Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #346873 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-19 10:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-03-25 14:36 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-19 10:57 +0000
Real programmers use C++ John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 05:09 -0700
Re: Real programmers use C++ Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 06:11 -0700
the umpteen layers of abstraction inside of the Linux DE John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 06:39 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:06 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-03-20 20:33 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-20 15:22 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-20 20:01 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-20 20:21 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-21 12:21 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-21 21:47 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-21 17:48 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-21 20:06 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 00:35 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-22 09:38 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 06:53 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 13:11 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:23 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 14:41 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:44 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 09:51 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 11:54 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:11 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 22:36 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 20:28 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 22:48 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 13:05 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-22 14:11 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 14:39 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-22 15:57 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-22 22:25 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-23 02:47 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 05:51 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:38 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-24 00:08 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-24 14:04 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:37 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-23 13:36 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-23 23:57 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-24 06:45 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 10:26 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 22:07 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-24 10:11 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-24 11:32 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-24 21:27 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-24 21:50 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-25 21:56 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-25 19:43 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-25 19:49 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-26 01:05 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 14:04 +0000
Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 14:42 +0000
Re: Get a clue ! Microsoft doesn't use UTF_16 exclusively. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-26 12:27 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-26 22:42 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-26 22:25 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-27 00:42 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-26 20:50 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-27 09:52 +0200
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-27 14:56 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.dead> - 2016-03-26 17:36 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-26 20:09 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-26 20:52 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-03-26 02:42 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-22 07:25 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 12:52 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:59 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 21:03 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:38 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-23 02:09 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 05:50 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-23 11:33 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-23 07:04 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-23 08:49 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-23 09:50 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-24 21:48 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-25 11:11 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-29 10:17 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-23 10:01 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-23 23:57 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 12:58 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-22 20:20 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-22 14:46 -0500
Re: Developers Not Programmers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 15:04 -0700
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-22 21:09 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-20 22:42 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-20 19:22 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-21 01:01 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-03-21 08:18 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-03-21 15:03 +0100
Re: Developers Not Programmers Nobody <nobody@nowhere.net> - 2016-03-20 21:08 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-03-20 21:07 -0400
Re: Developers Not Programmers Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-03-22 14:25 +0000
Re: Developers Not Programmers "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-03-25 14:36 -0400
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 09:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncri1q$8pk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347162 |
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message news:ncrhs6$6se$3@dont-email.me... > Ezekiel wrote: > >> >> >> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >> news:ncrcj2$kat$1@dont-email.me... >>> Ezekiel wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> wrote in message >>>> news:ncr3ra07i9@news6.newsguy.com... >>> >>> < snip correct description of snittish idiocy > >>> >>>> http://www.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/24143004.pdf >>>> >>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The same applies to the rest of your idiotic assertions. >>>>> >>>>> Now get the fuck out of here and go to a home for dummies. >>>> >>>> Troll harder Snit. >>>> >>>> "Microsoft implements the Unicode standard using UTF-16. This means >>>> that >>>> ascii text files are now TWICE as large. Very stupid." >>>> Fabian Russell - Nov 9, 2015 >>>> <pan.2015.11.09.18.27.55@localhost.localdomain> >>> >>> Well, thats at least not totally wrong. UTF16 *is* at least 2 bytes for >>> every character. Whereas UTF8 is exactly the same for the standard ASCII >>> set >>> up to 7Fh. In this regard UTF8 is better, but it is harder to do string >>> lenght and string compare operations >> >> It is totally wrong - "ascii text files are now TWICE as large" >> >> An ascii text file is an ascii text file. A Utf8 file is a Utf8 file and >> a >> Unicode file is a Unicode file. > > Except that it is exactly the same if pure ASCII and UTF8 are used > And UTF8 *is* Unicode. UTF16 is as well > >> >> Windows doesn't magically convert ASCII text files to Unicode on the fly. >> >> The file is in whatever format the application writes it in. Our >> applications even read and write ebcidic files when needed. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 09:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncrifp$aek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347162 |
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message news:ncrhs6$6se$3@dont-email.me... > Ezekiel wrote: > >> >> >> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >> news:ncrcj2$kat$1@dont-email.me... >>> Ezekiel wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> wrote in message >>>> news:ncr3ra07i9@news6.newsguy.com... >>> >>> < snip correct description of snittish idiocy > >>> >>>> http://www.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/24143004.pdf >>>> >>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The same applies to the rest of your idiotic assertions. >>>>> >>>>> Now get the fuck out of here and go to a home for dummies. >>>> >>>> Troll harder Snit. >>>> >>>> "Microsoft implements the Unicode standard using UTF-16. This means >>>> that >>>> ascii text files are now TWICE as large. Very stupid." >>>> Fabian Russell - Nov 9, 2015 >>>> <pan.2015.11.09.18.27.55@localhost.localdomain> >>> >>> Well, thats at least not totally wrong. UTF16 *is* at least 2 bytes for >>> every character. Whereas UTF8 is exactly the same for the standard ASCII >>> set >>> up to 7Fh. In this regard UTF8 is better, but it is harder to do string >>> lenght and string compare operations >> >> It is totally wrong - "ascii text files are now TWICE as large" >> >> An ascii text file is an ascii text file. A Utf8 file is a Utf8 file and >> a >> Unicode file is a Unicode file. > > Except that it is exactly the same if pure ASCII and UTF8 are used > And UTF8 *is* Unicode. UTF16 is as well I know. But I'm not being pedantic and simply using "Unicode" as a general term for UTF-16 and UTF-32 to make the point that an "ascii text file" is not "TWICE as large." The file is *exactly* as large as written. Windows doesn't convert "ascii text" files into UTF-16 (Unicode). If I tell emacs or notepad++ or another app to save the file as Utf-8 then the file will be saved as Utf-8. Windows won't t stop me or even try. I can also tell emacs on Unix to save the file as UTF-16 and it will be happy to do so. >> Windows doesn't magically convert ASCII text files to Unicode on the fly. >> >> The file is in whatever format the application writes it in. Our >> applications even read and write ebcidic files when needed. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncrpm8$7bi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347156 |
On 3/22/2016 9:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote: > "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message > news:ncrcj2$kat$1@dont-email.me... >> Ezekiel wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> wrote in message >>> news:ncr3ra07i9@news6.newsguy.com... >> >> < snip correct description of snittish idiocy > >> >>> http://www.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/24143004.pdf >>> >>> Idiot. >>> >>> >>>> The same applies to the rest of your idiotic assertions. >>>> >>>> Now get the fuck out of here and go to a home for dummies. >>> >>> Troll harder Snit. >>> >>> "Microsoft implements the Unicode standard using UTF-16. This means that >>> ascii text files are now TWICE as large. Very stupid." >>> Fabian Russell - Nov 9, 2015 >>> <pan.2015.11.09.18.27.55@localhost.localdomain> >> >> Well, thats at least not totally wrong. UTF16 *is* at least 2 bytes for >> every character. Whereas UTF8 is exactly the same for the standard ASCII >> set >> up to 7Fh. In this regard UTF8 is better, but it is harder to do string >> lenght and string compare operations > > It is totally wrong - "ascii text files are now TWICE as large" > > An ascii text file is an ascii text file. A Utf8 file is a Utf8 file and a > Unicode file is a Unicode file. > > Windows doesn't magically convert ASCII text files to Unicode on the fly. > > The file is in whatever format the application writes it in. Our > applications even read and write ebcidic files when needed. Question for you about EBCDIC files. 20 years ago I did a job for a mutual fund, and some vendor charged them a large sum to convert EBCDIC files (from a mainframe I guess) to another format (ASCII as I recall). Were they scamming, or was this really a difficult thing to do?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 12:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncrqma$bc9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347176 |
"DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in message news:ncrpm8$7bi$1@dont-email.me... > On 3/22/2016 9:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >> >> Windows doesn't magically convert ASCII text files to Unicode on the fly. >> >> The file is in whatever format the application writes it in. Our >> applications even read and write ebcidic files when needed. > > > Question for you about EBCDIC files. 20 years ago I did a job for a > mutual fund, and some vendor charged them a large sum to convert EBCDIC > files (from a mainframe I guess) to another format (ASCII as I recall). > Were they scamming, or was this really a difficult thing to do? > > It depends. If they're simple ebcdic files then it's trivial. The ftp server on the mainframe can auto-magically convert from ebcdic to ascii and even to dbcs (double-byte char sets). So if that's all they did it's basically a simple matter of using text-mode to ftp the files over and the mainframe will do the conversion for you. There are also command line utilities for converting data from one char-set to another. But this how it's done today and in recent history. I didn't do squat with ebcdic 20 years ago so maybe it was more difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 22:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncsv9u$gbq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347179 |
On 3/22/2016 12:11 PM, Ezekiel wrote: > "DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in message news:ncrpm8$7bi$1@dont-email.me... >> On 3/22/2016 9:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >>> >>> Windows doesn't magically convert ASCII text files to Unicode on the fly. >>> >>> The file is in whatever format the application writes it in. Our >>> applications even read and write ebcidic files when needed. >> >> >> Question for you about EBCDIC files. 20 years ago I did a job for a >> mutual fund, and some vendor charged them a large sum to convert EBCDIC >> files (from a mainframe I guess) to another format (ASCII as I recall). >> Were they scamming, or was this really a difficult thing to do? >> >> > > It depends. If they're simple ebcdic files then it's trivial. The ftp server > on the mainframe can auto-magically convert from ebcdic to ascii and even to > dbcs (double-byte char sets). So if that's all they did it's basically a > simple matter of using text-mode to ftp the files over and the mainframe > will do the conversion for you. > > There are also command line utilities for converting data from one char-set > to another. But this how it's done today and in recent history. I didn't do > squat with ebcdic 20 years ago so maybe it was more difficult. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 20:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncs67o$seq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347176 |
DFS wrote: > On 3/22/2016 9:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >> news:ncrcj2$kat$1@dont-email.me... >>> Ezekiel wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> wrote in message >>>> news:ncr3ra07i9@news6.newsguy.com... >>> >>> < snip correct description of snittish idiocy > >>> >>>> http://www.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/24143004.pdf >>>> >>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The same applies to the rest of your idiotic assertions. >>>>> >>>>> Now get the fuck out of here and go to a home for dummies. >>>> >>>> Troll harder Snit. >>>> >>>> "Microsoft implements the Unicode standard using UTF-16. This means >>>> that >>>> ascii text files are now TWICE as large. Very stupid." >>>> Fabian Russell - Nov 9, 2015 >>>> <pan.2015.11.09.18.27.55@localhost.localdomain> >>> >>> Well, thats at least not totally wrong. UTF16 *is* at least 2 bytes for >>> every character. Whereas UTF8 is exactly the same for the standard ASCII >>> set >>> up to 7Fh. In this regard UTF8 is better, but it is harder to do string >>> lenght and string compare operations >> >> It is totally wrong - "ascii text files are now TWICE as large" >> >> An ascii text file is an ascii text file. A Utf8 file is a Utf8 file and >> a Unicode file is a Unicode file. >> >> Windows doesn't magically convert ASCII text files to Unicode on the fly. >> >> The file is in whatever format the application writes it in. Our >> applications even read and write ebcidic files when needed. > > > Question for you about EBCDIC files. 20 years ago I did a job for a > mutual fund, and some vendor charged them a large sum to convert EBCDIC > files (from a mainframe I guess) to another format (ASCII as I recall). > Were they scamming, or was this really a difficult thing to do? It is simple to do. All you need to do is setting up tables of the different EBCDIC codepages and (eventually) the wanted output codepages. Then some code to get the conversion parameters and from that point on a loop through the text. You could do that in a few hours, with the main work would be setting up the tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncsvv8$im0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347186 |
On 3/22/2016 3:28 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2016 9:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> Question for you about EBCDIC files. 20 years ago I did a job for a
>> mutual fund, and some vendor charged them a large sum to convert EBCDIC
>> files (from a mainframe I guess) to another format (ASCII as I recall).
>> Were they scamming, or was this really a difficult thing to do?
>
> It is simple to do. All you need to do is setting up tables of the different
> EBCDIC codepages and (eventually) the wanted output codepages.
> Then some code to get the conversion parameters and from that point on a
> loop through the text. You could do that in a few hours, with the main work
> would be setting up the tables
Thanks.
It was 1995. I figured it wasn't too difficult, but they were being
held hostage by this vendor, who refused to turn the EBCDIC data over to
them, or to me. I could've at least tried to do the conversion -
nowadays there's free conversion tools and code.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Sub TranslateFile(ByVal sourceEbcdicFilePath As String, _
ByVal newAsciiFilePath As String)
Dim encoding As System.Text.Encoding = _
System.Text.Encoding.GetEncoding(37)
Dim lineLength As Integer = 134
Dim buffer(lineLength - 1) As Char
Dim reader As New IO.StreamReader(sourceEbcdicFilePath, encoding)
Dim writer As New IO.StreamWriter(newAsciiFilePath, _
False, System.Text.Encoding.Default)
Dim strAscii As String = String.Empty
Dim iLoops As Integer = 0
Do Until reader.EndOfStream = True
reader.ReadBlock(buffer, 0, lineLength)
strAscii = encoding.GetString(encoding.GetBytes(buffer))
writer.WriteLine(strAscii)
iLoops += 1
If iLoops = 1000 Then
Application.DoEvents()
iLoops = 0 'reset
End If
Loop
reader.Close()
writer.Close()
reader.Dispose()
writer.Dispose()
End Sub
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/31720/How-to-Read-an-EBCDIC-File-in-VB-NET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 13:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncrc81$ies$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347140 |
Fabian Russell wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:35:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>> >>> In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data >>> type. >> >> There certainly is >> > > Oh, is there. > > Take a look at the Intel/AMD x64 processor. Where is the string type? > > There are bytes, integers, and floating point, with all of the > corresponding arithmetic, logical, and move instructions. > > Where is the string type? Idiot We are not talking about processor instructions. We are talking about programming languages > Where is it, smart fuck? Where? > > C'mon, idiot. Show us the string type. Idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 14:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160322141114.4fc0acb8@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #347148 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:05:20 +0100 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Fabian Russell wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:35:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > > >>> > >>> In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data > >>> type. > >> > >> There certainly is > >> > > > > Oh, is there. > > > > Take a look at the Intel/AMD x64 processor. Where is the string > > type? > > > > There are bytes, integers, and floating point, with all of the > > corresponding arithmetic, logical, and move instructions. > > > > Where is the string type? > > Idiot > We are not talking about processor instructions. We are talking about > programming languages There are x86 instructions that work on string types... eg pcmpistri, movs etc...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 14:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncrhno$6se$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347155 |
Melzzzzz wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:05:20 +0100 > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Fabian Russell wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:35:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> > >> >>> >> >>> In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data >> >>> type. >> >> >> >> There certainly is >> >> >> > >> > Oh, is there. >> > >> > Take a look at the Intel/AMD x64 processor. Where is the string >> > type? >> > >> > There are bytes, integers, and floating point, with all of the >> > corresponding arithmetic, logical, and move instructions. >> > >> > Where is the string type? >> >> Idiot >> We are not talking about processor instructions. We are talking about >> programming languages > > There are x86 instructions that work on string types... > eg pcmpistri, movs etc... I know. But thats irrelevant. Even a Z80 could work with strings We talk about string types in programming languages
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dld8c1F30v2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #347140 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:38:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:35:54 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > >>> In the first place, there is NO SUCH THING as a "string" data type. >> >> There certainly is >> >> > Oh, is there. > > Take a look at the Intel/AMD x64 processor. Where is the string type? > > There are bytes, integers, and floating point, with all of the > corresponding arithmetic, logical, and move instructions. > > Where is the string type? > > Where is it, smart fuck? Where? > > C'mon, idiot. Show us the string type. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! So much for you knowing x86 machine code. REPxx Repeat MOVS/STOS/CMPS/LODS/SCAS MOVSB Move byte from string to string MOVSW Move word from string to string SCASB Compare byte string SCASW Compare word string STOSB Store byte in string STOSW Store word in string LODSB Load string byte LODSW Load string word -- -v Kernel:4.5.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncse52016m7@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #347178 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:57:53 +0000, vallor wrote: > > So much for you knowing x86 machine code. > > [snip good boy homework] > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! The dumb fuck, who never hand coded assembly language in his entire fucking life, did a brief bit of "homework" on Google. Big fucking deal. So what, dumb fuck? Intel has SIMD instructions that facilitate the calculation of vector dot (scalar) products. Does that mean that there is a hardware "vector" type? Intel has SIMD instructions that facilitate complex number multiplication and division. Does that mean that there is a hardware "complex number" type. In case you're still wondering, dumb fuck, the answer is a resounding "No!" to both of the above. Besides, the instructions to which you allude are only examples of "indexed addressing" move instructions which have been available on all processors since the very beginning of computers. They all operaate, using index registers, on blocks of binary data which are not necessarily character "strings." Intel does provide, beginning with SSE 4.2, SIMD packed comparison, explicit and implicit, instructions that are intended for parallel processing of character arrays. But again, does this mean that there is a "string" data type? Again, the answer is "No!" You know fucking shit, dumb fuck. Before you offer your lame comments to the group make sure that you actually know something. Dumb fuck. But just as an aside to all those dumb fucks who continue to decry the need for hand-coded assembly language, when it comes to parallel programming using SIMD instructions, no fucking compiler in the whole fucking world can beat hand-crafted assembly code. None. Zip. Nada. If it must be done in the best way, it must be done by hand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dldv20F30v2U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #347195 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:40:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:57:53 +0000, vallor wrote: > > >> So much for you knowing x86 machine code. >> >> [snip good boy homework] >> >> > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > The dumb fuck, who never hand coded assembly language in his entire > fucking life, Wrong. Very, very, wrong. > did a brief bit of "homework" on Google. Big fucking > deal. Wrong again. I remembered REPLZ MOVSB from assembly programming I did back in the late 80's -- for CTOS, of all things. Then I looked up all the opcodes that could be used for "string work". > So what, dumb fuck? Better think again, I've probably written more useful assembly programs than you ever have. One was even a system service to convert Baudot to ASCII so that we could copy the AFRTS wire news feed on the CTOS system. This was then used to create a ship's newspaper, which was quite handing during Gulf War I. Meanwhile, what kind of useful things have you done with assembly language, besides pumping the neighbor's dog? > You know fucking shit, dumb fuck. My my, aren't we emotional. What delicious nerdrage as I taste your salty tears. > Before you offer your lame comments to the group make sure that you > actually know something. Salty, salty tears. > Dumb fuck. You already said that. Four times. Clearly you are unable to accept any sort of criticism graciously, and instead rely on the logical fallacy of "ad hominem" to try to carry your arguments. When you wish to return to the world of logic and reason, be sure and let us know, mmmkay? Toodles, Cupcake. -- -v Kernel:4.5.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 02:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nct04q01lj3@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #347224 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:25:04 +0000, vallor wrote: > > I've probably written more useful assembly programs > than you ever have. One was even a system service to convert Baudot to > ASCII > Big fucking deal. That's pussy work. You haven't done assembly until you've done real time data acquisition where the actual clock cycle time of every instruction matters a great deal and waveform synchronization with external hardware must be carefully considered. Until you know EXACTLY what you are talking about, you are advised to keep your mouth shut.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 05:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nctp0k$i9u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347242 |
Fabian Russell wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Until you know EXACTLY what you are talking about, you are advised > to keep your mouth shut. Don't be a jackass. Oh, too late! :-D -- You will be awarded a medal for disregarding safety in saving someone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlgnocF8roU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #347250 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:51:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Fabian Russell wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Until you know EXACTLY what you are talking about, you are advised to >> keep your mouth shut. > > Don't be a jackass. > > Oh, too late! :-D I know, huh! Guy gets his ass booted across the USENET, and all he can come up with is "f*ck f*ck f*ck f*ck". Then he starts talking about realtime acquisition of data, when the discussion was about freakin strings. You can't make this stuff up! Guy's all over the map. -- -v Kernel:4.5.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 00:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlgpf3F8roU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #347277 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:38:52 +0000, vallor wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:51:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Fabian Russell wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> Until you know EXACTLY what you are talking about, you are advised to >>> keep your mouth shut. >> >> Don't be a jackass. >> >> Oh, too late! :-D > > I know, huh! > > Guy gets his ass booted across the USENET, and all he can come up with > is "f*ck f*ck f*ck f*ck". Then he starts talking about realtime > acquisition of data, when the discussion was about freakin strings. > > You can't make this stuff up! Guy's all over the map. And then I saw that he was so hot-and-bothered that he had to reply twice to the same message that dared to contradict His Nibs The Second. What next? Will he begin spamming the group to save face? -- -v Kernel:4.5.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nd0oea$r0f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347279 |
vallor wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:38:52 +0000, vallor wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:51:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Fabian Russell wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> >>>> Until you know EXACTLY what you are talking about, you are advised to >>>> keep your mouth shut. >>> >>> Don't be a jackass. >>> >>> Oh, too late! :-D >> >> I know, huh! >> >> Guy gets his ass booted across the USENET, and all he can come up with >> is "f*ck f*ck f*ck f*ck". Then he starts talking about realtime >> acquisition of data, when the discussion was about freakin strings. >> >> You can't make this stuff up! Guy's all over the map. > > And then I saw that he was so hot-and-bothered that he had to reply twice > to the same message that dared to contradict His Nibs The Second. > > What next? Will he begin spamming the group to save face? > You mean like a certain imbecile from Prescott AZ does when he is completely wrong as usual?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlgnl0F8roU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #347242 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 02:47:54 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:25:04 +0000, vallor wrote: > > >> I've probably written more useful assembly programs than you ever have. >> One was even a system service to convert Baudot to ASCII >> >> > Big fucking deal. That's pussy work. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. > > You haven't done assembly until you've done real time data acquisition > where the actual clock cycle time of every instruction matters a great > deal and waveform synchronization with external hardware must be > carefully considered. If you think this is how you handle strings in assembly language, then you have worse issues than can be addressed in this newsfroup, bub. > Until you know EXACTLY what you are talking about, you are advised to > keep your mouth shut. I know what's necessary for handing strings with x86 processors -- and you apparently don't. So, I guess I won't be taking your irrelevant "advice", Cupcake. Toodles again. :) -- -v Kernel:4.5.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fabian Russell" <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 13:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4c4fac37c778f470121ea31f5ec9fb9d@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #347224 |
"vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:40:50 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:57:53 +0000, vallor wrote: >> >>> So much for you knowing x86 machine code. >>> >>> [snip good boy homework] >>> >>> >> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! >> >> The dumb fuck, who never hand coded assembly language in his entire >> fucking life, > > Wrong. > > Very, very, wrong. Liar. You're just a dumb fucking idiot who is so damn stupid that you don't even deserve to be talking to a REAL man like me. When it comes to brains, you're my fucking bitch. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > I remembered REPLZ MOVSB from assembly programming I did back in the late > 80's -- for CTOS, of all things. Then I looked up all the opcodes that > could be used for "string work". > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! I was doing that when I was 12 years old. You must be a real stupid dumb fuck if you think that will impress me. >> You know fucking shit, dumb fuck. > > My my, aren't we emotional. What delicious nerdrage as I taste your > salty tears. That salty taste you're talking about is the taste of my dick in your mouth. >> Before you offer your lame comments to the group make sure that you >> actually know something. > > Salty, salty tears. That's still my dick in your mouth but those aren't tears that you're tasting. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! >> Dumb fuck. > > You already said that. Four times. I want to make sure that a dumb fuck like you gets the message. Do you finally get the message you stupid dumb fuck? > When you wish to return to the world of logic and reason, be sure and let > us know, mmmkay? > > Toodles, Cupcake. Cupcakes are something that you're an expert on. You don't know shit about computers because you're a gui clicking idiot. But put a dozen cupcakes in front of you and I bet that you're in your fucking element. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web