Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218117 > unrolled thread
| Started by | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-16 11:59 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 16:08 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:14 -0600
Re: s/3, s/34, s/36, and so forth not iBM System/3 FORTRAN John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-27 01:27 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-06-29 22:47 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 12:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-29 13:04 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-06-29 21:33 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-30 11:44 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-30 15:56 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-06-30 22:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-01 05:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 06:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-01 13:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-03 01:19 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-03 10:14 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 10:43 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@situ.com - 2021-11-02 07:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-02 09:26 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-02 05:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2021-11-02 15:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? sidd@hugin.membrane.com - 2021-11-16 01:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 11:25 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:34 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-01 15:56 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 20:57 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-02 18:26 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-05 13:39 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 14:51 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:06 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 17:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 07:41 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 13:30 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-10 13:29 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 17:13 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 22:32 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-11 13:58 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:03 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:19 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-07-13 18:50 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 22:40 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 23:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-17 19:12 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 21:33 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-18 15:20 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:05 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-21 05:29 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:13 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-21 11:08 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:16 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 21:35 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-26 13:09 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:49 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-23 12:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 14:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-14 10:03 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:42 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-14 00:39 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:19 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-29 21:20 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-30 07:57 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 02:23 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 21:23 -0700
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-11 18:46 +0000
Re: why PL/I makes us sad, iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-11 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-01 20:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-07-01 19:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-11-02 08:54 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-10-05 22:56 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-05 23:13 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 03:55 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 12:32 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-10-06 14:11 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:00 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:07 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:50 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:49 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 17:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-07 06:18 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 13:22 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:18 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-06 12:45 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:23 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-06-30 18:10 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-01 11:36 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 10:32 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-04 09:13 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-07 12:46 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-07 21:19 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 17:06 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-08 05:15 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 19:39 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2021-06-30 17:58 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-18 14:31 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-18 16:00 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-06-26 12:47 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:40 -0400
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-06-26 15:20 -0600
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-06-27 11:28 +0100
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-06-27 13:40 -1000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-06-27 16:00 -0500
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-28 17:28 -0700
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-17 09:47 -0800
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-17 18:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-11-17 22:28 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-18 01:00 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-18 01:51 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-18 06:06 +0000
Re: iBM System/3 FORTRAN for engineering/science work? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 13:06 -0500
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-06 04:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <704b6611-779b-4550-9588-760ed19e4125n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #219376 |
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 5:18:21 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-6, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > > The site says "sources" but I was not able to find neither LOWL sources > > nor C sources. Is this intentional or are they somewhere? > It turns out the LOWL source is linked to from *this* page: > > http://www.ml1.org.uk/implementation.html > > about "How ML/1 is implemented", since it is the root from which > many implementations on different platforms were developed. That page also states that the C source is available... *on request*, so presumably one will have to agree to certain conditions to obtain it from the web site operator. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-06 12:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <is5k41FsujvU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #219376 |
On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 04:18:20 -0700, Quadibloc wrote: > On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-6, > anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > >> The site says "sources" but I was not able to find neither LOWL sources >> nor C sources. Is this intentional or are they somewhere? > > It turns out the LOWL source is linked to from *this* page: > > http://www.ml1.org.uk/implementation.html > > about "How ML/1 is implemented", since it is the root from which many > implementations on different platforms were developed. > > From the discussion there, it appears that many implementors at one time > had access to the "C-Map", Bob Eager's conversion of the source for ML/1 > to C. Even though I didn't notice it on the site, > then, that implies there is a good chance of it floating around > somewhere. I can supply it on demand. Email me. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-30 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2b9b1c2-6f18-4988-97c9-58a5ef897418n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218221 |
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 5:56:42 AM UTC+10, Rich Alderson wrote: > Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > I wrote a bunch of PL/I programs, but never convinced anyone to do any > > production stuff in it. > Prior to moving into systems programming, I was a programmer/analyst in the > Financial Systems group for the University of Chicago Computation Center. The > accounting system was a suite of COBOL programs purchased from a commercial > vendor which ran on SVS (= OS/VS2 v1) on an Amdahl 470. > > Our standard was to make mods for localization in COBOL, but to write any > external utilities in PL/I using the optimizing compiler. That's what got me > in the door: I had been writing PL/1 for 10 years already when I got the job. > > (NB: When I first started programming, the language was called "PL/1" in the > IBM manuals; . No, IBM always called it "PL/I", even from the first manuals for PL/I-F, with one exception, I think for AS400. . Before the 360 compilers, it was transiently named FORTRAN V and NPL among others. . > by the time I started using it professionally, years before the > UChicago job, they had gone to the "PL/I" version of the name.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-30 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84cb214e-be5f-4ccf-b438-e5dc962edd91n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218219 |
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:44:31 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote: > undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:28:45 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > > >>> The instruction set of the original System/3 is available on bitsavers. > >>> Not sure how many people bothered to program that machine in assembler > >>> since it was intended for smaller shops and easy to use. My impression > >>> was that most S/3 sites used RPG II or even canned routines. But the IBM > >>> literature said Fortran was available. How much it was used or how well > >>> it ran I don't know. Sometimes IBM would offer something that in reality > >>> didn't run very well on a given machine and got little use. > >>> > >> A lot of times to meet a customer (government) specification that > >> required, e.g. FORTRAN, even though the customer probably never used it. > > > > Yes, govt specs mandated a lot of unnecessary stuff*. > > > > Sometimes a customer, or perhaps a consultant, would get the 'bright idea' of > > using a non standard language to do some funky task. For example, Fortran in > > an otherwise business environment (or COBOL in an eng/sci site). > We were a COBOL shop, but there was one funky stat program in FORTRAN to > analyze employee data or something. I think it was at least a tray of > cards. I don’t know who wrote it, or when, or even if it was ever run while > I was there, but it was the Director’s pet. > > > > I've seen lots of people try to run Fortran on their S/360 only to discover it > > didn't have the universal instruction set and they had to find a machine that > > did (often that turned out to be our site). > I’m surprised someone didn’t write FP emulation routines and distribute > them thru SHARE or something. I know this was later done for the Intel 386. . Yes. IBM did it for PL/I for OS/2, namely, emulate floating-point for the 386 when it did not have the Math coprocessor. > > Anyway, people would have these exotic funky programs that usually proved > > to be far too abstract and poorly written to be practical and accomplish anything. > > > > For whatever reason, high management would be enamored with these funky > > proposals and insist on trying them out, even if their IT staff studied it and > > advised against it. > I wrote a bunch of PL/I programs, but never convinced anyone to do any > production stuff in it. > > > > My guess is that that S/3 got Fortran for that reason in addition to govt specs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-01 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e384cc4a-e3ab-4949-b827-708511a6a2b1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218219 |
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:44:31 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > We were a COBOL shop, but there was one funky stat program in FORTRAN to > analyze employee data or something. I think it was at least a tray of > cards. I don’t know who wrote it, or when, or even if it was ever run while > I was there, but it was the Director’s pet. That was very common. I think almost every site had a situation like that. "Director's pet" as you say. Frustrating for the rest of us. (I used to wonder how a Director or Asst Director, who probably were crackerjack programmers in their day, could latch on to some dingbat scheme.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbo7f915bp@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #218233 |
On 2021-07-01, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:44:31 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> We were a COBOL shop, but there was one funky stat program in FORTRAN >> to analyze employee data or something. I think it was at least a tray >> of cards. I don’t know who wrote it, or when, or even if it was ever >> run while I was there, but it was the Director’s pet. > > That was very common. I think almost every site had a situation like > that. "Director's pet" as you say. Frustrating for the rest of us. > > (I used to wonder how a Director or Asst Director, who probably were > crackerjack programmers in their day, could latch on to some dingbat > scheme.) Not all of them were crackerjack programmers. And hell hath no fury like a director who sees what you've done to his precious spaghetti code. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 10:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sbpar0$agl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #218250 |
On 03/07/2021 00:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > Not all of them were crackerjack programmers. And hell hath no fury > like a director who sees what you've done to his precious spaghetti code. > Took a job once where the self-taught "software engineer" was leaving, leaving a mixture of GOTO and structures but none of it indented and all tucked in to the LHS margin. Typically, over 90 procedures without comments per module. When a bug surfaced, it could take several hours to unravel the code, resulting in the complaint by the non-computer-competent MD that the person who left could fix any fault within a few minutes, but you can't be much good of it takes you more than a day. My advice; if you have a self-taught boy wonder who wishes to move on, then double or triple his salary to keep him, for that will be cheaper for you in the long run!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <316519623.647055349.997435.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218259 |
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 03/07/2021 00:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >> Not all of them were crackerjack programmers. And hell hath no fury >> like a director who sees what you've done to his precious spaghetti code. >> > > Took a job once where the self-taught "software engineer" was leaving, > leaving a mixture of GOTO and structures but none of it indented and all > tucked in to the LHS margin. > > Typically, over 90 procedures without comments per module. > > When a bug surfaced, it could take several hours to unravel the code, > resulting in the complaint by the non-computer-competent MD that the > person who left could fix any fault within a few minutes, but you > can't be much good of it takes you more than a day. The first thing I’d do if I had to pick up code like that would be to comment it, at least to mark the procedures, and indent it. > > My advice; if you have a self-taught boy wonder who wishes to move on, > then double or triple his salary to keep him, for that will be cheaper > for you in the long run! > We had a guy like that (still see his name in Linkedin occasionally). He claimed to be an assembler programmer, but I think all he knew about it was how to spell it. He worked for months on a fairly simple project, and when he left we scrapped it and rewrote it in a couple of days. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-04 09:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sbrqjd$43g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #218267 |
On 04/07/2021 02:40, Peter Flass wrote: > > He worked for months on a fairly simple project, and when > he left we scrapped it and rewrote it in a couple of days. Reminds me of one contract client where I ended up staying for 4 years, off and on. Person leaving had spent 6 weeks unsuccessfully trying to implement a serial port driver on Windows using C. At the interview I queried this and said that it was a matter of a few minutes to achieve the same thing in Visual Basic, and I did that at the interview! Despite my background in electronics and computing, with a strong interest in assembler and machine-orientation (qv :-) ) as opposed to application-orientation, if a client had a project involving disks, printer, serial port and keyboard, I'd always recommend Visual Basic to them. IMHO Microsoft went off the rails after VB6 by changing VB to be .NET compliant so destroying the ease of use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df50b799-13d0-4b7d-86b8-519a0c2f316bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218267 |
On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > When a bug surfaced, it could take several hours to unravel the code, > > resulting in the complaint by the non-computer-competent MD that the > > person who left could fix any fault within a few minutes, but you > > can't be much good of it takes you more than a day. > The first thing I’d do if I had to pick up code like that would be to > comment it, at least to mark the procedures, and indent it. Yes, that was typical procedure when faced with spaghetti. Of course, if it was 6,000 lines of mush, it took a while and wasn't easy, but all the more reason. By the way, 'structured programming' was touted as the way to eliminate the mess of too many crazy GO TOs. But structured programming could be poorly written too, with all sorts of excessive crazy calls to subroutines. Too many layers or overlays is just as bad as GO TOs. Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a shortage of programmers. Management, desperate to automate some function, made use of unskilled or untalented people, leaving a mess for others to untangle. Undecipherable field names was another problem. What does K3X mean? K5X? K4Z?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 21:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sc528i$4ol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #218288 |
On 07/07/2021 20:46, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: > On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a shortage of programmers. > Management, desperate to automate some function, made use of > unskilled or untalented people, leaving a mess for others to untangle. > Undecipherable field names was another problem. What does K3X mean? > K5X? K4Z? I think that is symptomatic of someone who might have a year's experience, but consisting of only one week's real experience then repeated a further 51 times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1542411060.647474092.290808.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218291 |
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 07/07/2021 20:46, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: >> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a shortage of programmers. >> Management, desperate to automate some function, made use of >> unskilled or untalented people, leaving a mess for others to untangle. >> Undecipherable field names was another problem. What does K3X mean? >> K5X? K4Z? > > I think that is symptomatic of someone who might have a year's > experience, but consisting of only one week's real experience > then repeated a further 51 times. > My first FORTRAN stuff in college was like that. They were all (actual) one-shots: spend a week writing, run once or twice to get output, and then toss it, so the names didn’t matter. My first programming job everyone emphasized using long(ish) meaningful variable names. Of course FORTRAN used, what, six-character names, so it was hard to be too meaningful. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 17:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ml5ceghup92mb5fcjn2ejg6r66ikem0n5b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #218288 |
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> > When a bug surfaced, it could take several hours to unravel the code, >> > resulting in the complaint by the non-computer-competent MD that the >> > person who left could fix any fault within a few minutes, but you >> > can't be much good of it takes you more than a day. > >> The first thing I’d do if I had to pick up code like that would be to >> comment it, at least to mark the procedures, and indent it. > >Yes, that was typical procedure when faced with spaghetti. >Of course, if it was 6,000 lines of mush, it took a while and >wasn't easy, but all the more reason. > >By the way, 'structured programming' was touted as the way to eliminate >the mess of too many crazy GO TOs. But structured programming could >be poorly written too, with all sorts of excessive crazy calls to subroutines. >Too many layers or overlays is just as bad as GO TOs. > >Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a shortage of programmers. >Management, desperate to automate some function, made use of >unskilled or untalented people, leaving a mess for others to untangle. >Undecipherable field names was another problem. What does K3X mean? >K5X? K4Z? And management, not understanding the importance of such things, insists that "outdated" docs be archived never to be seen again or tossed, so you have to back into the damned things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-08 05:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sc61lv02sk5@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #218288 |
On 2021-07-07, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >>> When a bug surfaced, it could take several hours to unravel the code, >>> resulting in the complaint by the non-computer-competent MD that the >>> person who left could fix any fault within a few minutes, but you >>> can't be much good of it takes you more than a day. >> >> The first thing I’d do if I had to pick up code like that would be to >> comment it, at least to mark the procedures, and indent it. > > Yes, that was typical procedure when faced with spaghetti. > Of course, if it was 6,000 lines of mush, it took a while and > wasn't easy, but all the more reason. Make that 4,000 lines of mush; once I started to make sense of what the code was doing, I'd typically throw out 30% of it. (In extreme cases, 50%.) > By the way, 'structured programming' was touted as the way to > eliminate the mess of too many crazy GO TOs. But structured > programming could be poorly written too, with all sorts of > excessive crazy calls to subroutines. Too many layers or > overlays is just as bad as GO TOs. This is something the zealots never realized. They seemed to take the number of subroutine calls as some sort of figure of merit. Since a subroutine call is just a GOTO paired with a "come from", a maze of calls to tiny (sometimes one-line!) subroutines is still spaghetti code; you're just running double strands. As I would point out, the undisciplined use of subroutine calls is nearly as bad as the undisciplined use of GOTOs. I heard of virtual memory systems thrashing themselves to death because of the complete lack of locality of code - especially if overlays were involved. > Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a shortage of programmers. > Management, desperate to automate some function, made use of > unskilled or untalented people, leaving a mess for others to untangle. > Undecipherable field names was another problem. What does K3X mean? > K5X? K4Z? To be completely fair, it can be a bit hard when you're working with an assembler that only supports 4-character labels. In my first job I discovered that it was a bit of a standard to use labels like A100, A110, etc. (The convention was to keep the labels in sequence.) I quickly outgrew that - it was easy enough to come up with something a bit more mnemonic. The breaking point, though, was when I had to move a large block of code, which would have required renumbering all those labels. I decided enough was enough. Years later I came across COBOL programs (and textbooks) which advocated putting such prefixes in front of labels - a practice which I steadfastly avoided. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1027582483.647474386.185255.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #218299 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2021-07-07, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>>> When a bug surfaced, it could take several hours to unravel the code, >>>> resulting in the complaint by the non-computer-competent MD that the >>>> person who left could fix any fault within a few minutes, but you >>>> can't be much good of it takes you more than a day. >>> >>> The first thing I’d do if I had to pick up code like that would be to >>> comment it, at least to mark the procedures, and indent it. >> >> Yes, that was typical procedure when faced with spaghetti. >> Of course, if it was 6,000 lines of mush, it took a while and >> wasn't easy, but all the more reason. > > Make that 4,000 lines of mush; once I started to make sense of > what the code was doing, I'd typically throw out 30% of it. > (In extreme cases, 50%.) > >> By the way, 'structured programming' was touted as the way to >> eliminate the mess of too many crazy GO TOs. But structured >> programming could be poorly written too, with all sorts of >> excessive crazy calls to subroutines. Too many layers or >> overlays is just as bad as GO TOs. > > This is something the zealots never realized. They seemed to take > the number of subroutine calls as some sort of figure of merit. > Since a subroutine call is just a GOTO paired with a "come from", > a maze of calls to tiny (sometimes one-line!) subroutines is still > spaghetti code; you're just running double strands. > > As I would point out, the undisciplined use of subroutine calls > is nearly as bad as the undisciplined use of GOTOs. > > I heard of virtual memory systems thrashing themselves to death > because of the complete lack of locality of code - especially if > overlays were involved. > >> Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a shortage of programmers. >> Management, desperate to automate some function, made use of >> unskilled or untalented people, leaving a mess for others to untangle. >> Undecipherable field names was another problem. What does K3X mean? >> K5X? K4Z? > > To be completely fair, it can be a bit hard when you're working with > an assembler that only supports 4-character labels. In my first job > I discovered that it was a bit of a standard to use labels like A100, > A110, etc. (The convention was to keep the labels in sequence.) > I quickly outgrew that - it was easy enough to come up with something > a bit more mnemonic. The breaking point, though, was when I had to > move a large block of code, which would have required renumbering > all those labels. I decided enough was enough. > > Years later I came across COBOL programs (and textbooks) which > advocated putting such prefixes in front of labels - a practice > which I steadfastly avoided. > Ah yes, the dreaded 010-READ-INPUT-FILE paragraphs and suchlike. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-08 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sc82bo$kl0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #218320 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> On 2021-07-07, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >>> >>>>> When a bug surfaced, it could take several hours to unravel the code, >>>>> resulting in the complaint by the non-computer-competent MD that the >>>>> person who left could fix any fault within a few minutes, but you >>>>> can't be much good of it takes you more than a day. >>>> >>>> The first thing I’d do if I had to pick up code like that would be to >>>> comment it, at least to mark the procedures, and indent it. >>> >>> Yes, that was typical procedure when faced with spaghetti. >>> Of course, if it was 6,000 lines of mush, it took a while and >>> wasn't easy, but all the more reason. >> >> Make that 4,000 lines of mush; once I started to make sense of >> what the code was doing, I'd typically throw out 30% of it. >> (In extreme cases, 50%.) >> >>> By the way, 'structured programming' was touted as the way to >>> eliminate the mess of too many crazy GO TOs. But structured >>> programming could be poorly written too, with all sorts of >>> excessive crazy calls to subroutines. Too many layers or >>> overlays is just as bad as GO TOs. >> >> This is something the zealots never realized. They seemed to take >> the number of subroutine calls as some sort of figure of merit. >> Since a subroutine call is just a GOTO paired with a "come from", >> a maze of calls to tiny (sometimes one-line!) subroutines is still >> spaghetti code; you're just running double strands. >> >> As I would point out, the undisciplined use of subroutine calls >> is nearly as bad as the undisciplined use of GOTOs. >> >> I heard of virtual memory systems thrashing themselves to death >> because of the complete lack of locality of code - especially if >> overlays were involved. >> >>> Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a shortage of programmers. >>> Management, desperate to automate some function, made use of >>> unskilled or untalented people, leaving a mess for others to untangle. >>> Undecipherable field names was another problem. What does K3X mean? >>> K5X? K4Z? >> >> To be completely fair, it can be a bit hard when you're working with >> an assembler that only supports 4-character labels. In my first job >> I discovered that it was a bit of a standard to use labels like A100, >> A110, etc. (The convention was to keep the labels in sequence.) >> I quickly outgrew that - it was easy enough to come up with something >> a bit more mnemonic. The breaking point, though, was when I had to >> move a large block of code, which would have required renumbering >> all those labels. I decided enough was enough. >> >> Years later I came across COBOL programs (and textbooks) which >> advocated putting such prefixes in front of labels - a practice >> which I steadfastly avoided. >> > > Ah yes, the dreaded 010-READ-INPUT-FILE paragraphs and suchlike. Great stuff. I once decided to fix a large C program by changing all the little function names into the "a100_initialize" pattern. Then, of course, rearranging the functions into called order. I expected the owning C programmer to object but he was happy with the change. He couldn't navigate the code either. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-30 17:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Ky7DI.4720$_X3.3424@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #218204 |
On 6/28/2021 6:28 PM, Peter Flass wrote: > undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 4:08:19 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:59:12 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4 >>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Even the low-end models of IBM's System/360 proved too expensive for >>>> small business, so in 1969 IBM introduced the budget priced System/3. >>>> Notable was the tiny 96 column punched card. >>>> >>>> According to the manual (on Bitsavers), the IBM System/3 did support a >>>> Fortran compiler. However, I think the hardware did not have floating >>>> point and was only oriented toward business processing. My _guess_ is >>>> that the System/3 would run Fortran programs rather slowly and Fortran >>>> or sci/eng work was rarely done. >>>> >>>> Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used >>>> Fortran? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was >>>> the vast majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure the System/3 supported BASIC. While BASIC wasn't as >>>> good as Fortran, it could handle some number crunching work. That was >>>> certainly adequate for some users. >>>> >>>> My guess is that extremely few customers bought a System/3 to do >>>> sci/eng work--there were too many other better choices available at the >>>> time. But it's certainly possible that some sites, while doing >>>> primarily business work, might have a eng/sci application here and >>>> there and may have run them, albeit slowly. Heck, they have the machine >>>> on site already, so use it. >>>> >>>> IBM ads 1970-71 (Hard to believe this was 50 years ago): >>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1970-01/page/n17/mode/2up >>>> >>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-01/page/n29/mode/2up >>>> >>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-02/page/n5/mode/2up >>>> >>>> https://archive.org/details/Nations-Business-1971-03/page/n13/mode/2up >>>> >>>> >>>> (I don't know about the later S/34, S/36, and S/38 running Fortran or >>>> sci/eng applications. As more powerful machines, they may have had more >>>> capability, so it may not have been an issue.) >>> I don't know if it was true for System/3, but at least some AS/400 >>> sites just used packaged applications. I have a working AS/400 >>> downstairs (or at least it was working 20 years ago--I haven't tried >>> to run it in a long time--something about lugging the terminal down a >>> flight of narrow stairs) and to my annoyance it did not have RPG or >>> BASIC or any other programming language installed. >> While the AS/400 evolved from the S/3 midrange product line, it was a >> very different machine. There were other machines in between like the S/36 series. >> >> Note, unlike the original S/3 and the S/360 et al, which had a defined >> architecture and instruction set (to this day), the AS/400 used something >> vague called Licensed Internal Code. One model could vary from the next. >> >> The instruction set of the original System/3 is available on bitsavers. >> Not sure how many people bothered to program that machine in assembler >> since it was intended for smaller shops and easy to use. My impression >> was that most S/3 sites used RPG II or even canned routines. But the IBM >> literature said Fortran was available. How much it was used or how well >> it ran I don't know. Sometimes IBM would offer something that in reality >> didn't run very well on a given machine and got little use. >> > A lot of times to meet a customer (government) specification that > required, e.g. FORTRAN, even though the customer probably never used it. > Once upon a time, Harris Corporation made minicomputers designed for number-crunching. One day, their management decided to get into the data processing business, so they got a company that wrote academic administrative software to agree to sell their package only with a Harris computer. The computer's instruction set wasn't designed for data processing, and the Harris COBOL compiler generated library calls to do basically everything -- moves, arithmetic, etc -- except for branches. The resulting runtime performance was bad. One of my favorite projects was writing a Harris assembler program to read and print Burroughs printer backup tapes. As an offline printer, the machine did well. And it had the coolest lights on the operator's console. Louis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-18 14:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddv96bja8b.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #218117 |
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes:
> Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortra=
> n? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast=
> majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it.
RPG III. RPG II is the System/360 version.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-18 16:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <saiu14$150$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #218142 |
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: > undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes: > >> Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortra= >> n? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast= >> majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. > > RPG III. RPG II is the System/360 version. Not the way I remember it, and Wikipedia agrees with me. RPG II on S/3, S/34, S/36 RPG III on S/38, AS/400. RPG IV for OS/400. I had to rescue a failing RPG project on a Sys/34. One of the first things we did was order the COBOL compiler. I don't have any impression of the speed of the processor, just that it was always fast enough for our application. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-26 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <708a2143-6ef5-4e51-8ca2-b6b52c4107a7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #218143 |
On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:00:37 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote: > Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: > > > undefined Hancock-4 <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> writes: > > > >> Would anyone have any experience or knew of System/3 sites that used Fortra= > >> n? If so, how did it work out for them? The impression I got was the vast= > >> majority of S/3 sites used RPG II developed for it. > > > > RPG III. RPG II is the System/360 version. > Not the way I remember it, and Wikipedia agrees with me. > RPG II on S/3, S/34, S/36 > > RPG III on S/38, AS/400. > > RPG IV for OS/400. Yes. Then they came out with a Visual RPG. I don't know what is done these days on the i series machines or whatever has succeeded the AS/400. Indeed, IBM's website is very vague about their product lines, now talking about "solutions". Makes and models are very vague. (Cars are like that too, these days, Toyota offers a Corolla, but then they offer many trim lines that are confusing. Same with Camry). > I had to rescue a failing RPG project on a Sys/34. > One of the first things we did was order the COBOL compiler. > I don't have any impression of the speed of the processor, just > that it was always fast enough for our application. I think the COBOL language on the AS/400 was nice. But I'm not sure how well it ran. We had COBOL on a AS/400 but it ran very slow. It may have been the machine was just underpowered for what we wanted to do on it, I didn't get into the details. I was not a big fan of the AS/400 line. But I must admit its users loved it. There used to be a magazine, Midrange Computing, almost a cult following. And I must guess that setting up a new installation cold was probably easier with an AS/400 from a Z series, probably a lot of stuff was automated, and far less configuration and system programming was needed. Of course, if the site got big enough, then performance may have become an issue--large sites have do need some configuration to keep things orderly. (And there was an AS/400 Performance Manual).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web