Hi Hooman, Thanks for the very interesting story. Although your story started roughly when I was born, but a great sense of deja vu still roams around yours. More comments below:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Hooman Mehr wrote: > It was the second semester and we had a basic programming course on > FORTRAN 66. We were punching cards and putting our deck of cards in the > queue to be batch processed by Control Data CDC-6000 mainframe Did they show you that CDC-6000 in Sharif Computing Center? It's still there and we had a great time discovering different technologies inside that. > The main difference between Pishkar/Sayeh glyph set and Iran System > gyph set was that Iran System was strictly mono-spaced and one byte per > glyph but Pishkar/Sayeh used special tail glyphs to better display wide > glyphs (using two glyph parts). The reason that ultimately Iran System > prevailed was its relative simplicity from a programmer's point of > view. From a user's perspective, Pishkar/Sayeh solution was preferable > because it was much more readable. Yes, I remember using that. It was far more readable than Iran System. > - Hooman Mehr > > P.S.: Am I too far off topic? Too self centered? Please provide > feedback. No you are exactly on the track. --behdad behdad.org _______________________________________________ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing
