD8@aca40f3f.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Rich Alderson wrote: >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >> >>> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >>> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >>> you replied to. >> >> Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She >knows >> a great deal; she simply has certain biases. >> > >Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know >what he doesn't know in this matter :-). > >I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the >availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting >anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. > >I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" >would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably >use the word guys which was generic at the time. > >/BAH You are showing your DEC background. The mainframes generally all had pl/1, or pl/g (a subset) if not. Prime had pl/1 or pl/g compilers, no less than three of them. (PLP, SPL and full PL/1). It is pretty close to the language tops20 should have been written in. And then there is of course multics. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533E6E054409A@aca42436.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164080 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM000533D1A4322DD8@aca40f3f.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Rich Alderson wrote: >>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>> >>>> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >>>> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >>>> you replied to. >>> >>> Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She >>knows >>> a great deal; she simply has certain biases. >>> >> >>Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know >>what he doesn't know in this matter :-). >> >>I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the >>availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting >>anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. >> >>I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" >>would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably >>use the word guys which was generic at the time. >> >>/BAH > > > You are showing your DEC background. I've never claimed differently. >The mainframes generally all > had pl/1, or pl/g (a subset) if not. Prime had pl/1 or pl/g compilers, > no less than three of them. (PLP, SPL and full PL/1). In the 1960s? > > It is pretty close to the language tops20 should have been written > in. There would not have been a TOPS-20 if it had been written in PL/I. PDP-10 users were used to having compilations and assemblies getting done quickly. Doing any BLISS compilations took all the resources of a -20. > > And then there is of course multics. Would it have passed the pre-development security examination? With the discussions about potential problems using the language, I wouldn't think so. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 17:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ahro1d-e11.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164083 |
In article <PM000533E6E054409A@aca42436.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM000533D1A4322DD8@aca40f3f.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Rich Alderson wrote: >>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >>>>> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >>>>> you replied to. >>>> >>>> Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She >>>knows >>>> a great deal; she simply has certain biases. >>>> >>> >>>Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know >>>what he doesn't know in this matter :-). >>> >>>I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the >>>availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting >>>anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. >>> >>>I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" >>>would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably >>>use the word guys which was generic at the time. >>> >>>/BAH >> >> >> You are showing your DEC background. > >I've never claimed differently. > >>The mainframes generally all >> had pl/1, or pl/g (a subset) if not. Prime had pl/1 or pl/g compilers, >> no less than three of them. (PLP, SPL and full PL/1). > >In the 1960s? Yes, the mainframes had PL/1 pretty early. Prime was only founded in the 1970s and delivered the first iron to customers in 1975, PLP was from the pre-hardware days (Primos originally was built on a Honeywell machine, and the Prime 50series kept a compatabilty mode for this processor). This predates 1975, when they made the first commercial hardware. SPL came a year or two later, and the full pl/1 after that. The first two were included with the OS, the last one was a commercial product. >> It is pretty close to the language tops20 should have been written >> in. > >There would not have been a TOPS-20 if it had been written in PL/I. >PDP-10 users were used to having compilations and assemblies getting >done quickly. Doing any BLISS compilations took all the resources >of a -20. I realise that DEC was not very good at compilers. They used some weird and pretty buggy languages (like Bliss) and were stuck in assembly (but a very good one). A pl/1 subset on a fast compiler with some language features included to support the OS task at hand would have been very beneficial. This may have made a port to other platforms feasible. I have seen it in the competition. The SPL compiler on Primes was/is the fastest compiler Prime had on hand, even compared to fortran; it was about even with the PMA (Prime Macro Assemble) using the full set of macros. It was at least as full and expressive language as the Wirth Pascals, even though it didn't quite satisfy the pl/g subset (but only minor things was missing). Most of Primos is buildable on current fortran IV and pl/1 compilers; but the hardware interfaces are weird. >> And then there is of course multics. > >Would it have passed the pre-development security examination? >With the discussions about potential problems using the language, >I wouldn't think so. I am not sure what you are referring to here. Multics was always a pretty secure environment, and became more so in it's later days. Having the source in PL/1 was a necessary prerequisite for that security drive. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533FB4C991B77@aca41fe8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164084 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM000533E6E054409A@aca42436.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <PM000533D1A4322DD8@aca40f3f.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Rich Alderson wrote: >>>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >>>>>> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >>>>>> you replied to. >>>>> >>>>> Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She >>>>knows >>>>> a great deal; she simply has certain biases. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know >>>>what he doesn't know in this matter :-). >>>> >>>>I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the >>>>availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting >>>>anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. >>>> >>>>I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" >>>>would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably >>>>use the word guys which was generic at the time. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> >>> You are showing your DEC background. >> >>I've never claimed differently. >> >>>The mainframes generally all >>> had pl/1, or pl/g (a subset) if not. Prime had pl/1 or pl/g compilers, >>> no less than three of them. (PLP, SPL and full PL/1). >> >>In the 1960s? > > Yes, the mainframes had PL/1 pretty early. > > Prime was only founded in the 1970s and delivered the first iron to > customers in 1975, > > PLP was from the pre-hardware days (Primos originally was built on > a Honeywell machine, and the Prime 50series kept a compatabilty mode > for this processor). This predates 1975, when they made the first > commercial hardware. SPL came a year or two later, and the full > pl/1 after that. The first two were included with the OS, the last > one was a commercial product. That's in the 70s which is a long time after the 60s in the computing biz. Did Univac have PL/I? > >>> It is pretty close to the language tops20 should have been written >>> in. >> >>There would not have been a TOPS-20 if it had been written in PL/I. >>PDP-10 users were used to having compilations and assemblies getting >>done quickly. Doing any BLISS compilations took all the resources >>of a -20. > > I realise that DEC was not very good at compilers. They had excellent FORTRAN compilers. > They used some > weird and pretty buggy languages (like Bliss) BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. COBOL was good except for its ISAM (buggy); but the bugs went away as soon as Nixon and [can't recall his name] were assigned to the project. > and were stuck in > assembly (but a very good one). A pl/1 subset on a fast compiler > with some language features included to support the OS task at > hand would have been very beneficial. This may have made a port > to other platforms feasible. > > I have seen it in the competition. It might have been beneficial but in 1973 and 1974. > > The SPL compiler on Primes was/is the fastest compiler Prime had > on hand, even compared to fortran; it was about even with the PMA (Prime > Macro Assemble) using the full set of macros. > > It was at least as full and expressive language as the Wirth Pascals, > even though it didn't quite satisfy the pl/g subset (but only minor > things was missing). > > Most of Primos is buildable on current fortran IV and pl/1 compilers; but > the hardware interfaces are weird. You are talking about platforms which had the benefit of 1. not having to be backwards compatible and 2. got started on new hardware without having to consider legacies from old hardware. > >>> And then there is of course multics. >> >>Would it have passed the pre-development security examination? >>With the discussions about potential problems using the language, >>I wouldn't think so. > > I am not sure what you are referring to here. Multics was always a > pretty secure environment, and became more so in it's later days. > Having the source in PL/1 was a necessary prerequisite for that > security drive. It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. A security review would have to be done for every change, including a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That security review would have to include looking at everything which depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. And then the builds of all the other OS software have to be examined to ensure that the edit to the compiler's sources didn't create unwanted effects. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 16:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g6br1d-t03.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164114 |
In article <PM000533FB4C991B77@aca41fe8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM000533E6E054409A@aca42436.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> In article <PM000533D1A4322DD8@aca40f3f.ipt.aol.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>Rich Alderson wrote: >>>>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pete, of course is the PL/I expert on this forum. I'd listen to his >>>>>>> opinion rather than the ignorant comment from the know-nothing poster >>>>>>> you replied to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Excuse me, turkey, that "know-nothing poster" is a friend of mine. She >>>>>knows >>>>>> a great deal; she simply has certain biases. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, Rich. It's better to just ignore him because he doesn't know >>>>>what he doesn't know in this matter :-). >>>>> >>>>>I don't have anything against PL/I. I was commenting on the >>>>>availability of the language at that time. Most self-respecting >>>>>anyboies wouldn't have unlimited access to the hard/software. >>>>> >>>>>I did object to the use of the word "girls" because "boys" >>>>>would never be used. If I were writing the blurb, I'd probably >>>>>use the word guys which was generic at the time. >>>>> >>>>>/BAH >>>> >>>> >>>> You are showing your DEC background. >>> >>>I've never claimed differently. >>> >>>>The mainframes generally all >>>> had pl/1, or pl/g (a subset) if not. Prime had pl/1 or pl/g compilers, >>>> no less than three of them. (PLP, SPL and full PL/1). >>> >>>In the 1960s? >> >> Yes, the mainframes had PL/1 pretty early. >> >> Prime was only founded in the 1970s and delivered the first iron to >> customers in 1975, >> >> PLP was from the pre-hardware days (Primos originally was built on >> a Honeywell machine, and the Prime 50series kept a compatabilty mode >> for this processor). This predates 1975, when they made the first >> commercial hardware. SPL came a year or two later, and the full >> pl/1 after that. The first two were included with the OS, the last >> one was a commercial product. > >That's in the 70s which is a long time after the 60s in the computing biz. >Did Univac have PL/I? > >> >>>> It is pretty close to the language tops20 should have been written >>>> in. >>> >>>There would not have been a TOPS-20 if it had been written in PL/I. >>>PDP-10 users were used to having compilations and assemblies getting >>>done quickly. Doing any BLISS compilations took all the resources >>>of a -20. >> >> I realise that DEC was not very good at compilers. > >They had excellent FORTRAN compilers. > >> They used some >> weird and pretty buggy languages (like Bliss) > >BLISS would have never been used if it hadn't been an edict >created by Bell (who came from CMU) and his minion. >COBOL was good except for its ISAM (buggy); but the bugs went away >as soon as Nixon and [can't recall his name] were assigned to >the project. > >> and were stuck in >> assembly (but a very good one). A pl/1 subset on a fast compiler >> with some language features included to support the OS task at >> hand would have been very beneficial. This may have made a port >> to other platforms feasible. >> >> I have seen it in the competition. > >It might have been beneficial but in 1973 and 1974. >> >> The SPL compiler on Primes was/is the fastest compiler Prime had >> on hand, even compared to fortran; it was about even with the PMA (Prime >> Macro Assemble) using the full set of macros. >> >> It was at least as full and expressive language as the Wirth Pascals, >> even though it didn't quite satisfy the pl/g subset (but only minor >> things was missing). >> >> Most of Primos is buildable on current fortran IV and pl/1 compilers; but >> the hardware interfaces are weird. > >You are talking about platforms which had the benefit of 1. not having to >be backwards compatible and 2. got started on new hardware without having >to consider legacies from old hardware. I am sorry, but you are wrong on this. Primos started on a Honeywell machine on a NASA funded project in the early seventies. It took almost 4 years before there was a Prime and a functioning, commercially produced Prime machine to run it on. Version 6, if I remember correctly. This processor was kept in compatibility mode as R-mode on all subsequent Prime models. In addition to V-mode, S-mode, I-mode and IX-mode. >>>> And then there is of course multics. >>> >>>Would it have passed the pre-development security examination? >>>With the discussions about potential problems using the language, >>>I wouldn't think so. >> >> I am not sure what you are referring to here. Multics was always a >> pretty secure environment, and became more so in it's later days. >> Having the source in PL/1 was a necessary prerequisite for that >> security drive. > >It isn't secure if the compiler creates problems. Monitor development >was difficult enough without haveing to wrestlle with bugs or odd >behaviours in the tools used for building the executables of the OS. >A security review would have to be done for every change, including >a one character change, in the sources which built PL/I. That >security review would have to include looking at everything which >depended on PL/I. This is NOT an easy project. To get the same >checksums of the build of the compiler's EXEs takes at least 3 >builds of the EXEs using the previous build's EXEs. > >And then the builds of all the other OS software have to be examined >to ensure that the edit to the compiler's sources didn't create >unwanted effects. Testing, testing. Linux and the BSDs do this today, with no appearant problems. Having code in a high level language with strong enforcement of stuff like types, function call arguments, and a reasonably strict structure will help enourmously towards this goal. C is too lightweight for this, really. Java went of the deep end in terms of "object orientation". PL/1 or some specialised dialect would be pretty ideal for such an endeavour. But as you state above, DEC prople never really trusted the inhouse compilers. You do overstate the need for change management in the compilers. Compiles should be stable over years, and then have well contained development cycles. You only use the stable ones for OS and CUSP stuff, so this issue is a little moot. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <574dc93b.9587566@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #164117 |
On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >in-house compilers. This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost all products were written in either the respective assembly language or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am not aware of any, there may have been some odd product DEC sold that was written in something else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #164170 |
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> >wrote: >>But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>in-house compilers. > >This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively on >in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost all products >were written in either the respective assembly language or BLISS. I say >"almost," because although I am not aware of any, there may have been some odd >product DEC sold that was written in something else. > It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2016053114102448106-mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> |
| In reply to | #164178 |
On 2016-05-31 18:52:24 +0000, Scott Lurndal said: > usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >> On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> >> wrote: >>> But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>> in-house compilers. >> >> This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively on >> in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost all products >> were written in either the respective assembly language or BLISS. I say >> "almost," because although I am not aware of any, there may have been some odd >> product DEC sold that was written in something else. >> > > It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). IIRC from various DECUS symposia, comments from some VMS developers noted that for each language compiler that DEC had, at least one module in VMS was written in that language. -- Michael LeVine mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rZA3z.65712$Ey6.44662@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #164190 |
Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> writes: >On 2016-05-31 18:52:24 +0000, Scott Lurndal said: > >> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>> On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>>> in-house compilers. >>> >>> This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively on >>> in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost all products >>> were written in either the respective assembly language or BLISS. I say >>> "almost," because although I am not aware of any, there may have been some odd >>> product DEC sold that was written in something else. >>> >> >> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). > >IIRC from various DECUS symposia, comments from some VMS developers >noted that for each language compiler that DEC had, at least one module in >VMS was written in that language. And they used the MDL compiler to generate "include" files for the different languages describing common data structures. Although I only recall Macro-32 and BLISS-32 modules in VMS (at least as of VMS 2.4).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <17102360.486485480.388688.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164235 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> writes: >> On 2016-05-31 18:52:24 +0000, Scott Lurndal said: >> >>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>>> But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>>>> in-house compilers. >>>> >>>> This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively on >>>> in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost all products >>>> were written in either the respective assembly language or BLISS. I say >>>> "almost," because although I am not aware of any, there may have been some odd >>>> product DEC sold that was written in something else. >>>> >>> >>> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). >> >> IIRC from various DECUS symposia, comments from some VMS developers >> noted that for each language compiler that DEC had, at least one module in >> VMS was written in that language. > > And they used the MDL compiler to generate "include" files for the > different languages describing common data structures. Although I only > recall Macro-32 and BLISS-32 modules in VMS (at least as of VMS 2.4). > I know there were several languages, including C. The compiler is now open source, so I guess I should say "are" instead of "were", although I don't recall the name as MDL, I believe SDL. I played around with porting it, most is in PL/I, but it seems to have pieces in several different languages, including Macro-32. Someone (I believe Tim Sneddon) did a rewrite in C. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31b81037c41994c798a1f0@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #164178 |
In article <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home says... > > usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: > >On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> > >wrote: > >>But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the > >>in-house compilers. > > > >This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively on > >in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost all products > >were written in either the respective assembly language or BLISS. I say > >"almost," because although I am not aware of any, there may have been some odd > >product DEC sold that was written in something else. > > > > It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason for not using them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 07:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dr7ik2Fm19sU32@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164203 |
On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:19:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home > says... >> >> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >> >On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad >> ><first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >> >>But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the in-house >> >>compilers. >> > >> >This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively >> >on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost >> >all products were written in either the respective assembly language >> >or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am not aware of any, >> >there may have been some odd product DEC sold that was written in >> >something else. >> > >> > >> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). > > If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that > there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason for > not using them. No, it was just the engineering ethos that went all the way back to the start of DEC. The assemblers were *very* good. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <hpo22d-d28.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #164211 |
In article <dr7ik2Fm19sU32@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:19:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > >> In article <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home >> says... >>> >>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>> >On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad >>> ><first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>> >>But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the in-house >>> >>compilers. >>> > >>> >This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost exclusively >>> >on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of them. Almost >>> >all products were written in either the respective assembly language >>> >or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am not aware of any, >>> >there may have been some odd product DEC sold that was written in >>> >something else. >>> > >>> > >>> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). >> >> If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that >> there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason for >> not using them. > >No, it was just the engineering ethos that went all the way back to the >start of DEC. > >The assemblers were *very* good. I know, I used them. But assembler does lock you in to a specific architecture. Yes, I know that DEC was a hardware company. But the software was the driver, and they never saw that before it was too late. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nimcb1$tlb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #164220 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:hpo22d-d28.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > > But assembler does lock you in to a specific architecture. Just as FORTH, in its earliest form, locks you into the architecture of the English Electric KDF-9
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 10:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dr7rbcFm19sU33@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #164220 |
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:08:17 +0200, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <dr7ik2Fm19sU32@mid.individual.net>, > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:19:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> In article <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home >>> says... >>>> >>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>>> >On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad >>>> ><first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>>> >>in-house compilers. >>>> > >>>> >This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost >>>> >exclusively on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of >>>> >them. Almost all products were written in either the respective >>>> >assembly language or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am >>>> >not aware of any, there may have been some odd product DEC sold that >>>> >was written in something else. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). >>> >>> If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that >>> there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason >>> for not using them. >> >>No, it was just the engineering ethos that went all the way back to the >>start of DEC. >> >>The assemblers were *very* good. > > I know, I used them. > > But assembler does lock you in to a specific architecture. They managed the port to the Itanium rather cleverly. > Yes, I know that DEC was a hardware company. But the software was the > driver, and they never saw that before it was too late. I believe they did. What they didn't do was see where the market was going. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000534374FB45AA3@aca40da7.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #164223 |
Bob Eager wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:08:17 +0200, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> In article <dr7ik2Fm19sU32@mid.individual.net>, >> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>>On Tue, 31 May 2016 22:19:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: >>> >>>> In article <I3l3z.297993$9J6.283238@fx25.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home >>>> says... >>>>> >>>>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes: >>>>> >On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:33:20 +0200, Morten Reistad >>>>> ><first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>But as you state above, DEC people never really trusted the >>>>> >>in-house compilers. >>>>> > >>>>> >This is simply false. DEC s/w development was done almost >>>>> >exclusively on in-house compilers, and there wasn't any mistrust of >>>>> >them. Almost all products were written in either the respective >>>>> >assembly language or BLISS. I say "almost," because although I am >>>>> >not aware of any, there may have been some odd product DEC sold that >>>>> >was written in something else. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It all sounds to be a bit of a muddle (MDL) :-). >>>> >>>> If everything was written in assembly language that would suggest that >>>> there was indeed distrust of the compilers, or at least some reason >>>> for not using them. >>> >>>No, it was just the engineering ethos that went all the way back to the >>>start of DEC. >>> >>>The assemblers were *very* good. >> >> I know, I used them. >> >> But assembler does lock you in to a specific architecture. > > They managed the port to the Itanium rather cleverly. > >> Yes, I know that DEC was a hardware company. But the software was the >> driver, and they never saw that before it was too late. > > I believe they did. Nope, Bell refused to accept the concept. It's one of the reasons he got rid of the PDP-10 business; it required certain hardware development and the hardware development folklore couldn't allow it to be wagged by the OS development tail. > What they didn't do was see where the market was > going. In the late 60s, 70s and early 80s DEC was way ahead of where the computing market was going. DEC was implementing heterogenous networks when IBM was still insisting homogenity. Timesharing with batch functionality was preparing the masses for the PC computing era. I could go on but this list will create stupidity havoc :-). /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web