I would argue that EBCDIC is intrinsically superior to ASCII. I would also 
argue that it is not intrinsically superior to, e.g., ISO-8859-15.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu> on behalf 
of Paul Gilmartin <00000014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:54 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu
Subject: Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

On 2018-02-08, at 20:39:07, Tony Thigpen wrote:

> Let me see if I can sum up the conversation:
>
> There is this high and mighty language call C++ to which all other languages 
> must strive to emulate, and,
> any other language that does not handle strings the exact same way as C (and 
> variants) are sub-standard.
>
> And, to prove the point, the fact that IBM added some new instructions to 
> better handle null terminated strings means that IBM realized that null 
> terminated strings are the only real way to handle strings and they were 
> fixing a major defect.
>
> No consideration to the fact that just maybe IBM added the new instructions 
> because some young language was unable to adapt to any of the existing and 
> time-proven methods of handling strings?
>
> *Major light-bulb turning on*
> It sounds like we have been spending too much time trying to talk logic with 
> a bunch of (apparent) Millennials. And everybody knows that such is 
> impossible.
>
Too much sarcasm.  It's analogous to the ASCII-EBCDIC confrontation.  I prefer
ASCII, but EBCDIC, with no intrinsic superiority, has its proponents and is
entrenched in its own dusty corner.  I don't expect IBM to abandon it soon.

Likewise, I believe that null terminated strings are an inferior technology,
but they'll long be with us.

-- gil

Reply via email to