> You have to remember that S/360 was the first 8 bit computer. What is the 7030, chopped liver?
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 9:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Improve OMVS cp performance? You have to remember that S/360 was the first 8 bit computer. Prior computers used 4 bits for a digit and 6 bits for a character. They designed EBCDIC to be easily converted for use with existing 7 track tape drives, printers, card and tape readers and punches. There was a proposed ASCII code that was put on documentation but dropped for the 370 virtual memory bit in the PSW. On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 6:39 PM Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote: > > I doubt that IBM custumers would have been happy with an 8-bit code page with > only 128 valid code points. International considerations would still have > forced IBM to device incompatible code pages for different countries. > > Obviously 8859 is another Tower of Babel; why do you think I described it as > "a dollar short"? > > No,, IBM could not have implemented full Unicode, or even the full MLP, back > in the 1960s. But it could certainly have implemented a basic subset for all > customers and selected additional pages for international customers. Had > Unicode and UTF-8 been around at the time, I'm certain that IBM would have > gone that route. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of > Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 6:22 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Improve OMVS cp performance? > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 23:00:00 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >Because there was no standard 8-bit code at the time. IBM did push for an > >8-bit ASCII, > > > That's not an obstacle. DEC PDP-8 stored ASCII characters one per > 12-bit word. IBM could have simply declared the top bit "reserved" > as they are so often wont to do. > > >but it never happened except for a mapping between octets and punch > >combinations on cards. Had Unicode been around at the time they would > >probably have jumped at it. > > > >ISO 8859 was a day late and a dollar short. > > > ISO-8859-* is afflicted with the same babel as EBCDIC code pages > because of the "*" you elided. > > UTF-8 is the norm nowadays because of a peculiar upward compatibility > with ASCII. But the mebibytes and megahertz to support it came a day late. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
