Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #11730 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-07-05 14:28 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 788 — 65 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:02 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 17:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 13:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:41 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 15:05 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 14:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 23:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-17 08:46 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-17 10:51 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:54 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 13:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 14:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:56 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-14 09:48 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:08 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 00:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 13:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 13:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 12:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 15:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:19 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:08 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:09 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 22:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 03:47 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 23:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:03 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 10:20 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 04:38 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-02 14:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 08:13 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 12:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 12:36 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-01 22:17 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-02 21:35 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 20:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 22:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 12:03 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 15:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 18:28 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 03:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 09:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:15 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:42 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 20:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 22:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 21:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:15 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 18:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-04 09:01 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:32 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 19:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 14:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 18:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 17:31 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 14:51 -0400
Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 23:18 +0000
Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-07-04 08:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:20 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 16:15 -0400
Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:55 +0000
Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 11:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-04 15:47 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:31 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:10 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 21:56 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 00:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 00:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 11:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 13:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 01:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:35 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 23:23 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 00:07 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:20 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 13:37 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 14:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:42 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-07-05 22:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 06:44 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 09:45 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:14 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 21:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:05 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:30 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 12:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:39 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:40 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:42 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:53 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 15:20 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:50 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-04 16:28 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:37 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:03 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:08 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:13 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 06:36 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 12:37 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:12 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 19:52 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:11 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:30 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:51 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:32 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:44 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-06 15:01 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:49 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 10:45 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-06 12:05 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 11:41 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-06 08:59 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:00 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:46 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:56 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:52 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:25 +0000
Re: stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:10 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:35 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-07-05 16:33 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:16 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 21:49 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-06 06:12 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:51 -0600
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-04 23:04 +0300
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 20:35 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:54 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:49 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-04 21:54 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:16 +0300
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:40 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-05 18:51 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:28 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:38 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:53 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-04 14:52 -0600
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 17:22 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:50 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 23:37 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 20:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-14 10:20 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:16 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-15 08:01 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 03:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 08:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-02 10:30 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 16:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 16:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 11:52 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-07-02 06:23 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 08:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 08:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 22:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 12:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 09:38 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-18 18:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-18 12:25 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:50 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-07-01 20:28 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-01 20:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-01 23:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-01 22:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 11:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-02 12:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-02 19:51 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 18:39 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 18:56 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 15:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 17:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 19:48 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 15:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 20:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:24 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 12:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-05 17:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 18:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 23:07 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 12:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-06 09:05 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 13:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 07:37 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 15:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 00:26 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-04 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 18:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 09:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 13:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 14:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 14:08 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 16:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:23 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:06 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:18 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 21:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 14:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 16:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 11:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:33 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-08 12:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:19 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 14:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-04 22:30 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-07 07:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 23:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-09 00:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 12:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 14:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 19:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 10:40 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-09 09:02 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 16:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> - 2016-07-09 16:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 16:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 21:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 18:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 20:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-10 12:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 14:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-11 11:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 16:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 16:01 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 18:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 18:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-07-12 01:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-07-12 20:48 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 06:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-13 13:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 15:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:49 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:20 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:43 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 19:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 20:32 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:19 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:36 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-09 14:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-06 00:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:32 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-02 19:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> - 2016-06-13 20:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:42 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 20:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:48 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 08:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:14 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 10:22 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:01 +0100
OT was Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-14 12:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-14 12:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-14 15:24 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 17:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:45 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:34 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:44 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:15 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:42 +0200
Symbolics [Re: Is it a lost cause?] colonel_hack@yahoo.com - 2016-06-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:47 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 13:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> - 2016-06-14 08:35 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 15:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 22:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 21:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:15 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 10:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 12:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:50 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:59 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:06 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 19:44 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 11:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 17:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-16 07:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 08:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 11:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-16 07:49 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-17 12:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 14:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 20:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Steve Hall <sweet_stevie@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 11:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-19 13:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 16:05 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 19:04 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:47 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 22:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-16 09:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:55 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-18 02:03 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 16:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-17 18:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-17 20:05 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 12:27 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:29 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 19:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:15 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 10:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 04:52 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 17:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-06-18 17:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 09:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:53 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 15:37 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 16:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 09:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 11:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 11:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-06-18 15:19 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:50 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 19:09 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:11 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 14:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-18 21:58 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 11:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 17:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-19 21:49 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-20 07:41 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-19 14:13 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-19 22:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-19 19:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 11:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 12:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 17:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 17:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 19:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 21:18 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 18:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 19:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 23:02 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2016-07-03 13:50 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 20:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 23:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 07:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 12:56 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 12:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 13:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 16:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2016-07-04 01:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 21:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 19:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-21 06:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 20:01 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 21:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 13:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 06:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-20 06:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 10:09 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-20 08:31 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-20 13:50 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:47 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:52 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 10:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:58 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:37 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 21:07 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:27 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:06 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-19 12:13 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-19 08:10 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-19 10:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 18:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-06-21 03:09 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 19:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-17 17:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 22:25 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-18 10:56 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 19:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-18 19:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 10:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 10:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 12:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-19 13:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 16:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-19 17:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 07:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 18:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-19 21:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 11:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-20 15:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 16:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 19:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-14 12:34 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-14 22:12 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:33 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 07:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 14:15 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 07:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 08:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:31 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 12:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:36 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:31 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:16 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 15:42 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:54 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 18:33 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:14 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:19 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 21:42 +0000
Re: stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 21:47 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 17:55 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 02:46 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:58 +0100
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 07:54 -0700
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 15:43 -0700
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:57 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-05 16:06 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 14:05 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 13:24 -0500
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 14:29 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:59 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 18:31 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 15:32 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 20:05 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 22:36 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:14 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-06 07:59 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:59 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 20:05 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:57 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:16 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 15:38 -0700
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dennis <dennis@none.none> - 2016-07-04 19:55 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-05 12:46 -0500
Re: 360 architecture, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 20:32 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:20 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:28 +0000
Page 7 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 40 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 14:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlge92$ajs$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12485 |
On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 04/07/16 13:42, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 03/07/16 14:33, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a > band-aid >>>>>>>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast > majority >>>>>>>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage > to >>>>>>>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was > certainly >>>>>>>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the >>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO >>>>>>>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a > high >>>>>>>>>>> level language. ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something > worse. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>>>>>>> END >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>>>>>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked > them >>>>>>>>> with assigned gotos. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. > I >>>>>>>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad >>>>>>>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >>>>>>> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program >>>>>>> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO > TO >>>>>>> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also >>>>>>> included code from a COPY library. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that > the >>>>>>> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to > execute >>>>>>> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run > times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not > use >>>>>>> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >>>>>>> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing >>>>>> on very large data sets. >>>>> >>>>> Was it originally? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think so. >>>> >>>> Batch processing of payroll etc etc. >>> >>> I thought Admiral Hopper wrote COBOL. >>> >> >> She sure did! >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >>>>>> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >>>>>> and data dictionary specifications. >>>>> >>>>> You need to reexamine that assumption. >>>> >>>> I don't think I do. >>>> Of course analysts who couldn't program too were dire, but the general >>>> progression was coder -> 'ANAL/PROG' -> Systems analyst >>> >>> It depended on the shop. I was all three including a few others. >>> IIRC, the Patriot missle's code was COBOL written in Natick Labs. >>> >>> COBOL was used when decimal arithmetic was important waybackwhen. >>> It also had the feature of being self-documenting if the variables >>> were chosen well. >>> >> >> Indeed. It took AGES to write > > Not really. > >> IIRC, but was maintainable and the chief >> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type accurately. > > Nope. Programmers wrote code on coding sheets and then submitted them > to keypunchers (and later, tape prep types) who would type in the code. > >> >> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. > > You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We > had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code > was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, > and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to > get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it > was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but > fixing comments did not. > >> >> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used for >> what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining the logic, >> repeated as line by line comments down the block > > That was done in some shops. It depended on the site. > >> >> The advantage over COBOL was that spelling wasn't important :-) >> >> The Joy of C of course was that you wrote it pretty much like assembler, >> but half of the comments were not necessary. > > Well, I'd disagree with that. Reading C is no joy to me. Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that professional.... > > /BAH > -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 15:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160705151142.e7e0cb78b0f7a03f7d7af4a1@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #12492 |
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:48 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: <snip> > > You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We > > had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code > > was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, > > and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to > > get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it > > was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but > > fixing comments did not. > > Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely > undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with > little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, > arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming > style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that > professional.... Your conclusion does not appear to follow from Barb's statement, indeed it appears to be in complete contradiction of it. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 16:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlgi4n$jj1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12500 |
On 05/07/16 15:11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:48 +0100 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: > > <snip> > >>> You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We >>> had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code >>> was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, >>> and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to >>> get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it >>> was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but >>> fixing comments did not. >> >> Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely >> undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with >> little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, >> arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming >> style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that >> professional.... > > Your conclusion does not appear to follow from Barb's statement, > indeed it appears to be in complete contradiction of it. > His own paragraph contradicts itself. -- "What do you think about Gay Marriage?" "I don't." "Don't what?" "Think about Gay Marriage."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 17:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nh0t4d-3ac.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #12500 |
In article <20160705151142.e7e0cb78b0f7a03f7d7af4a1@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:48 +0100 >The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: > ><snip> > >> > You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We >> > had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code >> > was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, >> > and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to >> > get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it >> > was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but >> > fixing comments did not. >> >> Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely >> undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with >> little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, >> arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming >> style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that >> professional.... > > Your conclusion does not appear to follow from Barb's statement, >indeed it appears to be in complete contradiction of it. Barb was herding these 'permies' (which I cannot find in my glossary) and got out some of the best documentation I have seen, before or after. She is one of my heroes for this feat. Yes, DEC ran according to best practices of ca 1970 when it came to software development. They had some of the best people, but there was in effect no management at all, the inmates ran the asylum. But the quality of the professionals at DEC was good enough (excellent would I say) to live without effective management for more than a decade. This is no mean feat. But it was a "duck pond management" situation (calm on the surface, but below; paddle like hell). This became unsustainable. The leadership at DEC also were clueless about the drivers of their business, and this made the whole business come to a halt when the micros hit. They nearly folded in May 83, when they had to scrounge to get effective hardware out the door. I asked about source control a few weeks ago, and Barb confirmed that they didn't use it, with some reservations for the later VAX/VMS line. So, yes, in a sense you are right. But the success of DEC was based on a few hundred excellent people that did their jobs outstandingly well even if they never had the proper tools for work. In hindsight. But I saw it happen in 82 onwards. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <183668073.489455049.654235.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12556 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <20160705151142.e7e0cb78b0f7a03f7d7af4a1@eircom.net>, > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:48 +0100 >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We >>>> had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code >>>> was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, >>>> and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to >>>> get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it >>>> was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but >>>> fixing comments did not. >>> >>> Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely >>> undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with >>> little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, >>> arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming >>> style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that >>> professional.... >> >> Your conclusion does not appear to follow from Barb's statement, >> indeed it appears to be in complete contradiction of it. > > Barb was herding these 'permies' (which I cannot find in my glossary) > and got out some of the best documentation I have seen, before or after. > She is one of my heroes for this feat. > > Yes, DEC ran according to best practices of ca 1970 when it came to > software development. They had some of the best people, but there was > in effect no management at all, the inmates ran the asylum. > > But the quality of the professionals at DEC was good enough (excellent > would I say) to live without effective management for more than a decade. > This is no mean feat. That's probably _why_ they did so well. Management may be able to do the vision thing okay, but things work best when they keep out of the day-to-day. > > But it was a "duck pond management" situation (calm on the surface, but > below; paddle like hell). This became unsustainable. The leadership at > DEC also were clueless about the drivers of their business, and this > made the whole business come to a halt when the micros hit. > > They nearly folded in May 83, when they had to scrounge to get > effective hardware out the door. > > I asked about source control a few weeks ago, and Barb confirmed > that they didn't use it, with some reservations for the later VAX/VMS > line. > > So, yes, in a sense you are right. But the success of DEC was based > on a few hundred excellent people that did their jobs outstandingly > well even if they never had the proper tools for work. > > In hindsight. But I saw it happen in 82 onwards. > > -- mrr > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u3jonb5p4opn41nqb8pbdcbu6uadabkrlr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12556 |
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:32:39 +0200, Morten Reistad
<first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>Barb was herding these 'permies' (which I cannot find in my glossary)
Presumably, permanent employees.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000536F71DD437BD@aca416c1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #12556 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <20160705151142.e7e0cb78b0f7a03f7d7af4a1@eircom.net>, > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:48 +0100 >>The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> > You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We >>> > had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code >>> > was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, >>> > and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to >>> > get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it >>> > was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but >>> > fixing comments did not. >>> >>> Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely >>> undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with >>> little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, >>> arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming >>> style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that >>> professional.... >> >> Your conclusion does not appear to follow from Barb's statement, >>indeed it appears to be in complete contradiction of it. > > Barb was herding these 'permies' (which I cannot find in my glossary) > and got out some of the best documentation I have seen, before or after. > She is one of my heroes for this feat. > > Yes, DEC ran according to best practices of ca 1970 when it came to > software development. They had some of the best people, but there was > in effect no management at all, the inmates ran the asylum. > > But the quality of the professionals at DEC was good enough (excellent > would I say) to live without effective management for more than a decade. > This is no mean feat. > > But it was a "duck pond management" situation (calm on the surface, but > below; paddle like hell). This became unsustainable. The leadership at > DEC also were clueless about the drivers of their business, and this > made the whole business come to a halt when the micros hit. > > They nearly folded in May 83, when they had to scrounge to get > effective hardware out the door. > > I asked about source control a few weeks ago, and Barb confirmed > that they didn't use it, with some reservations for the later VAX/VMS > line. Ah, I misread your question. We didn't have control using software tools like you od. Our procedures were our source controls. Do you want me to describe them? > > So, yes, in a sense you are right. But the success of DEC was based > on a few hundred excellent people that did their jobs outstandingly > well even if they never had the proper tools for work. > > In hindsight. But I saw it happen in 82 onwards. However, we always wrote the appropriate specs and had countless design sessions before we did the projects. There was no randomness in our devlopment procedures and processes as the OP wants to believe. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 21:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31e6242ffd6f9ae198a326@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12492 |
In article <nlge92$ajs$3@news.albasani.net>, tnp@invalid.invalid says... > > On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: > > The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 04/07/16 13:42, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>>> On 03/07/16 14:33, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>>>>> On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a > > band-aid > >>>>>>>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast > > majority > >>>>>>>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage > > to > >>>>>>>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was > > certainly > >>>>>>>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the > >>>>>>>>> instruction. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO > >>>>>>>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a > > high > >>>>>>>>>>> level language. ... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something > > worse. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sounds fun. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) > >>>>>>>>> END > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the > >>>>>>>>> assigned goto was optional.) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked > > them > >>>>>>>>> with assigned gotos. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. > > I > >>>>>>>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad > >>>>>>>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often > >>>>>>> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program > >>>>>>> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO > > TO > >>>>>>> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also > >>>>>>> included code from a COPY library. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that > > the > >>>>>>> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to > > execute > >>>>>>> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run > > times. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not > > use > >>>>>>> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of > >>>>>>> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing > >>>>>> on very large data sets. > >>>>> > >>>>> Was it originally? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think so. > >>>> > >>>> Batch processing of payroll etc etc. > >>> > >>> I thought Admiral Hopper wrote COBOL. > >>> > >> > >> She sure did! > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who > >>>>>> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module > >>>>>> and data dictionary specifications. > >>>>> > >>>>> You need to reexamine that assumption. > >>>> > >>>> I don't think I do. > >>>> Of course analysts who couldn't program too were dire, but the general > >>>> progression was coder -> 'ANAL/PROG' -> Systems analyst > >>> > >>> It depended on the shop. I was all three including a few others. > >>> IIRC, the Patriot missle's code was COBOL written in Natick Labs. > >>> > >>> COBOL was used when decimal arithmetic was important waybackwhen. > >>> It also had the feature of being self-documenting if the variables > >>> were chosen well. > >>> > >> > >> Indeed. It took AGES to write > > > > Not really. > > > >> IIRC, but was maintainable and the chief > >> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type accurately. > > > > Nope. Programmers wrote code on coding sheets and then submitted them > > to keypunchers (and later, tape prep types) who would type in the code. > > > >> > >> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to > >> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. > > > > You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We > > had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code > > was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, > > and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to > > get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it > > was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but > > fixing comments did not. > > > >> > >> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the > >> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used for > >> what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining the logic, > >> repeated as line by line comments down the block > > > > That was done in some shops. It depended on the site. > > > >> > >> The advantage over COBOL was that spelling wasn't important :-) > >> > >> The Joy of C of course was that you wrote it pretty much like assembler, > >> but half of the comments were not necessary. > > > > Well, I'd disagree with that. Reading C is no joy to me. > > Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely > undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with > little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, > arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming > style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that > professional.... ROF,L. You don't have a _clue_ who you're addressing, do you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000536F70E39257F@aca416c1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #12492 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 04/07/16 13:42, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 03/07/16 14:33, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a >> band-aid >>>>>>>>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast >> majority >>>>>>>>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage >> to >>>>>>>>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was >> certainly >>>>>>>>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the >>>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO >>>>>>>>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a >> high >>>>>>>>>>>> level language. ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something >> worse. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>>>>>>>> END >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>>>>>>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked >> them >>>>>>>>>> with assigned gotos. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. >> I >>>>>>>>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad >>>>>>>>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >>>>>>>> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program >>>>>>>> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO >> TO >>>>>>>> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also >>>>>>>> included code from a COPY library. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that >> the >>>>>>>> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to >> execute >>>>>>>> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run >> times. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not >> use >>>>>>>> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >>>>>>>> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing >>>>>>> on very large data sets. >>>>>> >>>>>> Was it originally? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think so. >>>>> >>>>> Batch processing of payroll etc etc. >>>> >>>> I thought Admiral Hopper wrote COBOL. >>>> >>> >>> She sure did! >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >>>>>>> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >>>>>>> and data dictionary specifications. >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to reexamine that assumption. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think I do. >>>>> Of course analysts who couldn't program too were dire, but the general >>>>> progression was coder -> 'ANAL/PROG' -> Systems analyst >>>> >>>> It depended on the shop. I was all three including a few others. >>>> IIRC, the Patriot missle's code was COBOL written in Natick Labs. >>>> >>>> COBOL was used when decimal arithmetic was important waybackwhen. >>>> It also had the feature of being self-documenting if the variables >>>> were chosen well. >>>> >>> >>> Indeed. It took AGES to write >> >> Not really. >> >>> IIRC, but was maintainable and the chief >>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type accurately. >> >> Nope. Programmers wrote code on coding sheets and then submitted them >> to keypunchers (and later, tape prep types) who would type in the code. >> >>> >>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >> >> You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We >> had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code >> was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, >> and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to >> get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it >> was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but >> fixing comments did not. >> >>> >>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used for >>> what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining the logic, >>> repeated as line by line comments down the block >> >> That was done in some shops. It depended on the site. >> >>> >>> The advantage over COBOL was that spelling wasn't important :-) >>> >>> The Joy of C of course was that you wrote it pretty much like assembler, >>> but half of the comments were not necessary. >> >> Well, I'd disagree with that. Reading C is no joy to me. > > Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely > undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with > little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, > arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming > style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that > professional.... You need to reexamine your assumption. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 14:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlj1vj$b0n$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12604 |
On 06/07/16 14:11, jmfbahciv wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 05/07/16 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 04/07/16 13:42, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 03/07/16 14:33, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a >>> band-aid >>>>>>>>>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast >>> majority >>>>>>>>>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage >>> to >>>>>>>>>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was >>> certainly >>>>>>>>>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of > the >>>>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED > TO >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a >>> high >>>>>>>>>>>>> level language. ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something >>> worse. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it > were? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>>>>>>>>> END >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>>>>>>>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked >>> them >>>>>>>>>>> with assigned gotos. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one > didn't. >>> I >>>>>>>>>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like > bad >>>>>>>>>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >>>>>>>>> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written > program >>>>>>>>> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular > GO >>> TO >>>>>>>>> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program > also >>>>>>>>> included code from a COPY library. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that >>> the >>>>>>>>> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to >>> execute >>>>>>>>> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run >>> times. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not >>> use >>>>>>>>> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >>>>>>>>> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing >>>>>>>> on very large data sets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was it originally? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Batch processing of payroll etc etc. >>>>> >>>>> I thought Admiral Hopper wrote COBOL. >>>>> >>>> >>>> She sure did! >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >>>>>>>> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >>>>>>>> and data dictionary specifications. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to reexamine that assumption. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think I do. >>>>>> Of course analysts who couldn't program too were dire, but the general >>>>>> progression was coder -> 'ANAL/PROG' -> Systems analyst >>>>> >>>>> It depended on the shop. I was all three including a few others. >>>>> IIRC, the Patriot missle's code was COBOL written in Natick Labs. >>>>> >>>>> COBOL was used when decimal arithmetic was important waybackwhen. >>>>> It also had the feature of being self-documenting if the variables >>>>> were chosen well. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Indeed. It took AGES to write >>> >>> Not really. >>> >>>> IIRC, but was maintainable and the chief >>>> attributes of being a programmer were the ability to touch type > accurately. >>> >>> Nope. Programmers wrote code on coding sheets and then submitted them >>> to keypunchers (and later, tape prep types) who would type in the code. >>> >>>> >>>> ISTR the chief attribute of assembler programming was the ability to >>>> write 60 lines of comment for 10 machine code instructions. >>> >>> You recall incorrectly :-). Read any *.MAC PDP-10 sources. We >>> had writers who would document what the code did. Before the code >>> was written we had product plans, project plans, design specs, >>> and hardware prints, functional specs. There was an effort to >>> get programmers to write extensive comments when they coded but it >>> was a waste of time none of us had. Fixing code had to be done but >>> fixing comments did not. >>> >>>> >>>> Each code block had a header that explained what it was to do, the >>>> inputs and the outputs, what registers or memory locations were used for >>>> what variables, and usually a chunk of pseudo code explaining the logic, >>>> repeated as line by line comments down the block >>> >>> That was done in some shops. It depended on the site. >>> >>>> >>>> The advantage over COBOL was that spelling wasn't important :-) >>>> >>>> The Joy of C of course was that you wrote it pretty much like assembler, >>>> but half of the comments were not necessary. >>> >>> Well, I'd disagree with that. Reading C is no joy to me. >> >> Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely >> undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with >> little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, >> arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming >> style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that >> professional.... > > You need to reexamine your assumption. Lighten up. > > /BAH > -- The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005370AD8828CEA@aca40f79.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #12607 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/07/16 14:11, jmfbahciv wrote: <snip> >>> Its becoming fairly clear to me that you have worked in entirely >>> undisciplined environments where code has been hacked into place, with >>> little design thought, or specification, no comments worth mentioning, >>> arbitrary varaiable names and 'clever' but unintelligble programming >>> style the norm from smart arsed 'permies' who dony have to be that >>> professional.... >> >> You need to reexamine your assumption. > > Lighten up. That's reexamining your assumption?!!! You are becoming annoying. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 18:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ipCdncwJU4WMcebKnZ2dnUU78VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12485 |
On 05/07/2016 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
{snip}
>>
>> The advantage over COBOL was that spelling wasn't important :-)
>>
>> The Joy of C of course was that you wrote it pretty much like assembler,
>> but half of the comments were not necessary.
>
> Well, I'd disagree with that. Reading C is no joy to me.
>
> /BAH
>
Writing system software in COBOL was awkward. Translating DEC-10
assembler to PDP-11 is difficult and to ARM worse - it can take months.
Write in C and it is less than a days work.
I accept C is a little too abbreviated and needs a much better array
handling system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000536F70A0D51F9@aca416c1.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #12525 |
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 05/07/2016 14:32, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>>
>>> The advantage over COBOL was that spelling wasn't important :-)
>>>
>>> The Joy of C of course was that you wrote it pretty much like assembler,
>>> but half of the comments were not necessary.
>>
>> Well, I'd disagree with that. Reading C is no joy to me.
>>
>> /BAH
>>
> Writing system software in COBOL was awkward. Translating DEC-10
> assembler to PDP-11 is difficult and to ARM worse - it can take months.
> Write in C and it is less than a days work.
>
> I accept C is a little too abbreviated and needs a much better array
> handling system.
I understand the advantages. I like readable code so I can
quickly do an overview scan of the program before delving
into its guts. It's what I was used to.
/BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 13:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r25lnb9mv8ac7vg6tk3e1hvaa90ipsd59v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12414 |
On 4 Jul 2016 12:42:03 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> declaimed the
following:
>
>I thought Admiral Hopper wrote COBOL.
>
COmmon Business Oriented Language came out of the CODASYL consortium as
a language that could be used on many computers (vs system specific
assembly). Hopper was just one member of the team -- though the use of
English like language, and device independence were heavily pushed by her.
If one trusts Wikipedia, she developed FLOW-MATIC -- which, with IBMs
COMTRAN -- were the two main influences on COBOL.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlbb2p$g08$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12332 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>> >>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a band-aid >>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast majority >>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage to >>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was certainly >>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the >>>> instruction. >>>> >>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO >>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high >>>>>> level language. ... >>>> >>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something worse. >>>> >>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>> >>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >>>> >>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>> >>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>> END >>>> >>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>> >>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked them >>>> with assigned gotos. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. I >>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad >>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >> >> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program >> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO TO >> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also >> included code from a COPY library. >> >> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that the >> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to execute >> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run times. >> >> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not use >> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >> >> > And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing > on very large data sets. > > A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who > does the real work, translating the business problem into code module > and data dictionary specifications. In your apparently limited experience. Everywhere I worked, those were Programmer/Analysts. Separating the functions leads to dis-function. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 17:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160703173143.6fc1a81b515968ac2dd0522c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #12349 |
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:30:32 -0400 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > > > A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who > > does the real work, translating the business problem into code module > > and data dictionary specifications. That was the model I was taught as part of my A level in CS back in 1975, from what I can tell the model was falling apart then. > In your apparently limited experience. > > Everywhere I worked, those were Programmer/Analysts. Yep that's been the norm for most of my career to date - although there is the occasional outbreak of Architects who produce documents with minimal information content but maximal words and diagrams. What there is in most larger places is a grading from junior dev, developer, senior dev and in larger places some higher grades (names vary) with the general expectation that the higher up the chain the more you focus on design and the hard bits and the more you mentor those lower down the chain. > Separating the functions leads to dis-function. As does preventing the developers (PROG/ANAL - had to go) from talking to the users. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2080815322.489253187.744454.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12332 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>> >>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a band-aid >>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast majority >>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage to >>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was certainly >>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the >>>> instruction. >>>> >>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO >>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high >>>>>> level language. ... >>>> >>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something worse. >>>> >>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>> >>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >>>> >>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>> >>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>> END >>>> >>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>> >>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked them >>>> with assigned gotos. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. I >>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad >>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >> >> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program >> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO TO >> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also >> included code from a COPY library. >> >> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that the >> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to execute >> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run times. >> >> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not use >> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >> >> > And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing > on very large data sets. > > A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who > does the real work, translating the business problem into code module > and data dictionary specifications. > Have you ever done any significant COBOL programming? It's not my favorite language, but I've seen (and written) some pretty complex code in it. IME most COBOL programmers are "programmer/analysts"; I've only worked one place that had a separate analyst group, and there the programmers had to do double the work to make sense of the cr@p the analysts generated. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlbehq$tks$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12354 |
On 03/07/16 16:54, Peter Flass wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 03/07/16 12:33, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 07:11:31 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: >>> >>>> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>>> >>>>> It was pretty fun on the PDP-10 and 360, but it was more of a band-aid >>>>> for holes in the instruction set. On the 360 I think the vast majority >>>>> of EX instructions were to get the effect of a MVC or other storage to >>>>> storage instruction with a variable length operand. That was certainly >>>>> what they had in mind when they made it modify the second byte of the >>>>> instruction. >>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO >>>>>>> ... statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high >>>>>>> level language. ... >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I'm sure that if we think hard we can come up with something worse. >>>>> >>>>>> Sounds fun. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >>>>> >>>>> Yup. Fortran provided the same bad idea with assigned GOTOs: >>>>> >>>>> 222 ASSIGN 666 TO HELL 666 GO TO HELL,(666,222) >>>>> END >>>>> >>>>> (In most flavors of Fortran the list of statement numbers in the >>>>> assigned goto was optional.) >>>>> >>>>> The original Fortran system didn't have subroutines, so you faked them >>>>> with assigned gotos. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The FORTRAN GOTO listed the possibilities, AIR, the COBOL one didn't. I >>>> never used it except in a "structured" way, but it would seem like bad >>>> programmers could have had a lot of fun with it. >>> >>> The real problem with ALTER was that the ALTER statements were often >>> quite distant from the GO TOs they affected. In a badly written program >>> it could be surprisingly difficult to work out whether a particular GO TO >>> was the target of an ALTER statement, particularly of the program also >>> included code from a COPY library. >>> >>> Anyway, I think its justification was based on a false premise, that the >>> sort of conditionals an ALTER would replace were so expensive to execute >>> that merely using ALTERs would make a measurable difference to run times. >>> >>> As you say, the simple approach was to write structured code and not use >>> ALTERs, but remember that when COBOL was introduced, the concept of >>> structured code was scarcely a gleam in the eye of Djikstra or Wirth. >>> >>> >> And remember also that COBOL was designed to do very simple processing >> on very large data sets. >> >> A COBOL *PROGRAMMER* is the lowest of the low. It is the analyst who >> does the real work, translating the business problem into code module >> and data dictionary specifications. >> > > Have you ever done any significant COBOL programming? It's not my favorite > language, but I've seen (and written) some pretty complex code in it. IME > most COBOL programmers are "programmer/analysts"; I've only worked one > place that had a separate analyst group, and there the programmers had to > do double the work to make sense of the cr@p the analysts generated. > If you look carefully at what I wrote, I said that it was *designed* to do simple programming on large data sets. That it ended up doing more than that, is not relevant to my original point. Which was that it was designed for a certain task. AS far as the second comment goes, I lived with a cobol analyst programmer, who was definitely of the opinion that coders had to be given very explicit instructions, or garbage resulted. She was ex a very large data processing house indeed. Big IBMs -- All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlbjlf$79p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12358 |
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 17:30:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> If you look carefully at what I wrote, I said that it was *designed* to
> do simple programming on large data sets.
>
That's a fair description of IBM's RPG, but I don't think it was ever
true of COBOL.
OK, COBOL was clearly designed around file handling and dealing with
formatted data rather than doing scientific or engineering calculations,
but apart from that its pretty hard to see and inherent limits to the
type and size of jobs it was meant to tackle.
One indication of this is that COBOL has had built-in support for overlay
handling since I first learned it in about 1970, while to the best of my
knowledge this has never been included in the language syntax of C, the
Algols or any languages derived from them.
I'll also accept the argument that COBOL was designed on the, in my view
flawed, assumption that there are a bunch of developers who can
understand logic written in pseudo-English together with all the
implications of MOVEing data between heterogeneous variables but who are
totally incapable of dealing with a block structured language using
pseudo-mathematical notation.
> AS far as the second comment goes, I lived with a cobol analyst
> programmer, who was definitely of the opinion that coders had to be
> given very explicit instructions, or garbage resulted.
>
Can't comment: I've never worked with a bunch of pure coders. Trainees,
sure, but that's different.
That said I've also worked with some terrible so-called programmers. T
remember one who didn't understand that, in the absence sentences that
affect control flow, control falls through from one parahraph to the
next. Why else would he write code like this:
PARA-1.
NOTE in-line code here.
GO TO PARA-2.
PARA-2.
NOTE still more inline code.
GO TO PARA-3.
PARA-3.
NOTE .... and so ad infinitum.
And another bod who didn't understand the concept of arithmetical error
handling. He could not be convinced that a computer could do something
sensible with a divide by zero error or result overflow and it was
therefore a badly designed machine if the entire mainframe didn't halt
when this happened. Small wonder that, on a site rife with nicknames, he
was known as 'Brain Cell' because we were certain he only had one.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 14:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p8dez.4681$O14.2025@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #12366 |
On Sunday July 3 2016 13:57, in comp.sys.raspberry-pi, "Martin Gregorie" <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: [snip] > I'll also accept the argument that COBOL was designed on the, in my view > flawed, assumption that there are a bunch of developers who can > understand logic written in pseudo-English together with all the > implications of MOVEing data between heterogeneous variables but who are > totally incapable of dealing with a block structured language using > pseudo-mathematical notation. COBOL (an acronym for COmmon Business-Oriented Language) was designed at a time when computers and computing had just started to expand out of the military (where computing was primarily used to break codes and compute artilery firing solutions) into business. At the time, while the art and science of programming was still developing, the intended users of the language were Accountants and other Financial workers. The COBOL language is the language of an Accountant, describing how (s)he manages ledgers, accounts, payrolls, taxes and the like. A typical use-case would be the accountant describing how to compute how much to charge a customer for a purchase of a number of items: "Multiply the number of items by the per-item cost giving the gross cost. Multiply the gross cost by the taxrate giving the sales tax. Add the sales tax to the gross cost giving the net cost." And, that, in COBOL, would be MULTIPLY NUMBER-OF-ITEMS BY PER-ITEM-COST GIVING GROSS-COST. MULTIPLY GROSS-COST BY TAX-RATE GIVING SALES-TAX. ADD GROSS-COST, SALES-TAX GIVING NET-COST. You see, COBOL wasn't originally designed for scientific calculations or process control or even as a computer-science tool; it was designed for (North American) business, and (North American) business of 1960 spoke, not in formulae or parenthesis, but in English. [snip] -- Lew Pitcher "In Skills, We Trust" PGP public key available upon request
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 40 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web