In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/21/2007
at 06:21 PM, Ken Brick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>IBM called it a System 360. It had many things in common with other
>S/360's and many peculiarities of it's own. It wasn't the only S/360
>that had differences from the norm.
It was the only one that was grossly incompatible. The others may have
been missing instructions but the instructions they did have behaved
in accordance with S/360 PoOps.
>It was sufficiently S/360 for my wife to write a program to convert
>our entire application library,
That means nothing; I wrote a program to convert UNIVAC 1005 code to
S/360 assembler.
>Having said that neither she or I or any of the other 3 programmers
>would ever have written code that looked like the converted code.
That's typical for machine translation between dissimilar computers.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
