Aww, it was getting interesting. Not been the same since the days of Ali and Frazier.
Personally, I wish C had never seen the light of day and PL/I had the place of COBOL. On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:06 AM, John Gilmore <jwgli...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think you are really interested in how a qsort-like procedure > is implemented in PL/I, and I am not at all open-minded about the > relative merits of C and PL/I. > > I do, however, want to make one final comment on your last post. > Compile-time binding is not a 'trick'. It is preferable to > execution-time binding when it meets the requirements of a situation. > > That said, our differences are visceral, not intellectual; further > exchanges between us will not clarify any issue; they would only > produce more acrimony. I shall try to avoid you here on IBM-MAIN, but > that may not always be possible if we both contribute to a thread. I > have put you on my kill list so that I will not see your posts unless > they are part of a thread to which I have already contributed or > quoted by someone else; and that should help. > > Good luck! > > On 8/2/13, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/08/2013 11:47 PM, John Gilmore wrote: >>> As it happens a PL/I generic statement can distinguish the two sorting >>> schemes in the example you cite very readily. The first has two >>> arguments, the second three, so that, simplistically, >>> >>> declare generic_sort generic(sort1 when(*,*), sort2 when(*,*,*)) ; >>> >>> does the job at compile time. (It can be done at execution time too, >>> but this is not the place for an explication of how.) >> >> I'm not interested in compile time tricks. How would you code the >> equivilent of the C qsort() function in PL/I? >> Does the PL/I runtime even have such a function? >> >>> Your catholic taste in statement-level languages is admirable, much >>> less parochial than mine: I have never been able to include COBOL >>> among the languages I approve. I have, for my sins, had to confront a >>> good deal of it; but close acquaintance has not made me fonder of it. >>> What must be conceded is that the post-CODASYL language is improving. >>> It is useful to have substrings even if one must call them reference >>> modifications. >> >> I made good money coding COBOL in the 90s so I approve of it. I write >> code to put food on the table not for religious reasons. >> I would rather be employed writing code in a language I dislike instead >> of unemployed coding for fun. The more languages I >> can master the more strings to my bow. Adaptability is important in the >> software industry. >> >>> >>> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >> > > > -- > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Wayne V. Bickerdike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
