Make up your mind Wayne. It's was only a couple of weeks ago you sent me email praising COBOL!
On 03/08/2013, at 8:17 AM, Wayne Bickerdike <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> >> -- >> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > -- > Wayne V. Bickerdike > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
