Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I think the only time I wrote something that ran correctly the first time, was back in college coding in assembler on a Univac EXEC O/S system, where I was writing a program for a class, and I did have the program working, but didn't like how I had written one section, and completely rewrote the section of code, at the terminal (we only could use the terminal for like 30 minutes at a time), just working the logic in my head. Submitted job to assemble and run and no assembly errors and the section I rewrote ran perfectly. Nowadays, I do most of my development in rexx and some of them have some tricky logic in them. Yes there are some that are small, but a number of them are close to 2,000 lines of code (with comments) and of course those longer ones do not usually run right the first time. Peter -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
You mean stop screaming fire in a crowded theater? I concur. Sent from my iPhone — small keyboarf, fat fungrs, stupd spell manglr. Expct mistaks > On Aug 24, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Tom Brennan wrote: > > +100 > >> On 8/24/2021 7:21 AM, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: >> Can we please get back to the basics for this listserv? >> Lionel B. Dyck <>< >> Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com >> Github: https://github.com/lbdyck > > -- > 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
+100 On 8/24/2021 7:21 AM, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: Can we please get back to the basics for this listserv? Lionel B. Dyck <>< Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com Github: https://github.com/lbdyck -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
There are height ranges by age from birth to adulthood. 90% of the population falls into those ranges. And the ranges are pretty tight. Statistical analysis and probability isn’t a strong suit of most people. The average American adult is 5ft 9in. The average Japanese man is 5ft 7in. I’m done discussing probability with people who have little expertise in it. Back to lurking and laughing. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 10:02 AM, Gerhard Adam wrote: Really? Perhaps you can demonstrate this relationship by providing the appropriate equation or basis for evaluation? I mean, something besides your opinion. Since you claimed it was a reasonable measure, then you need to provide the evidence. BTW, you assumed that the conclusion about adulthood was human only. Please tell how you devised that? Or is it also simply your opinion. It seems that you make a lot of claims absolutely but have no evidence for any of them. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Someone's height is a pretty good measure of where they lie on the scale of adulthood. Except for a small percentage of outliers. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:48:26 AM EDT, Gerhard Adam wrote: > length isn't a good measure of complexity Really? Who dreams up this nonsense? Define "complexity" and then perhaps an argument can be made about causes or measurements. Until then it is a silly claim. Length is NOT a MEASURE of complexity any more than height is a measure of adulthood. It is foolish to pretend that two characteristics are necessarily the cause or measure of each other. If this is disputed, then give me an equation or a measurement that can be examined to show how the length of code gives rise to increased complexity. Remember the point isn't that complex programs are long, but rather than length is an actual measurement of complexity. However, in the final analysis it comes down to "intent" or "purpose". In short, can an error-free program be produced "on demand"? If the answer is no, then all the claims are nonsense in taking credit for doing something that can't actually be controlled. If the answer is yes, then one can question why the author feels justified in being a thief by not producing such programs all the time. Actually any claim that programs can be produced "error free" and "on demand" is probably nonsense and is justifiably questioned. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not MY line in the sand. And that's from 40 years of seeing REXX/CLISTS. Some written in house and some from vendors. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure > of complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. > and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs you can > find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined structure adding, editing & removing text that complied with the definition, moving nodes (chapters, sections, pages ... whatever) around etc. It was, I think,
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
agree, I think there's a place for thisI think it's called Facebook I can't be sure since I do not use it. Carmen On 8/24/2021 9:21 AM, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: Can we please get back to the basics for this listserv? Lionel B. Dyck <>< Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com Github: https://github.com/lbdyck “Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you are, reputation merely what others think you are.” - - - John Wooden -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Gerhard Adam Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 9:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Really? Perhaps you can demonstrate this relationship by providing the appropriate equation or basis for evaluation? I mean, something besides your opinion. Since you claimed it was a reasonable measure, then you need to provide the evidence. BTW, you assumed that the conclusion about adulthood was human only. Please tell how you devised that? Or is it also simply your opinion. It seems that you make a lot of claims absolutely but have no evidence for any of them. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Someone's height is a pretty good measure of where they lie on the scale of adulthood. Except for a small percentage of outliers. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:48:26 AM EDT, Gerhard Adam wrote: > length isn't a good measure of complexity Really? Who dreams up this nonsense? Define "complexity" and then perhaps an argument can be made about causes or measurements. Until then it is a silly claim. Length is NOT a MEASURE of complexity any more than height is a measure of adulthood. It is foolish to pretend that two characteristics are necessarily the cause or measure of each other. If this is disputed, then give me an equation or a measurement that can be examined to show how the length of code gives rise to increased complexity. Remember the point isn't that complex programs are long, but rather than length is an actual measurement of complexity. However, in the final analysis it comes down to "intent" or "purpose". In short, can an error-free program be produced "on demand"? If the answer is no, then all the claims are nonsense in taking credit for doing something that can't actually be controlled. If the answer is yes, then one can question why the author feels justified in being a thief by not producing such programs all the time. Actually any claim that programs can be produced "error free" and "on demand" is probably nonsense and is justifiably questioned. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not MY line in the sand. And that's from 40 years of seeing REXX/CLISTS. Some written in house and some from vendors. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure of complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs you can find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Can we please get back to the basics for this listserv? Lionel B. Dyck <>< Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com Github: https://github.com/lbdyck “Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you are, reputation merely what others think you are.” - - - John Wooden -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Gerhard Adam Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 9:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Really? Perhaps you can demonstrate this relationship by providing the appropriate equation or basis for evaluation? I mean, something besides your opinion. Since you claimed it was a reasonable measure, then you need to provide the evidence. BTW, you assumed that the conclusion about adulthood was human only. Please tell how you devised that? Or is it also simply your opinion. It seems that you make a lot of claims absolutely but have no evidence for any of them. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Someone's height is a pretty good measure of where they lie on the scale of adulthood. Except for a small percentage of outliers. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:48:26 AM EDT, Gerhard Adam wrote: > length isn't a good measure of complexity Really? Who dreams up this nonsense? Define "complexity" and then perhaps an argument can be made about causes or measurements. Until then it is a silly claim. Length is NOT a MEASURE of complexity any more than height is a measure of adulthood. It is foolish to pretend that two characteristics are necessarily the cause or measure of each other. If this is disputed, then give me an equation or a measurement that can be examined to show how the length of code gives rise to increased complexity. Remember the point isn't that complex programs are long, but rather than length is an actual measurement of complexity. However, in the final analysis it comes down to "intent" or "purpose". In short, can an error-free program be produced "on demand"? If the answer is no, then all the claims are nonsense in taking credit for doing something that can't actually be controlled. If the answer is yes, then one can question why the author feels justified in being a thief by not producing such programs all the time. Actually any claim that programs can be produced "error free" and "on demand" is probably nonsense and is justifiably questioned. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not MY line in the sand. And that's from 40 years of seeing REXX/CLISTS. Some written in house and some from vendors. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure of > complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. > and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs you can > find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined structure adding, editing & removing text that complied with the definition, moving nodes (chapters, sections, pages ... whatever) aroun
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Really? Perhaps you can demonstrate this relationship by providing the appropriate equation or basis for evaluation? I mean, something besides your opinion. Since you claimed it was a reasonable measure, then you need to provide the evidence. BTW, you assumed that the conclusion about adulthood was human only. Please tell how you devised that? Or is it also simply your opinion. It seems that you make a lot of claims absolutely but have no evidence for any of them. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Someone's height is a pretty good measure of where they lie on the scale of adulthood. Except for a small percentage of outliers. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:48:26 AM EDT, Gerhard Adam wrote: > length isn't a good measure of complexity Really? Who dreams up this nonsense? Define "complexity" and then perhaps an argument can be made about causes or measurements. Until then it is a silly claim. Length is NOT a MEASURE of complexity any more than height is a measure of adulthood. It is foolish to pretend that two characteristics are necessarily the cause or measure of each other. If this is disputed, then give me an equation or a measurement that can be examined to show how the length of code gives rise to increased complexity. Remember the point isn't that complex programs are long, but rather than length is an actual measurement of complexity. However, in the final analysis it comes down to "intent" or "purpose". In short, can an error-free program be produced "on demand"? If the answer is no, then all the claims are nonsense in taking credit for doing something that can't actually be controlled. If the answer is yes, then one can question why the author feels justified in being a thief by not producing such programs all the time. Actually any claim that programs can be produced "error free" and "on demand" is probably nonsense and is justifiably questioned. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not MY line in the sand. And that's from 40 years of seeing REXX/CLISTS. Some written in house and some from vendors. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure > of complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. > and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs you can > find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined structure adding, editing & removing text that complied with the definition, moving nodes (chapters, sections, pages ... whatever) around etc. It was, I think, a sort of precursor to a DTD-driven XML editor. It had to handle variable length snippets of text, so part of the editor implemented heap storage for those strings. The total amount of working storage the compiler supported was not enough to hold documents and all the control structures so I wrote a paging subsystem (still in COBOL) to move huge chunks of data in & out of working storage. Quite a lot of the data being moved was itself control tables for other parts of the data. When the thi
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 13:06, Bill Johnson wrote: > I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not > MY line in the sand. Yes it was. If you can't remember what you wrote, you could look back at the prior messages in the thread. You wrote: "Anyone who writes a compiler or assembler is quite complex. And very likely thousands of lines of code that took years to develop. More in line with the COBOL programs I was referencing. Not some 40 line REXX program that took a day or two." -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Someone's height is a pretty good measure of where they lie on the scale of adulthood. Except for a small percentage of outliers. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:48:26 AM EDT, Gerhard Adam wrote: > length isn't a good measure of complexity Really? Who dreams up this nonsense? Define "complexity" and then perhaps an argument can be made about causes or measurements. Until then it is a silly claim. Length is NOT a MEASURE of complexity any more than height is a measure of adulthood. It is foolish to pretend that two characteristics are necessarily the cause or measure of each other. If this is disputed, then give me an equation or a measurement that can be examined to show how the length of code gives rise to increased complexity. Remember the point isn't that complex programs are long, but rather than length is an actual measurement of complexity. However, in the final analysis it comes down to "intent" or "purpose". In short, can an error-free program be produced "on demand"? If the answer is no, then all the claims are nonsense in taking credit for doing something that can't actually be controlled. If the answer is yes, then one can question why the author feels justified in being a thief by not producing such programs all the time. Actually any claim that programs can be produced "error free" and "on demand" is probably nonsense and is justifiably questioned. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not MY line in the sand. And that's from 40 years of seeing REXX/CLISTS. Some written in house and some from vendors. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure > of complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. > and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs > you can find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined structure adding, editing & removing text that complied with the definition, moving nodes (chapters, sections, pages ... whatever) around etc. It was, I think, a sort of precursor to a DTD-driven XML editor. It had to handle variable length snippets of text, so part of the editor implemented heap storage for those strings. The total amount of working storage the compiler supported was not enough to hold documents and all the control structures so I wrote a paging subsystem (still in COBOL) to move huge chunks of data in & out of working storage. Quite a lot of the data being moved was itself control tables for other parts of the data. When the thing was in debug mode one could follow the linked-lists that held the whole data-structure together, edit data and pointers & even trigger the program's garbage collector. COBOL was, of course, not the best language for this, but I was required to use an IBM-supported language that our installation had a licence for. It would have been a lot easier to use our Pascal compiler but that came from a German or Austrian university and was ruled out. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the messa
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
> length isn't a good measure of complexity Really? Who dreams up this nonsense? Define "complexity" and then perhaps an argument can be made about causes or measurements. Until then it is a silly claim. Length is NOT a MEASURE of complexity any more than height is a measure of adulthood. It is foolish to pretend that two characteristics are necessarily the cause or measure of each other. If this is disputed, then give me an equation or a measurement that can be examined to show how the length of code gives rise to increased complexity. Remember the point isn't that complex programs are long, but rather than length is an actual measurement of complexity. However, in the final analysis it comes down to "intent" or "purpose". In short, can an error-free program be produced "on demand"? If the answer is no, then all the claims are nonsense in taking credit for doing something that can't actually be controlled. If the answer is yes, then one can question why the author feels justified in being a thief by not producing such programs all the time. Actually any claim that programs can be produced "error free" and "on demand" is probably nonsense and is justifiably questioned. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not MY line in the sand. And that's from 40 years of seeing REXX/CLISTS. Some written in house and some from vendors. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure > of complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. > and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs > you can find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined structure adding, editing & removing text that complied with the definition, moving nodes (chapters, sections, pages ... whatever) around etc. It was, I think, a sort of precursor to a DTD-driven XML editor. It had to handle variable length snippets of text, so part of the editor implemented heap storage for those strings. The total amount of working storage the compiler supported was not enough to hold documents and all the control structures so I wrote a paging subsystem (still in COBOL) to move huge chunks of data in & out of working storage. Quite a lot of the data being moved was itself control tables for other parts of the data. When the thing was in debug mode one could follow the linked-lists that held the whole data-structure together, edit data and pointers & even trigger the program's garbage collector. COBOL was, of course, not the best language for this, but I was required to use an IBM-supported language that our installation had a licence for. It would have been a lot easier to use our Pascal compiler but that came from a German or Austrian university and was ruled out. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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: INF
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I said the vast majority of REXX/CLISTS are not very long. 40 was not MY line in the sand. And that's from 40 years of seeing REXX/CLISTS. Some written in house and some from vendors. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 08:00:24 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure > of complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. > and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs > you can find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined structure adding, editing & removing text that complied with the definition, moving nodes (chapters, sections, pages ... whatever) around etc. It was, I think, a sort of precursor to a DTD-driven XML editor. It had to handle variable length snippets of text, so part of the editor implemented heap storage for those strings. The total amount of working storage the compiler supported was not enough to hold documents and all the control structures so I wrote a paging subsystem (still in COBOL) to move huge chunks of data in & out of working storage. Quite a lot of the data being moved was itself control tables for other parts of the data. When the thing was in debug mode one could follow the linked-lists that held the whole data-structure together, edit data and pointers & even trigger the program's garbage collector. COBOL was, of course, not the best language for this, but I was required to use an IBM-supported language that our installation had a licence for. It would have been a lot easier to use our Pascal compiler but that came from a German or Austrian university and was ruled out. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, at 12:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure > of complexity I did, that's true. But in what I wrote below I also said that I wasn't claiming that my longest example was particularly complex. Probably the most complex code in what I did describe is in the general macro I wrote (which frontends Kedit's own menu support which is somewhat limited) to handle more complex menus. That's about 650 lines of code. You might be unfamiliar with Kedit; it's a PC version of IBM's Xedit, and it has lots of commands for setting/querying editor status & control parms, plus of course commands that directly edit data. Writing good Kedit macros is broadly comparable to writing Ispf edit macros. > and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs > you can find. That's because of that "40-line script" comment of yours which strongly implied you think that no-one writes larger execs. Incidentally I noticed I have an old copy of an IBM rexx exec here - ISPDTLC - which is 11,174 lines of code. It was written in 1989 so if the same thing still exists I would expect it might have grown a bit. I don't imagine it's trivial. Its purpose is to "Convert SAA Dialog Tag Language tags to ISPF source panels, message files, command tables, etc." Back in the early 1980s I wrote some long (& complex) COBOL programs. I wrote a compiler in COBOL for a document/data definition language I'd invented, then a sort of structured text editor that allowed a user to walk through a document that adhered to such a predefined structure adding, editing & removing text that complied with the definition, moving nodes (chapters, sections, pages ... whatever) around etc. It was, I think, a sort of precursor to a DTD-driven XML editor. It had to handle variable length snippets of text, so part of the editor implemented heap storage for those strings. The total amount of working storage the compiler supported was not enough to hold documents and all the control structures so I wrote a paging subsystem (still in COBOL) to move huge chunks of data in & out of working storage. Quite a lot of the data being moved was itself control tables for other parts of the data. When the thing was in debug mode one could follow the linked-lists that held the whole data-structure together, edit data and pointers & even trigger the program's garbage collector. COBOL was, of course, not the best language for this, but I was required to use an IBM-supported language that our installation had a licence for. It would have been a lot easier to use our Pascal compiler but that came from a German or Austrian university and was ruled out. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Exactly right. On Monday, August 23, 2021, 11:26:49 PM EDT, Mike Hochee wrote: My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but the likelihood of a program I've written executing correctly the first time, is almost always commensurate with the time I've spent reviewing/walking thru the code before testing. For me, this relationship holds true regardless of language. Mike -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bob Bridges Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 9:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Programs that work right the first time. Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
The hilarity continues. You say that length isn't a good measure of complexity and then search high and low for the longest REXX programs you can find. On Tuesday, August 24, 2021, 06:48:02 AM EDT, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, at 23:00, Seymour J Metz wrote: > I'm looking at a home-grown REXX script that is 1690 lines long, and in > some REXX circles it would be considered tiny. It does use external > utilities, but is by no means just glue. I'd bet that there are edit > macros orders of magnitude larger. I've got a KEXX macro here that's currently 12,700 lines long. I'm not claiming it's particularly complex though. A lot of its contents are in essence declarations of structured data, so that instead of it reading and parsing/validating an external data file then if everything is ok doing things with the data, the data is in the macro itself so when it executes it validates and then processes that inline data. A short example of one block of that data is call srch "\Sandi Toksvig\" call hsepprog "It's Your Round" call hsepprog "I've Never Seen Star Wars" call skipprog "News Quiz Extra" call skipprog "The News Quiz" * call omit "\|radio|Loose Ends|b054gxpj|\" call send The "call srch" / "call send" function calls enclose a definition (of BBC radio programme) search criteria. There's other similar enclosing pairs of function calls to define other actions. When the file is open in Kedit there's context-specific editing functions (which themselves are coded in many hundreds of lines of Kexx) which offer me a menu (and sub-menu and in a few cases sub-sub-menus) of actions for manipulating related entries in the primary script. My Kedit KML file (which holds the macro definitions which need to be in-memory, plus those I've chosen to load that way) is just under 5400 lines long at the moment. I have a handful of Kedit / KEXX macros which are (of course) mainly meant to be run from the Kedit command line, but also work from a Windows cmd.exe terminal window under ooREXX. The longest of those is about 4100 lines long. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, at 23:00, Seymour J Metz wrote: > I'm looking at a home-grown REXX script that is 1690 lines long, and in > some REXX circles it would be considered tiny. It does use external > utilities, but is by no means just glue. I'd bet that there are edit > macros orders of magnitude larger. I've got a KEXX macro here that's currently 12,700 lines long. I'm not claiming it's particularly complex though. A lot of its contents are in essence declarations of structured data, so that instead of it reading and parsing/validating an external data file then if everything is ok doing things with the data, the data is in the macro itself so when it executes it validates and then processes that inline data. A short example of one block of that data is call srch "\Sandi Toksvig\" call hsepprog "It's Your Round" call hsepprog "I've Never Seen Star Wars" call skipprog "News Quiz Extra" call skipprog "The News Quiz" * call omit "\|radio|Loose Ends|b054gxpj|\" call send The "call srch" / "call send" function calls enclose a definition (of BBC radio programme) search criteria. There's other similar enclosing pairs of function calls to define other actions. When the file is open in Kedit there's context-specific editing functions (which themselves are coded in many hundreds of lines of Kexx) which offer me a menu (and sub-menu and in a few cases sub-sub-menus) of actions for manipulating related entries in the primary script. My Kedit KML file (which holds the macro definitions which need to be in-memory, plus those I've chosen to load that way) is just under 5400 lines long at the moment. I have a handful of Kedit / KEXX macros which are (of course) mainly meant to be run from the Kedit command line, but also work from a Windows cmd.exe terminal window under ooREXX. The longest of those is about 4100 lines long. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On 2021-08-23 22:00, Seymour J Metz wrote: I'm looking at a home-grown REXX script that is 1690 lines long, and in some REXX circles it would be considered tiny. It does use external utilities, but is by no means just glue. I'd bet that there are edit macros orders of magnitude larger. Two non trivial ones? A 6,423 line one that converts plain text into M$ Word RTF, and a 3,174 line one that translates JCL into REXX, which was used to make it easy to run (PL/I) programs with Inspect, and later PLITEST. The EHIx'es accessible on my site are, somewhat remarkable, not that big, and most contain a long list of keywords. The, as yet unpublished, Formatted Browse and Formatted Edit (poor man's substitutes for filemanager?) come in at well under 2,000 lines. Robert -- Robert AH Prins robert(a)prino(d)org The hitchhiking grandfather - https://prino.neocities.org/indez.html Some REXX code for use on z/OS - https://prino.neocities.org/zOS/zOS-Tools.html -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 1:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Actually, that's not a bad point; I didn't think of it when I posted originally (a post I'm sorely tempted to regret now, by the way, if only I went in for that sort of thing) but my 40-line programs are that short only because they depend on external routines that are much longer. More of my REXXes than not, for example, use a one-line call to read the entirety of an external file onto the stack, and another one to put the new contents of the stack into a temporary a file and display it in View. The lines between are the ones that read, process and display. So even the allegedly simple 40 lines have a lot more going on than just that. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* Formal courtesy between husband and wife is even more important than it is between strangers. -Lazarus Long */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 06:27 "40 line REXX program" is a straw dummy. Yes, some scripts are that short, just as there are 40-line assembler programs, but many are orders of magnitude larger. -- 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 -- Robert AH Prins robert.ah.prins(a)gmail.com The hitchhiking grandfather - https://prino.neocities.org/ Some REXX code for use on z/OS - https://prino.neocities.org/zOS/zOS-Tools.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but the likelihood of a program I've written executing correctly the first time, is almost always commensurate with the time I've spent reviewing/walking thru the code before testing. For me, this relationship holds true regardless of language. Mike -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bob Bridges Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 9:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Programs that work right the first time. Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Like systems in Easytrieve lazy JUNK -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. ** EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION ** Technical debt :) > On 22 Aug 2021, at 2:52 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > What is an application with thousands of lines of REXX code, chopped liver? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Technical debt :) > On 22 Aug 2021, at 2:52 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > What is an application with thousands of lines of REXX code, chopped liver? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I'm looking at a home-grown REXX script that is 1690 lines long, and in some REXX circles it would be considered tiny. It does use external utilities, but is by no means just glue. I'd bet that there are edit macros orders of magnitude larger. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 1:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Actually, that's not a bad point; I didn't think of it when I posted originally (a post I'm sorely tempted to regret now, by the way, if only I went in for that sort of thing) but my 40-line programs are that short only because they depend on external routines that are much longer. More of my REXXes than not, for example, use a one-line call to read the entirety of an external file onto the stack, and another one to put the new contents of the stack into a temporary a file and display it in View. The lines between are the ones that read, process and display. So even the allegedly simple 40 lines have a lot more going on than just that. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* Formal courtesy between husband and wife is even more important than it is between strangers. -Lazarus Long */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 06:27 "40 line REXX program" is a straw dummy. Yes, some scripts are that short, just as there are 40-line assembler programs, but many are orders of magnitude larger. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Leaving the political things out, for good reason ... IMHO, the number of lines of a program can only be a very rough first guess on program complexity. As others pointed out, the programming languages have very different levels of information density, for example a language which has powerful builtin functions or string processing etc. needs much less statements to do the same as another language which lacks such features. OTOH, even if we only talk about COBOL, you can have very large programs with little complexity, say a program which handles hundreds or thousands of cases in a large switch statements (PL/1: SELECT, COBOL: EVALUATE), where every case consists of only, say, 20 statements. May add up to 20.000 lines but can be very simple. On the contrary, a program with only some hundred lines but very complex due to nested looping, sorting, array processing, complex data structures, many input files processed concurrently, you name it ... hard to understand (I have to maintain such programs in my everyday job, 30 years old, the original author long gone, this is not much fun). Anyway, if I get an unknown program on the table, I always check the lines of code first, and 200, 2000 or 2 makes a big difference, of course. HTH, kind regards Bernd Am 23.08.2021 um 00:37 schrieb Bill Johnson: The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine complexity. ... Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked to prove it can’t. What I actually said was: "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line." I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a good way of estimating complexity. The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could guess what those lines do. There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite long webpage at https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-apl-programming-language-source-code/ to see it, with an explanation there of how that program works. It's a whole lot less easy to understand than the equivalent written in, say COBOL. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Actually, that's not a bad point; I didn't think of it when I posted originally (a post I'm sorely tempted to regret now, by the way, if only I went in for that sort of thing) but my 40-line programs are that short only because they depend on external routines that are much longer. More of my REXXes than not, for example, use a one-line call to read the entirety of an external file onto the stack, and another one to put the new contents of the stack into a temporary a file and display it in View. The lines between are the ones that read, process and display. So even the allegedly simple 40 lines have a lot more going on than just that. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* Formal courtesy between husband and wife is even more important than it is between strangers. -Lazarus Long */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 06:27 "40 line REXX program" is a straw dummy. Yes, some scripts are that short, just as there are 40-line assembler programs, but many are orders of magnitude larger. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [External] Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
And most of the crap on this thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with IBM-Main! Take your political pontificating somewhere else!!! Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 7:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [External] Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. I'm going to have to check my communist sources at the University. When is trump being reinstated? On Monday, August 23, 2021, 08:02:33 AM EDT, Joe Monk wrote: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-guantanamo-detainees-to-be-exchanged-for-bergdahl/ https://abcnews.go.com/International/released-guantanamo-detainees-killed-americans-officials/story?id=39734164 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376 Sorry dude, not murdoch owned... Joe On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:47 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I forgot only Murdoch owned sources are factual. Oh, and the Hindu Times. > > On Monday, August 23, 2021, 07:41:29 AM EDT, Joe Monk < >joemon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > First off ... politifact. Enough said. Not a credible source. > > Second, look up the Gitmo 5. The actual guys in charge, not superficial. > > > https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/how-khairullah-khairkhwa-rel > eased-from-guantanamo-bay-planned-taliban-s-return-101629182398683.htm > l > > Joe > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:20 AM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Ooops. PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role > > in releasing key Taliban leader > > > > | > > | > > | > > | | | > > > > | > > > > | > > | > > | | > > PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in > > releasing key Taliban leader > > > > As the Taliban celebrated its rapid takeover of Afghanistan, blame > > for > the > > fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government and/ > > | | > > > > | > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 10:07 PM, Joe Monk > > wrote: > > > > Actually it was Obama who released all the Taliban, in the trade for > > the traitor Bergdahl. > > > > Get your facts straight. > > > > > > > https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo > -in-2014-swap-by-obama/ > > > > Joe > > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:30 PM Bill Johnson < > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released > > >5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving > > >Americans > > behind. > > > Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls > > > ill > and > > > Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going > > pleases > > > me. > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas < > > >0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! > > > Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO > troops > > > there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! > > > Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is > > probably > > > going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf > > > Of Bill Johnson > > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > > > > > Ooooh, another trumper. > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike < > wayn...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* > > > > > > Trolls have that effect. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < > > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > &g
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Classification: Confidential While I agree completely with what you said, please leave politics off the list. Thank you -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Savor, Thomas Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.] "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which is a pretty high amount. In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for 92% voted...impossible. Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is in effect zero. In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > to prove it can't. What I actually said was: "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line." I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a good way of estimating complexity. The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could guess what those lines do. There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite long webpage at https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcomp
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH, My patent was not defensive. Regards, David On 2021-08-23 07:50, Seymour J Metz wrote: A defensive patent is when you patent something that should not be patentable, for the sole purpose of preventing others for patenting the same "invention". It's a lot less expensive then having to defend an infringement claim, even if you eventually get that patent invalidated. It wouldn't be necessary if the USPTO did a better job of detecting "inventions" that are prior art or obvious to practitioners. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C66555047ed8844a6d62708d9662c30da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C63765316230809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=OZH%2BILa%2FY6yFn2IPARtUZzu%2BPL2z1eX0dGJWuw949q0%3Dreserved=0 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 6:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH, "defensive" ... What exactly are you asking? If you mean military-related, the answer is no. Regards, David On 2021-08-23 05:45, Seymour J Metz wrote: IBM defensive patent? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C66555047ed8844a6d62708d9662c30da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C63765316230809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=OZH%2BILa%2FY6yFn2IPARtUZzu%2BPL2z1eX0dGJWuw949q0%3Dreserved=0 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Hi Bill, "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. ..." Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. Please see: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure-web.cisco.com%2F1NAfNN0bBf0F03jaPEgGJYSfqV4IVVUQJrViCktXMVnNTwsMUp0gbPJuunPtMGtdUrmIY9QlqZZDzNKyliUjrO1n2Sz08vZtedb9Rfprp33qR6yYLNCJjp20hV4rY90fIhDaV5yY0J7AZhq67Ss4t4N2CYtriUg4HCfmsCyY-yAa89x89MyLqKZETeeD2HeSfML6qbDoOa4RUq1wTHen2QuIyZDLAOSrawSkOFnatRZEwYKUHNhPR-mY4sloqJOSsK8OiXB-D0m4idCDBfPF3CB9V19Z-c6iWWo0wE-L30QQMZNSk8hngcn9eX-IwhgduZ_HR9ZthzgwYemSvLNEllVcS2beUpLrqpfjm42fwLfZcfW69UhTV6dvyoi98pzyQT9XFB0-9gDuieP_kVrHWny1cnZ_zXL7Mjn_lUhW1Y84-SwtoEnjWqdEFU44F2K5lE0kshZiSJAwK_WUy-Gvimw%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fpatents.justia.com%252Fpatent%252F8261255data=04%7C01%7C%7C66555047ed8844a6d62708d9662c30da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C63765316230809%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=uoW7%2FOu2xZdTRnI28Oeu5c0eD2HG64UvHjIytxpG1pY%3Dreserved=0 Regards, David On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mer
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I'm going to have to check my communist sources at the University. When is trump being reinstated? On Monday, August 23, 2021, 08:02:33 AM EDT, Joe Monk wrote: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-guantanamo-detainees-to-be-exchanged-for-bergdahl/ https://abcnews.go.com/International/released-guantanamo-detainees-killed-americans-officials/story?id=39734164 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376 Sorry dude, not murdoch owned... Joe On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:47 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I forgot only Murdoch owned sources are factual. Oh, and the Hindu Times. > > On Monday, August 23, 2021, 07:41:29 AM EDT, Joe Monk < > joemon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > First off ... politifact. Enough said. Not a credible source. > > Second, look up the Gitmo 5. The actual guys in charge, not superficial. > > > https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/how-khairullah-khairkhwa-released-from-guantanamo-bay-planned-taliban-s-return-101629182398683.html > > Joe > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:20 AM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Ooops. PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in > > releasing key Taliban leader > > > > | > > | > > | > > | | | > > > > | > > > > | > > | > > | | > > PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in releasing > > key Taliban leader > > > > As the Taliban celebrated its rapid takeover of Afghanistan, blame for > the > > fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government and/ > > | | > > > > | > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 10:07 PM, Joe Monk > > wrote: > > > > Actually it was Obama who released all the Taliban, in the trade for the > > traitor Bergdahl. > > > > Get your facts straight. > > > > > > > https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/ > > > > Joe > > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:30 PM Bill Johnson < > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 > > > Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans > > behind. > > > Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill > and > > > Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going > > pleases > > > me. > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas < > > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! > > > Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO > troops > > > there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! > > > Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is > > probably > > > going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf > > > Of Bill Johnson > > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > > > > > Ooooh, another trumper. > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike < > wayn...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* > > > > > > Trolls have that effect. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < > > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > > > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-guantanamo-detainees-to-be-exchanged-for-bergdahl/ https://abcnews.go.com/International/released-guantanamo-detainees-killed-americans-officials/story?id=39734164 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376 Sorry dude, not murdoch owned... Joe On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:47 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I forgot only Murdoch owned sources are factual. Oh, and the Hindu Times. > > On Monday, August 23, 2021, 07:41:29 AM EDT, Joe Monk < > joemon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > First off ... politifact. Enough said. Not a credible source. > > Second, look up the Gitmo 5. The actual guys in charge, not superficial. > > > https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/how-khairullah-khairkhwa-released-from-guantanamo-bay-planned-taliban-s-return-101629182398683.html > > Joe > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:20 AM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Ooops. PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in > > releasing key Taliban leader > > > > | > > | > > | > > | || > > > >| > > > > | > > | > > | | > > PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in releasing > > key Taliban leader > > > > As the Taliban celebrated its rapid takeover of Afghanistan, blame for > the > > fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government and/ > > | | > > > > | > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 10:07 PM, Joe Monk > > wrote: > > > > Actually it was Obama who released all the Taliban, in the trade for the > > traitor Bergdahl. > > > > Get your facts straight. > > > > > > > https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/ > > > > Joe > > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:30 PM Bill Johnson < > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 > > > Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans > > behind. > > > Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill > and > > > Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going > > pleases > > > me. > > > > > >On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas < > > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! > > > Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO > troops > > > there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! > > > Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is > > probably > > > going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf > > > Of Bill Johnson > > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > > > > > Ooooh, another trumper. > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike < > wayn...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* > > > > > > Trolls have that effect. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < > > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > > > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > > > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > > > > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
A defensive patent is when you patent something that should not be patentable, for the sole purpose of preventing others for patenting the same "invention". It's a lot less expensive then having to defend an infringement claim, even if you eventually get that patent invalidated. It wouldn't be necessary if the USPTO did a better job of detecting "inventions" that are prior art or obvious to practitioners. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 6:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH, "defensive" ... What exactly are you asking? If you mean military-related, the answer is no. Regards, David On 2021-08-23 05:45, Seymour J Metz wrote: > IBM defensive patent? > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C53b9ec4203844e4c803508d9661ad7b5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637653087771078604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=HzMbJ4Y9LMqWRfleXpkjq9hUdIQjf7esUMNVmcDjCQQ%3Dreserved=0 > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of > David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:15 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > Hi Bill, > "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is > hardly programming. ..." > > Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. > They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. > > Please see: > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure-web.cisco.com%2F1NAfNN0bBf0F03jaPEgGJYSfqV4IVVUQJrViCktXMVnNTwsMUp0gbPJuunPtMGtdUrmIY9QlqZZDzNKyliUjrO1n2Sz08vZtedb9Rfprp33qR6yYLNCJjp20hV4rY90fIhDaV5yY0J7AZhq67Ss4t4N2CYtriUg4HCfmsCyY-yAa89x89MyLqKZETeeD2HeSfML6qbDoOa4RUq1wTHen2QuIyZDLAOSrawSkOFnatRZEwYKUHNhPR-mY4sloqJOSsK8OiXB-D0m4idCDBfPF3CB9V19Z-c6iWWo0wE-L30QQMZNSk8hngcn9eX-IwhgduZ_HR9ZthzgwYemSvLNEllVcS2beUpLrqpfjm42fwLfZcfW69UhTV6dvyoi98pzyQT9XFB0-9gDuieP_kVrHWny1cnZ_zXL7Mjn_lUhW1Y84-SwtoEnjWqdEFU44F2K5lE0kshZiSJAwK_WUy-Gvimw%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fpatents.justia.com%252Fpatent%252F8261255data=04%7C01%7C%7C53b9ec4203844e4c803508d9661ad7b5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637653087771078604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=LDOxC0uglmGaNLYZHIpLx5HT2pfyHKAWwSxrcb8inCk%3Dreserved=0 > > Regards, > David > > On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: >> “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly >> programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, >> with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in >> COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of >> COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a >> hierarchical database like IMS. >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> >> On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges >> wrote: >> >> This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program >> that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm >> not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or >> thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they >> vary in error-prone-ness. >> >> I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time >> in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when >> anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and >> VBA. >> >> In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of >> boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common >> functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say >> "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. >> >> --- >> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 >> >> /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in >> human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing >> trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of >> mercy or for
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I forgot only Murdoch owned sources are factual. Oh, and the Hindu Times. On Monday, August 23, 2021, 07:41:29 AM EDT, Joe Monk wrote: First off ... politifact. Enough said. Not a credible source. Second, look up the Gitmo 5. The actual guys in charge, not superficial. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/how-khairullah-khairkhwa-released-from-guantanamo-bay-planned-taliban-s-return-101629182398683.html Joe On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:20 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Ooops. PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in > releasing key Taliban leader > > | > | > | > | | | > > | > > | > | > | | > PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in releasing > key Taliban leader > > As the Taliban celebrated its rapid takeover of Afghanistan, blame for the > fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government and/ > | | > > | > > | > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 10:07 PM, Joe Monk > wrote: > > Actually it was Obama who released all the Taliban, in the trade for the > traitor Bergdahl. > > Get your facts straight. > > > https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/ > > Joe > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:30 PM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 > > Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans > behind. > > Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and > > Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going > pleases > > me. > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas < > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! > > Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops > > there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! > > Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is > probably > > going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > > Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > > > Ooooh, another trumper. > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike > > > wrote: > > > > *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* > > > > Trolls have that effect. > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > > > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > > > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > > > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > > > > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > > > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > > > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > > > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > > > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > > > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > > > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will > > happen. > > > > > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > > > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > > > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > > > > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > > > Your PC rec
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
First off ... politifact. Enough said. Not a credible source. Second, look up the Gitmo 5. The actual guys in charge, not superficial. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/how-khairullah-khairkhwa-released-from-guantanamo-bay-planned-taliban-s-return-101629182398683.html Joe On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:20 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Ooops. PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in > releasing key Taliban leader > > | > | > | > | || > >| > > | > | > | | > PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in releasing > key Taliban leader > > As the Taliban celebrated its rapid takeover of Afghanistan, blame for the > fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government and > | | > > | > > | > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 10:07 PM, Joe Monk > wrote: > > Actually it was Obama who released all the Taliban, in the trade for the > traitor Bergdahl. > > Get your facts straight. > > > https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/ > > Joe > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:30 PM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 > > Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans > behind. > > Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and > > Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going > pleases > > me. > > > >On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas < > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! > > Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops > > there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! > > Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is > probably > > going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > > Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > > > Ooooh, another trumper. > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike > > > wrote: > > > > *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* > > > > Trolls have that effect. > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > > > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > > > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > > > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > > > > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > > > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > > > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > > > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > > > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > > > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > > > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will > > happen. > > > > > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > > > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > > > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > > > > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > > > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > > > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > &g
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
My gas prices are $2.95 a gallon. Same as in 2018. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 9:47 PM, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Typical Liberal.trying your best to spin it into Trumps fault...all Trump tried to do is get the Afgan folks and the Taliban folks to work out a deal so we could leave and they could live together...but they couldn't agree...so we were still there. I don't remember under Trump cargo planes taking off from Kabul with folks hanging off of them...and falling off and dying, but I do remember seeing it on TV last weekand I also have family stuck over there, so yes I know who got out and whos been left to find your own way out. Also don't remember British holding Trump in contempt for leaving their troops there, but I do remember this happening under Biden's watch last week. And "if he falls ill"...i guess you've never been around someone with Dementia...he couldn't even find the front door to the white house last weekreally...i guess Trump hid it from him...WAKE UP !!! It pleases me to see even CNN turn on him now...i love it. By the way, how are your gas prices ?? Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases me. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
$4.25 a gallon in DC last week. Steve Gorham, Baltimore -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 7:20 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Agree. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 9:50 PM, Ron Wells <02ebc63ff5ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Stop the politics..get enough of it on news BS -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Savor, Thomas Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 8:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. ** EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION ** Typical Liberal.trying your best to spin it into Trumps fault...all Trump tried to do is get the Afgan folks and the Taliban folks to work out a deal so we could leave and they could live together...but they couldn't agree...so we were still there. I don't remember under Trump cargo planes taking off from Kabul with folks hanging off of them...and falling off and dying, but I do remember seeing it on TV last weekand I also have family stuck over there, so yes I know who got out and whos been left to find your own way out. Also don't remember British holding Trump in contempt for leaving their troops there, but I do remember this happening under Biden's watch last week. And "if he falls ill"...i guess you've never been around someone with Dementia...he couldn't even find the front door to the white house last weekreally...i guess Trump hid it from him...WAKE UP !!! It pleases me to see even CNN turn on him now...i love it. By the way, how are your gas prices ?? Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases me. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, c
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
My dad had dementia. Biden does not. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 9:47 PM, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Typical Liberal.trying your best to spin it into Trumps fault...all Trump tried to do is get the Afgan folks and the Taliban folks to work out a deal so we could leave and they could live together...but they couldn't agree...so we were still there. I don't remember under Trump cargo planes taking off from Kabul with folks hanging off of them...and falling off and dying, but I do remember seeing it on TV last weekand I also have family stuck over there, so yes I know who got out and whos been left to find your own way out. Also don't remember British holding Trump in contempt for leaving their troops there, but I do remember this happening under Biden's watch last week. And "if he falls ill"...i guess you've never been around someone with Dementia...he couldn't even find the front door to the white house last weekreally...i guess Trump hid it from him...WAKE UP !!! It pleases me to see even CNN turn on him now...i love it. By the way, how are your gas prices ?? Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases me. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
At least he doesn't support a president who was in bed with a soviet secret agent. Or did you think that validimir puta was a liberal? Also, you clearly haven't got any idea what communism is. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Savor, Thomas [0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 8:09 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Tell me whats wrong.typical dumbass liberal that doesn't have ANY facts...just that its wrongwhere the fuck is it wrong. School is where YOU went off the rails...nothing but teaching Communism bullshit. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John Clifford Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 8:05 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Dead wrong. Typical trumpette. Back to school. On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 7:27 PM Savor, Thomas < 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of > course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent > and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, > voter fraud is in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > > asked to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > &quo
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Agree. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 9:50 PM, Ron Wells <02ebc63ff5ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Stop the politics..get enough of it on news BS -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Savor, Thomas Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 8:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. ** EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION ** Typical Liberal.trying your best to spin it into Trumps fault...all Trump tried to do is get the Afgan folks and the Taliban folks to work out a deal so we could leave and they could live together...but they couldn't agree...so we were still there. I don't remember under Trump cargo planes taking off from Kabul with folks hanging off of them...and falling off and dying, but I do remember seeing it on TV last weekand I also have family stuck over there, so yes I know who got out and whos been left to find your own way out. Also don't remember British holding Trump in contempt for leaving their troops there, but I do remember this happening under Biden's watch last week. And "if he falls ill"...i guess you've never been around someone with Dementia...he couldn't even find the front door to the white house last weekreally...i guess Trump hid it from him...WAKE UP !!! It pleases me to see even CNN turn on him now...i love it. By the way, how are your gas prices ?? Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases me. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Ooops. PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in releasing key Taliban leader | | | | || | | | | | PolitiFact - Posts correct about Trump administration’s role in releasing key Taliban leader As the Taliban celebrated its rapid takeover of Afghanistan, blame for the fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government and | | | | Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 10:07 PM, Joe Monk wrote: Actually it was Obama who released all the Taliban, in the trade for the traitor Bergdahl. Get your facts straight. https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/ Joe On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:30 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 > Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. > Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and > Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases > me. > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! > Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops > there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! > Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably > going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > Ooooh, another trumper. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike > wrote: > > *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* > > Trolls have that effect. > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will > happen. > > > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > > for 92% voted...impossible. > > > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand > outside. &g
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On the flip side, anybody that copies without understanding the original is asking for trouble. Then they blame the author of the original. BTDT,GTTS I don't have the statistics, but I believe that I've written more programs > 1000 lines than I have <50 lines. I probably have some really short scripts that worked correctly the first time, but that is definitely not the norm. I've certainly never written or seen a large program that worked correctly from the get go. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Eric D Rossman [edros...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 3:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Anyone who is writing something brand new and NOT referring to other working models (similar code chunks) is wasting their time. No one can keep everything in mind at once, especially once you start talking about truly complex beasts. NB: I'm assuming your question is not necessarily limited to standalone programs that are 100% of the function but should also include modules that can be plugged in (such as shared objects/DLLs and Linux kernel modules). For all of this, I'm only talking about fairly unique code, not small tweaks to existing code or rebuilding several chunks together to make a larger program. I've written a few dozen programs that are >1000 lines. I've never had one work perfectly the first time. With code of that size, the odds of having it work completely correctly the first time are astronomically small. I've probably written hundreds of new small (<50 LOC) programs. I would estimate 5% work correctly the first time (the benefit of experience with very similar programs). For the middle sized programs (on the order of 100s of lines), I would say that I've had maybe one or two out of hundreds that worked the first time. So, on the average, excluding code that is really just simple modifications of existing code, I would say 2-5% work correctly the first time, depending on how similar to something I have written before they are. Eric Rossman, CISSP® ICSF Cryptographic Security Development z/OS Enabling Technologies edros...@us.ibm.com "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" wrote on 08/21/2021 09:30:58 PM: > From: "Bob Bridges" > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 08/21/2021 09:31 PM > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Programs that work right the first time. > Sent by: "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" > > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a > program that works right the first time, with no compile or > execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or > even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the > language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:34:55 +1000 Wayne Bickerdike wrote: :>Number of lines of code is a meaningless measure. :>In PL/1 : :>MASSIVE_STRUCTURE = '' ; /* 2,000 FIELDS DECIMAL, BINARY, CHAR, FLOAT */ :>ASSEMBLER: :>Quite a few MVC instructions and lots of initial DCs :>COBOL : :>MOVE ZERO TO OUT-BLAH :>MOVE SPACES TO OUT-BLAH_CHAR1 INITIALIZE ... :>ad nauseum... -- Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
(2) IMHO, clever code is when you read it and ask "Why didn't I think of that?". Deliberately obscure code is not clever. (3)Probably dumb luck, but what happens when (not if) the specifications change? Defrensive programming can save your butt. (4)No, the claim is that such cases exist, not that they are common or should be relied upon. I always *intend* that my code be error free from the get go; being human, I have to debug. Even if I luck out, I still have to test before I can be reasonably sure that I lucked out, and even then I may have failed to test some edge case. Programming is hard, but so are documentation and testing. All are essential. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Gerhard Adam [gada...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 4:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. It simply seems that most of the comments demonstrate that most posters have no idea what they are doing. (1) Programs are not complex, problems are. If the program is complex and the problem is not, then you don't know what you are doing. (2) Programming is not intended to show how smart or clever an individual is. It should be written to provide the most straightforward solution to others that may need to support it in the future. (3) Most problems are not solved by singular programs, but may involve having multiple modules. If the claim is that this is written in one attempt, without errors, then it is either a lie or dumb luck. (4) If the claim is that programs are written without errors, then the claim is that the programs do not need to be tested. This is clearly a lie. The individual is basing their code on luck and not skill. The question is not whether there were any errors, but whether the author INTRENDED for this code to be error free or whether it was a matter of luck It seems that many of the comments are either taking credit for being lucky or they don't know what they are doing. Often the nation of an error is also discussed in an amateurish fashion. Are we talking about syntax mistakes? Any claim that these don't occur are simply fantasy. Are we talking about logic errors? As mentioned, what does "working right" even mean? It seems that this is a nonsensical discussion. Adam P.S. what kind of foolishness suggests that z/OS is the product of a weekend? Decades of coding, analysis, feedback, and error correction went into it. And yet someone posts this as being concocted by a set of developers are if this were simply discussed over the scribblings on a bar napkin. There is only ONE language and that is the machine language used by the hardware to process directions. Everything else is merely a human translation of that so stop pretending as if this were some great human skill. It is merely a vocation that changes with the next compiler that is made available. One can easily see that after decades of computing, we still don't know how to produce a secure system. We still can't produce code that doesn't crash and we still can't even ensure that we release memory that was acquired by programs. Instead of people being so clever, they might concentrate on producing code that is reliable and actually works in all environments. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bob Bridges Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Bill, I don't understand what could have pushed your buttons. For instance: BJ> Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. But the only one making that comparison is you. (Maybe that's why you were the only one laughing :). ) Maybe this is the key: BJ> No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. A few of us (including me) posted "I once wrote a 30-line program that worked right the first time", and what you heard is "am I not amazing, wonderful, brilliant? Do you not all admire me?" Is that what happened? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* When it comes to cooking, five years ago I felt guilty "just adding water." Now I want to bang the tube against the countertop and have a five-course meal pop out. If it comes with plastic silverware and a plate that self-destructs, all the better. -Erma Bombeck */ --- On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of CO
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Ever since I left the 650 behind I've gotten multiple debug shots per day. Desk checking for syntax is a waste of time. Desk checking the logic is not. The compiler only catches the easy errors. That said, desk checking these days can and should involve tools to speed it up. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Binyamin Dissen [bdis...@dissensoftware.com] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. While that may have been much more important in the days of cards and 24 hour turnaround, nowadays it is a waste of human time to deck check the program over and over again when the computer can do it faster and more effectively. On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 21:30:58 -0400 Bob Bridges wrote: :>This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. :> :>I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. :> :>In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. :> :>--- :>Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 :> :>/* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ :> :>-Original Message- :>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan :>Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 :> :>one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. :> :>I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. :> :>-- :>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, :>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Binyamin Dissen http://secure-web.cisco.com/1AYZeu483GyE1ECAVZx7Dz0ok9qp43HKhBLcfktZj8M4kJ1OjxTHw0Ns8Bc0IR1fIEaTc1FrtG37K-UM1uNljzzz7snG8tzWb_UScr_U8QnQpvORVdnyFyoHiv93vniBmvRVeBuH7tTO5t-3mQ9wNI-4VSE83UBGNbVtciufSRK-pNoLrOG0nVve6C9CKB4w2-72cYdHAGfSAHjF1jk2SXQ7CIaUILaSaAuqkrH46xzZH1at4VLAC4U3fz6IT3I1g3QSMtBHlpVXRtCNIFoUpPv802TAi5ReYHh1eMsXpTCgxxZfIGa6dT7dhSEqRzkSID0Cdw9zUFJ3qJiRVopzas_M1kQF44FRuAPOciI3D7DOFo001ZaWhesupT59XM0LqbfomzkoO3xoB3z16qOGO0wV5sXea6kzTJes4reEkw-9kmymB3YLh0O8rcbM4EDsf/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Thousands of lines? Maybe if its a very simple assembler. "40 line REXX program" is a straw dummy. Yes, some scripts are that short, just as there are 40-line assembler programs, but many are orders of magnitude larger. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 1:43 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Anyone who writes a compiler or assembler is quite complex. And very likely thousands of lines of code that took years to develop. More in line with the COBOL programs I was referencing. Not some 40 line REXX program that took a day or two. In College, I wrote an ATM machine. It took the entire semester and was my class project. Way more complex than a 40 line REXX/CLIST or the APL mirage you mention. Show me the 1 line complex APL program. Remembering, I’m a math major. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:09 AM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 02:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of > COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. So... if someone writes a compiler or assembler, or a whole OS - none of which contain IMS, DB2, or CICS calls - it's not "real programming"? The length of a program is no indication of its complexity. A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line. It's near guaranteed that it won't be comprehensible (APL is commonly regarded as a "write once, read (ie understand later) never" language. A COBOL program that makes calls out to IMS, DB2, CICS etc is quite a lot like a REXX exec that makes calls out to external services. The meat of the task is not being done by either COBOL or REXX which in both cases are the glue that holds the other stuff together. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH, "defensive" ... What exactly are you asking? If you mean military-related, the answer is no. Regards, David On 2021-08-23 05:45, Seymour J Metz wrote: IBM defensive patent? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C53b9ec4203844e4c803508d9661ad7b5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637653087771078604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=HzMbJ4Y9LMqWRfleXpkjq9hUdIQjf7esUMNVmcDjCQQ%3Dreserved=0 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Hi Bill, "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. ..." Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. Please see: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure-web.cisco.com%2F1NAfNN0bBf0F03jaPEgGJYSfqV4IVVUQJrViCktXMVnNTwsMUp0gbPJuunPtMGtdUrmIY9QlqZZDzNKyliUjrO1n2Sz08vZtedb9Rfprp33qR6yYLNCJjp20hV4rY90fIhDaV5yY0J7AZhq67Ss4t4N2CYtriUg4HCfmsCyY-yAa89x89MyLqKZETeeD2HeSfML6qbDoOa4RUq1wTHen2QuIyZDLAOSrawSkOFnatRZEwYKUHNhPR-mY4sloqJOSsK8OiXB-D0m4idCDBfPF3CB9V19Z-c6iWWo0wE-L30QQMZNSk8hngcn9eX-IwhgduZ_HR9ZthzgwYemSvLNEllVcS2beUpLrqpfjm42fwLfZcfW69UhTV6dvyoi98pzyQT9XFB0-9gDuieP_kVrHWny1cnZ_zXL7Mjn_lUhW1Y84-SwtoEnjWqdEFU44F2K5lE0kshZiSJAwK_WUy-Gvimw%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fpatents.justia.com%252Fpatent%252F8261255data=04%7C01%7C%7C53b9ec4203844e4c803508d9661ad7b5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637653087771078604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=LDOxC0uglmGaNLYZHIpLx5HT2pfyHKAWwSxrcb8inCk%3Dreserved=0 Regards, David On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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 . --
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I always hated places that did not allow me to do my own keypunching. When you submitted corrections, there was always the risk that the key-punch operator would introduce new errors. I was generally involved with software with evolving requirements, so even a clean compile and execution didn't mean that I got it right. I had similar problems with secretaries; when I submitted corrections, there were always errors in previously correct text. When I discovered markup languages, I never looked back. One side effect was that I became a lot fussier about layout. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Tony Thigpen [t...@vse2pdf.com] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:55 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Once only since 1980. And this was back about 1985 when we wrote out our programs on paper sheets and the key-punch group put them on diskette. (Once in the system, we did have a basic editor to fix things.) It was not a 'small' program, but also not a 'large' program. It was in Cobol. Of course, 'size' was based on my then current thought processes. What is 'small' now would have been considered bigger then. It compiled and ran correctly the very first time. I have always wondered if any variable names or other typos were 'corrected' by the person in the key-punch group. Now days, my development methods are much different. More 'code and test base program flow' then 'code and test additions'. And, if the test run takes some time, I actually code more lines while each test is running. I also write mostly 98% assembler where a L vs LA will get me every time. So, I don't expect it to ever happen again. It's kind of like that perfect 25k gusty cross-wind landing, but nobody else was in the plane with you to see it. If nobody else sees it, did it really happen? :-) Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on 8/21/21 9:30 PM: > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in > human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing > trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of > mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is > an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application > experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they > would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course > was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a > break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such > desk-checking made far more sense. > > -- > 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
IBM defensive patent? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Hi Bill, "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. ..." Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. Please see: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1NAfNN0bBf0F03jaPEgGJYSfqV4IVVUQJrViCktXMVnNTwsMUp0gbPJuunPtMGtdUrmIY9QlqZZDzNKyliUjrO1n2Sz08vZtedb9Rfprp33qR6yYLNCJjp20hV4rY90fIhDaV5yY0J7AZhq67Ss4t4N2CYtriUg4HCfmsCyY-yAa89x89MyLqKZETeeD2HeSfML6qbDoOa4RUq1wTHen2QuIyZDLAOSrawSkOFnatRZEwYKUHNhPR-mY4sloqJOSsK8OiXB-D0m4idCDBfPF3CB9V19Z-c6iWWo0wE-L30QQMZNSk8hngcn9eX-IwhgduZ_HR9ZthzgwYemSvLNEllVcS2beUpLrqpfjm42fwLfZcfW69UhTV6dvyoi98pzyQT9XFB0-9gDuieP_kVrHWny1cnZ_zXL7Mjn_lUhW1Y84-SwtoEnjWqdEFU44F2K5lE0kshZiSJAwK_WUy-Gvimw/https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.justia.com%2Fpatent%2F8261255 Regards, David On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of > COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a > hierarchical database like IMS. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in > human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing > trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of > mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is > an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application > experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they > would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course > was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a > break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such > desk-checking made far more sense. > > -- > 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 > . -- 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
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Actually it was Obama who released all the Taliban, in the trade for the traitor Bergdahl. Get your facts straight. https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/ Joe On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:30 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 > Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. > Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and > Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases > me. > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! > Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops > there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! > Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably > going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > Ooooh, another trumper. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike > wrote: > > *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* > > Trolls have that effect. > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will > happen. > > > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > > for 92% voted...impossible. > > > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand > outside. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not > > click links or open attachments unless you recogni
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Stop the politics..get enough of it on news BS -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Savor, Thomas Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 8:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. ** EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION ** Typical Liberal.trying your best to spin it into Trumps fault...all Trump tried to do is get the Afgan folks and the Taliban folks to work out a deal so we could leave and they could live together...but they couldn't agree...so we were still there. I don't remember under Trump cargo planes taking off from Kabul with folks hanging off of them...and falling off and dying, but I do remember seeing it on TV last weekand I also have family stuck over there, so yes I know who got out and whos been left to find your own way out. Also don't remember British holding Trump in contempt for leaving their troops there, but I do remember this happening under Biden's watch last week. And "if he falls ill"...i guess you've never been around someone with Dementia...he couldn't even find the front door to the white house last weekreally...i guess Trump hid it from him...WAKE UP !!! It pleases me to see even CNN turn on him now...i love it. By the way, how are your gas prices ?? Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases me. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Typical Liberal.trying your best to spin it into Trumps fault...all Trump tried to do is get the Afgan folks and the Taliban folks to work out a deal so we could leave and they could live together...but they couldn't agree...so we were still there. I don't remember under Trump cargo planes taking off from Kabul with folks hanging off of them...and falling off and dying, but I do remember seeing it on TV last weekand I also have family stuck over there, so yes I know who got out and whos been left to find your own way out. Also don't remember British holding Trump in contempt for leaving their troops there, but I do remember this happening under Biden's watch last week. And "if he falls ill"...i guess you've never been around someone with Dementia...he couldn't even find the front door to the white house last weekreally...i guess Trump hid it from him...WAKE UP !!! It pleases me to see even CNN turn on him now...i love it. By the way, how are your gas prices ?? Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:30 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases me. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Trump started the process of leaving Afghanistan. Even released 5000 Taliban including their current leader. We aren't leaving Americans behind. Biden will be president for another 3 1/2 years, unless he falls ill and Kamala takes over. And knowing that probably really gets you going pleases me. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:01:21 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of > course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent > and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, > voter fraud is in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
A cousin of mine lived in Atlanta. Correct. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 07:51:35 PM EDT, Joe Monk wrote: Fulton County is 100% Democrat, just like Maricopa County. Joe On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:48 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > We know Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud. States run by Republicans. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election > was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was > fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where > terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is > heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is > wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like > under Bush, the > GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your > PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got > into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions > test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass > emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the > Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which > is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for > 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt > get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up > Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -----Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > > to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in > one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a > good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I > think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) > be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators > (all those greek charac
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Tom believes the election was stolen. Without even 1 incidence of actual proof/facts. My old commie school is run by a trumper currently. Of course not always. For most of its history it was run by normal people who believed in facts and science. On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 08:09:34 PM EDT, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Tell me whats wrong.typical dumbass liberal that doesn't have ANY facts...just that its wrongwhere the fuck is it wrong. School is where YOU went off the rails...nothing but teaching Communism bullshit. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John Clifford Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 8:05 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Dead wrong. Typical trumpette. Back to school. On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 7:27 PM Savor, Thomas < 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of > course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent > and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, > voter fraud is in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > > asked to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written > in one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex > program
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Don't feed the trolls. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Clifford Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 5:05 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Dead wrong. Typical trumpette. Back to school. On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 7:27 PM Savor, Thomas < 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election > was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was > fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where > terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is > heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is > wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like > under Bush, the > GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your > PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got > into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions > test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass > emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the > Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which > is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for > 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt > get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up > Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > > to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in > one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a > good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I > think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) > be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators > (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even > function names (though they are not functio
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I would say 1. You can do more in COBOL than assembler in few lines, but is a 100-line COBOL program necessarily more complex than a 100-line assembler program? 2. You probably do have to say that lines of code maps to complexity, but only if you keep the language constant. What is the shortest legal COBOL program" Six lines or so? A six-line COBOL program is almost certainly Hello-Worldsimple, but an 8-line APL program might be complex indeed. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 4:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Number of lines of code is a meaningless measure. In PL/1 : MASSIVE_STRUCTURE = '' ; /* 2,000 FIELDS DECIMAL, BINARY, CHAR, FLOAT */ ASSEMBLER: Quite a few MVC instructions and lots of initial DCs COBOL : MOVE ZERO TO OUT-BLAH MOVE SPACES TO OUT-BLAH_CHAR1 ad nauseum... On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:37 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent — about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > > asked to prove it can’t. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written > in one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not > a good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both > (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, > and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL > operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator > names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not > think anyone could guess what those lines do. > > There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all > the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the > quite long webpage at > > > https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-apl-programming-language-source-code/ > > to see it, with an explanation there of how that program works. > > It's a whole lot less easy to understand than the equivalent written in, > say > COBOL. > > -- > Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. > > -- > 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 > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- 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
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Tell me whats wrong.typical dumbass liberal that doesn't have ANY facts...just that its wrongwhere the fuck is it wrong. School is where YOU went off the rails...nothing but teaching Communism bullshit. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John Clifford Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 8:05 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Dead wrong. Typical trumpette. Back to school. On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 7:27 PM Savor, Thomas < 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of > course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent > and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, > voter fraud is in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > > asked to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written > in one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex > program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not > a good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both > (I > think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, > and (b) be hard to understand at a glance.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
And where was the fraud ?? of course, Fulton County. The swamp is deep. I don't care who wins anything (well actually I do), but I just want it to be fair. And just because Arizona and Georgia are GOP (the Governors)...not all Counties are...Fulton for sure isn't. Guys, think about this...they allowed mail-in ballots WITHOUT verifying the signatureSeriously Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joe Monk Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:51 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Fulton County is 100% Democrat, just like Maricopa County. Joe On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:48 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > We know Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud. States run by Republicans. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -----Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of > course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent > and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, > voter fraud is in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > > asked to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written > in one line." > > I /did not/ say t
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Dead wrong. Typical trumpette. Back to school. On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 7:27 PM Savor, Thomas < 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election > was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was > fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where > terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is > heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is > wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like > under Bush, the > GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your > PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got > into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions > test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass > emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the > Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which > is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for > 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt > get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up > Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > > to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in > one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a > good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I > think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) > be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators > (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even > function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could > guess what those lines do. > > There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all > the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite > long webpage at > > > https://eur02.safelinks.protecti
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Your guy is in-defensible...great job in Afghanistan...superb !!! Not only did we leave a bunch of US citizens there, but left NATO troops there...so Ooooh another Dumbass !!! Biden makes Carter look good...I thought Obozo was bad...Biden is probably going to be removed soon...or at least starting the process. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:45 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I'd trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the > election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia > was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County > where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine > is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law > is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't > like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. > Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. > Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into > emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to > pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to > normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from > the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% > voted...which is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, > for 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the > election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here > in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -----Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know the content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of > course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent > and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, > voter fraud is in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in > ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 > percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent > - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > > asked to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written >in one line." &g
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Fulton County is 100% Democrat, just like Maricopa County. Joe On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:48 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > We know Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud. States run by Republicans. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election > was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was > fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where > terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is > heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is > wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like > under Bush, the > GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your > PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got > into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions > test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass > emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the > Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which > is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for > 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt > get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up > Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -----Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > > to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in > one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a > good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I > think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) > be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators > (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even > function names (though they are not f
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
We know Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud. States run by Republicans. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which is a pretty high amount. In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for 92% voted...impossible. Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is in effect zero. In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > to prove it can't. What I actually said was: "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line." I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a good way of estimating complexity. The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could guess what those lines do. There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite long webpage at https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcomputerhistory.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-apl-programming-language-source-code%2F=04%7C01%7Cthomas.savor%40fisglobal.com%7C604acc7f24084e289bde08d965bd7f52%7Ce3ff91d834c84b15a0b418910a6ac575%7C0%7C0%7C637652686827582443%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=Y8SIQh32uaTFYS0FywdIiDm5uWdiM8cjh7PY%2Ffvct08%3D=0
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Ooooh, another trumper. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:42 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote: *I knew I’d trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I’d trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election > was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was > fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where > terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is > heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is > wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like > under Bush, the > GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your > PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got > into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions > test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass > emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the > Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which > is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for > 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt > get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up > Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -----Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > > to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in > one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a > good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I > think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) > be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators > (all those greek characters) were represented by ope
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
*I knew I’d trigger the trumpers here.* Trolls have that effect. On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I knew I’d trigger the trumpers here. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas < > 0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning." > > That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long > time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election > was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was > fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where > terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is > heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is > wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. > > We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper > ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like > under Bush, the > GOP doesn't like it now. > > You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your > PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got > into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions > test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass > emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. > So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things > correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting > machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the > Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. > > There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which > is a pretty high amount. > In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for > 92% voted...impossible. > > Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt > get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up > Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > -----Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > > to prove it can't. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in > one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a > good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I > think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) > be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators > (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even > function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone cou
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I knew I’d trigger the trumpers here. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 7:27 PM, Savor, Thomas <0330b7631be3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: "In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which is a pretty high amount. In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for 92% voted...impossible. Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is in effect zero. In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > to prove it can't. What I actually said was: "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line." I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a good way of estimating complexity. The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could guess what those lines do. There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite long webpage at https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcomputerhistory.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-apl-programming-language-source-code%2F=04%7C01%7Cthomas.savor%40fisglobal.com%7C604acc7f24084e289bde08d965bd7f52%7Ce3ff91d834c84b15a0b418910a6ac575%7C0%7C0%7C637652686827582443%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=Y8SIQh32uaTFYS0FywdIiDm5uWdiM8cjh7PY%2Ffvct08%3D=0 to see it, with an explanation there
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Number of lines of code is a meaningless measure. In PL/1 : MASSIVE_STRUCTURE = '' ; /* 2,000 FIELDS DECIMAL, BINARY, CHAR, FLOAT */ ASSEMBLER: Quite a few MVC instructions and lots of initial DCs COBOL : MOVE ZERO TO OUT-BLAH MOVE SPACES TO OUT-BLAH_CHAR1 ad nauseum... On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:37 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine > complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course > not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point > to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is > in effect zero. > In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts > Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud > "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances > nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent — about five times less > likely than getting hit by lightning. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > > asked to prove it can’t. > > What I actually said was: > > "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written > in one line." > > I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, > just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. > > I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not > a good way of estimating complexity. > > The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both > (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, > and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL > operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator > names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not > think anyone could guess what those lines do. > > There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all > the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the > quite long webpage at > > > https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-apl-programming-language-source-code/ > > to see it, with an explanation there of how that program works. > > It's a whole lot less easy to understand than the equivalent written in, > say > COBOL. > > -- > Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. > > -- > 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 > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time.
"In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning." That's by far the stupidest comment I've heard in long time.MIT...Mass..area nothing but Democrats (of course, the election was clean). We already know that Arizona was fraud, Georgia was fraud...Georgia is trying to figure out how to audit Fulton County where terrible voting irregularities occurred...but the fraud machine is heavy...Next you are going to tell me that the Georgia voting law is wrong...if you think so STOP WATCHING CNN. But I know nothing will happen. We will not be secure with our elections until we go back to paper ballots...i don't trust electronic voting at all...the Rats didn't like under Bush, the GOP doesn't like it now. You say, " how can they cheat electronically"...guys think about it. Your PC recognizes when you plug something into USB...right. Volkswagen got into a lot of trouble when diesel car was plugged into emissions test...system recognized it, and changed the settings to pass emissions...then when unplugged, car computer reset system back to normal. So easily, a voting machine can recognize being audited, do things correctly, then when unplugged, go back to "coded" settingsvoting machines by Law, once certified, are supposed to be dis-connected from the Internet, but we know that didn't happen in Arizona. There were 153 million registered voters in 2016, when 60% voted...which is a pretty high amount. In 2020, 168 million registered voters, 80+ for Biden 74+ for Trump, for 92% voted...impossible. Biden tried to have a rally here in Georgia during the election...couldnt get 100 people to show up...Trump had a rally here in Georgia filled up Mercedes Benz stadium, with about 50-60 thousand outside. Thanks, Tom -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Programs that work right the first time. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the company. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is in effect zero. In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent - about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked > to prove it can't. What I actually said was: "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line." I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a good way of estimating complexity. The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could guess what those lines do. There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite long webpage at https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcomputerhistory.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-apl-programming-language-source-code%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Cthomas.savor%40fisglobal.com%7C604acc7f24084e289bde08d965bd7f52%7Ce3ff91d834c84b15a0b418910a6ac575%7C0%7C0%7C637652686827582443%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=Y8SIQh32uaTFYS0FywdIiDm5uWdiM8cjh7PY%2Ffvct08%3Dreserved=0 to see it, with an explanation there of how that program works. It's a whole lot less easy to understand than the equivalent written in, say COBOL. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. --
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
The number of lines of code is absolutely a good way to determine complexity. To say otherwise is silly. Is it a 100% correlation, of course not. Reminds me of people who say that elections are fraudulent and point to the handful of voter fraud incidents when the reality is, voter fraud is in effect zero. In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.6 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.04 percent — about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:25 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > asked to prove it can’t. What I actually said was: "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line." I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a good way of estimating complexity. The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could guess what those lines do. There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite long webpage at https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-apl-programming-language-source-code/ to see it, with an explanation there of how that program works. It's a whole lot less easy to understand than the equivalent written in, say COBOL. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 19:49, Bill Johnson wrote: > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when > asked to prove it can’t. What I actually said was: "A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line." I /did not/ say that I knew of a (specific) 1 line super complex program, just indicating that useful one-liners exist in APL. I was merely suggesting that the number of lines in a program was not a good way of estimating complexity. The two examples I pointed you at on the APL wikipedia page are both (I think) good examples of how a single line of code can (a) do a lot, and (b) be hard to understand at a glance. Even if the individual APL operators (all those greek characters) were represented by operator names, or even function names (though they are not functions) I do not think anyone could guess what those lines do. There's a short line of code (only 17 characters!) that determines "all the prime numbers up to R". Search (for the text in quotes) on the quite long webpage at https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-apl-programming-language-source-code/ to see it, with an explanation there of how that program works. It's a whole lot less easy to understand than the equivalent written in, say COBOL. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Any programming language can be complex. The problems I’ve had to solve in my 40 year career were far more complex as a programmer than as a SP, DBA, DASD Admin, Security Admin. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 4:40 PM, David Spiegel wrote: Hi Bill, I understood that you were defending IBM patents and thank you for the compliment. Why, though, do you think that COBOL programs with Database calls can be complex, when the languages I mentioned are more "dense" (i.e. logic per keystroke) with or without the Database calls? (PL/I and Rexx are very close in density. If you agree that large PL/I programs can be complex, then why can Rexx not also be complex?) Regards, David On 2021-08-22 16:16, Bill Johnson wrote: > Dude, you can’t even figure out I’m on YOUR side. When I posted a few months > back regarding IBM patents, a whole bunch of listers bashed me and claimed > most of IBMs patents were worthless. I’m impressed that you have patented > code. > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 4:13 PM, David Spiegel > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > Are you just a troll, or, are you really that impolite/ignorant? > > My Rexx patented program was reviewed by the US Patent office and I was > required to defend it against 5 others. > It took 9 calendar months from the start of application until granting > of patent. > There are reasons why IBM leads the world in patents, BUT, they still > have to pass muster regardless. > > What makes you think, nitwit, that programming 10,000 lines of COBOL (, > which, BTW is freaking wordy beyond belief) is more mind bending than Rexx? > If you would've coded 10,000 lines of PL/I, FORTRAN or (especially) > APL, that would've contained a lot more logic than your "essay" with all > of the attendant COBOL nonsense. > > Regards, > David > > On 2021-08-22 13:35, Bill Johnson wrote: >> I seem to remember IBM listers poo pooing patents when I pointed out IBM >> leads the world in patents every year. Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST >> “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is >> an absolute joke. Patent or not. >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> >> On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:15 AM, David Spiegel >> wrote: >> >> Hi Bill, >> "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is >> hardly programming. ..." >> >> Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. >> They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. >> >> Please see: >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.justia.com%2Fpatent%2F8261255=04%7C01%7C%7C1abf00ca323340b3569208d965a9d1fd%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637652602401866279%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=l2QtKunARAvX7Dl9cpFUMOCFzkIeMwHUT5aOMULOdEk%3D=0 >> >> Regards, >> David >> >> On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: >>> “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly >>> programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, >>> with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in >>> COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of >>> COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a >>> hierarchical database like IMS. >>> >>> >>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges >>> wrote: >>> >>> This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program >>> that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm >>> not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 >>> or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me >>> they vary in error-prone-ness. >>> >>> I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time >>> in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when >>> anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and >>> VBA. >>> >>> In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of >>> boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common >>> functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say >>> "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. >>> >>> --- >>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 >>> >>> /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in >>> human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in >>> bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew >>> nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. >>> Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. >>> -F.B.Meyer */ >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of >>>
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Hi Bill, I understood that you were defending IBM patents and thank you for the compliment. Why, though, do you think that COBOL programs with Database calls can be complex, when the languages I mentioned are more "dense" (i.e. logic per keystroke) with or without the Database calls? (PL/I and Rexx are very close in density. If you agree that large PL/I programs can be complex, then why can Rexx not also be complex?) Regards, David On 2021-08-22 16:16, Bill Johnson wrote: Dude, you can’t even figure out I’m on YOUR side. When I posted a few months back regarding IBM patents, a whole bunch of listers bashed me and claimed most of IBMs patents were worthless. I’m impressed that you have patented code. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 4:13 PM, David Spiegel wrote: Hi Bill, Are you just a troll, or, are you really that impolite/ignorant? My Rexx patented program was reviewed by the US Patent office and I was required to defend it against 5 others. It took 9 calendar months from the start of application until granting of patent. There are reasons why IBM leads the world in patents, BUT, they still have to pass muster regardless. What makes you think, nitwit, that programming 10,000 lines of COBOL (, which, BTW is freaking wordy beyond belief) is more mind bending than Rexx? If you would've coded 10,000 lines of PL/I, FORTRAN or (especially) APL, that would've contained a lot more logic than your "essay" with all of the attendant COBOL nonsense. Regards, David On 2021-08-22 13:35, Bill Johnson wrote: I seem to remember IBM listers poo pooing patents when I pointed out IBM leads the world in patents every year. Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. Patent or not. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:15 AM, David Spiegel wrote: Hi Bill, "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. ..." Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. Please see: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.justia.com%2Fpatent%2F8261255data=04%7C01%7C%7C1abf00ca323340b3569208d965a9d1fd%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637652602401866279%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=l2QtKunARAvX7Dl9cpFUMOCFzkIeMwHUT5aOMULOdEk%3Dreserved=0 Regards, David On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense.
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I have coded PL/I but thanks. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 4:17 PM, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Dude, you can’t even figure out I’m on YOUR side. When I posted a few months back regarding IBM patents, a whole bunch of listers bashed me and claimed most of IBMs patents were worthless. I’m impressed that you have patented code. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 4:13 PM, David Spiegel wrote: Hi Bill, Are you just a troll, or, are you really that impolite/ignorant? My Rexx patented program was reviewed by the US Patent office and I was required to defend it against 5 others. It took 9 calendar months from the start of application until granting of patent. There are reasons why IBM leads the world in patents, BUT, they still have to pass muster regardless. What makes you think, nitwit, that programming 10,000 lines of COBOL (, which, BTW is freaking wordy beyond belief) is more mind bending than Rexx? If you would've coded 10,000 lines of PL/I, FORTRAN or (especially) APL, that would've contained a lot more logic than your "essay" with all of the attendant COBOL nonsense. Regards, David On 2021-08-22 13:35, Bill Johnson wrote: > I seem to remember IBM listers poo pooing patents when I pointed out IBM > leads the world in patents every year. Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST > “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is > an absolute joke. Patent or not. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:15 AM, David Spiegel > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is > hardly programming. ..." > > Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. > They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. > > Please see: > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.justia.com%2Fpatent%2F8261255=04%7C01%7C%7C720b818ce6b9430e5c7008d965933d0c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637652505464744139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=bowhK51%2BmmUxapgDhaxZidVvOXm1Yd%2BgdogPPas%2FfSA%3D=0 > > Regards, > David > > On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: >> “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly >> programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, >> with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in >> COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of >> COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a >> hierarchical database like IMS. >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> >> On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges >> wrote: >> >> This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program >> that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm >> not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or >> thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they >> vary in error-prone-ness. >> >> I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time >> in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when >> anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and >> VBA. >> >> In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of >> boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common >> functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say >> "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. >> >> --- >> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 >> >> /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in >> human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing >> trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of >> mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness >> is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ >> >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of >> Tom Brennan >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 >> >> one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application >> experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they >> would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course >> was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. >> >> I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a >> break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such >> desk-checking made far more sense. >> >> -- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
+1 On 2021-08-22 15:05, Eric D Rossman wrote: Bill, no need to get defensive. I have written z/OS and Linux (multiple platform) internals and also user-facing code. Guess which one is harder? Rhetorical question. Both are really hard to do well. z/OS internals are notoriously under-commented and under-understood (I wanted to make up a word). Users are notoriously bad at doing "normal" things. They often do really unexpected things. Anyone can write complex code. However, writing complex code that WORKS even when the user or application calling you is not also you (or written by you) is really hard. Whether it's a massive behemoth (like z/OS) or a short 40-line REXX program, one should be able to appreciate quality code. Claiming that writing in REXX isn't really programming is just rude and you should go think about what you have done, in my opinion. Eric Rossman, CISSP® ICSF Cryptographic Security Development z/OS Enabling Technologies edros...@us.ibm.com From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. What is more complex? The developers who wrote zOS or the installation? The programs I wrote over my programming days were much more complex than anything I’ve written in my SP days. And I’ve written REXX & CLIST. Not all that hard. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Dude, you can’t even figure out I’m on YOUR side. When I posted a few months back regarding IBM patents, a whole bunch of listers bashed me and claimed most of IBMs patents were worthless. I’m impressed that you have patented code. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 4:13 PM, David Spiegel wrote: Hi Bill, Are you just a troll, or, are you really that impolite/ignorant? My Rexx patented program was reviewed by the US Patent office and I was required to defend it against 5 others. It took 9 calendar months from the start of application until granting of patent. There are reasons why IBM leads the world in patents, BUT, they still have to pass muster regardless. What makes you think, nitwit, that programming 10,000 lines of COBOL (, which, BTW is freaking wordy beyond belief) is more mind bending than Rexx? If you would've coded 10,000 lines of PL/I, FORTRAN or (especially) APL, that would've contained a lot more logic than your "essay" with all of the attendant COBOL nonsense. Regards, David On 2021-08-22 13:35, Bill Johnson wrote: > I seem to remember IBM listers poo pooing patents when I pointed out IBM > leads the world in patents every year. Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST > “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is > an absolute joke. Patent or not. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:15 AM, David Spiegel > wrote: > > Hi Bill, > "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is > hardly programming. ..." > > Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. > They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. > > Please see: > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.justia.com%2Fpatent%2F8261255=04%7C01%7C%7C720b818ce6b9430e5c7008d965933d0c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637652505464744139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=bowhK51%2BmmUxapgDhaxZidVvOXm1Yd%2BgdogPPas%2FfSA%3D=0 > > Regards, > David > > On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: >> “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly >> programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, >> with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in >> COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of >> COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a >> hierarchical database like IMS. >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> >> On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges >> wrote: >> >> This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program >> that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm >> not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or >> thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they >> vary in error-prone-ness. >> >> I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time >> in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when >> anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and >> VBA. >> >> In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of >> boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common >> functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say >> "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. >> >> --- >> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 >> >> /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in >> human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing >> trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of >> mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness >> is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ >> >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of >> Tom Brennan >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 >> >> one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application >> experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they >> would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course >> was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. >> >> I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a >> break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such >> desk-checking made far more sense. >> >> -- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> >> >> >> -- >> For
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Hi Bill, Are you just a troll, or, are you really that impolite/ignorant? My Rexx patented program was reviewed by the US Patent office and I was required to defend it against 5 others. It took 9 calendar months from the start of application until granting of patent. There are reasons why IBM leads the world in patents, BUT, they still have to pass muster regardless. What makes you think, nitwit, that programming 10,000 lines of COBOL (, which, BTW is freaking wordy beyond belief) is more mind bending than Rexx? If you would've coded 10,000 lines of PL/I, FORTRAN or (especially) APL, that would've contained a lot more logic than your "essay" with all of the attendant COBOL nonsense. Regards, David On 2021-08-22 13:35, Bill Johnson wrote: I seem to remember IBM listers poo pooing patents when I pointed out IBM leads the world in patents every year. Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. Patent or not. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:15 AM, David Spiegel wrote: Hi Bill, "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. ..." Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. Please see: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.justia.com%2Fpatent%2F8261255data=04%7C01%7C%7C720b818ce6b9430e5c7008d965933d0c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637652505464744139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=bowhK51%2BmmUxapgDhaxZidVvOXm1Yd%2BgdogPPas%2FfSA%3Dreserved=0 Regards, David On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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 . -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Been there, done that. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 3:05 PM, Eric D Rossman wrote: Bill, no need to get defensive. I have written z/OS and Linux (multiple platform) internals and also user-facing code. Guess which one is harder? Rhetorical question. Both are really hard to do well. z/OS internals are notoriously under-commented and under-understood (I wanted to make up a word). Users are notoriously bad at doing "normal" things. They often do really unexpected things. Anyone can write complex code. However, writing complex code that WORKS even when the user or application calling you is not also you (or written by you) is really hard. Whether it's a massive behemoth (like z/OS) or a short 40-line REXX program, one should be able to appreciate quality code. Claiming that writing in REXX isn't really programming is just rude and you should go think about what you have done, in my opinion. Eric Rossman, CISSP® ICSF Cryptographic Security Development z/OS Enabling Technologies edros...@us.ibm.com > From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> > > No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. > What is more complex? The developers who wrote zOS or the > installation? The programs I wrote over my programming days were > much more complex than anything I’ve written in my SP days. And I’ve > written REXX & CLIST. Not all that hard. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Again correct. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 3:31 PM, Eric D Rossman wrote: Anyone who is writing something brand new and NOT referring to other working models (similar code chunks) is wasting their time. No one can keep everything in mind at once, especially once you start talking about truly complex beasts. NB: I'm assuming your question is not necessarily limited to standalone programs that are 100% of the function but should also include modules that can be plugged in (such as shared objects/DLLs and Linux kernel modules). For all of this, I'm only talking about fairly unique code, not small tweaks to existing code or rebuilding several chunks together to make a larger program. I've written a few dozen programs that are >1000 lines. I've never had one work perfectly the first time. With code of that size, the odds of having it work completely correctly the first time are astronomically small. I've probably written hundreds of new small (<50 LOC) programs. I would estimate 5% work correctly the first time (the benefit of experience with very similar programs). For the middle sized programs (on the order of 100s of lines), I would say that I've had maybe one or two out of hundreds that worked the first time. So, on the average, excluding code that is really just simple modifications of existing code, I would say 2-5% work correctly the first time, depending on how similar to something I have written before they are. Eric Rossman, CISSP® ICSF Cryptographic Security Development z/OS Enabling Technologies edros...@us.ibm.com "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" wrote on 08/21/2021 09:30:58 PM: > From: "Bob Bridges" > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 08/21/2021 09:31 PM > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Programs that work right the first time. > Sent by: "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" > > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a > program that works right the first time, with no compile or > execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or > even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the > language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Exactly right. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 4:04 PM, Gerhard Adam wrote: It simply seems that most of the comments demonstrate that most posters have no idea what they are doing. (1) Programs are not complex, problems are. If the program is complex and the problem is not, then you don't know what you are doing. (2) Programming is not intended to show how smart or clever an individual is. It should be written to provide the most straightforward solution to others that may need to support it in the future. (3) Most problems are not solved by singular programs, but may involve having multiple modules. If the claim is that this is written in one attempt, without errors, then it is either a lie or dumb luck. (4) If the claim is that programs are written without errors, then the claim is that the programs do not need to be tested. This is clearly a lie. The individual is basing their code on luck and not skill. The question is not whether there were any errors, but whether the author INTRENDED for this code to be error free or whether it was a matter of luck It seems that many of the comments are either taking credit for being lucky or they don't know what they are doing. Often the nation of an error is also discussed in an amateurish fashion. Are we talking about syntax mistakes? Any claim that these don't occur are simply fantasy. Are we talking about logic errors? As mentioned, what does "working right" even mean? It seems that this is a nonsensical discussion. Adam P.S. what kind of foolishness suggests that z/OS is the product of a weekend? Decades of coding, analysis, feedback, and error correction went into it. And yet someone posts this as being concocted by a set of developers are if this were simply discussed over the scribblings on a bar napkin. There is only ONE language and that is the machine language used by the hardware to process directions. Everything else is merely a human translation of that so stop pretending as if this were some great human skill. It is merely a vocation that changes with the next compiler that is made available. One can easily see that after decades of computing, we still don't know how to produce a secure system. We still can't produce code that doesn't crash and we still can't even ensure that we release memory that was acquired by programs. Instead of people being so clever, they might concentrate on producing code that is reliable and actually works in all environments. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bob Bridges Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Bill, I don't understand what could have pushed your buttons. For instance: BJ> Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. But the only one making that comparison is you. (Maybe that's why you were the only one laughing :). ) Maybe this is the key: BJ> No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. A few of us (including me) posted "I once wrote a 30-line program that worked right the first time", and what you heard is "am I not amazing, wonderful, brilliant? Do you not all admire me?" Is that what happened? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* When it comes to cooking, five years ago I felt guilty "just adding water." Now I want to bang the tube against the countertop and have a five-course meal pop out. If it comes with plastic silverware and a plate that self-destructs, all the better. -Erma Bombeck */ --- On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of > COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a > hierarchical database like IMS. > > --- On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start o
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Bob wrote “ A few of us (including me) posted "I once wrote a 30-line program that worked right the first time", and what you heard is "am I not amazing, wonderful, brilliant? Do you not all admire me?" Is that what happened?” I hear the second part every day on the IBMlist. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 3:40 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: Bill, I don't understand what could have pushed your buttons. For instance: BJ> Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. But the only one making that comparison is you. (Maybe that's why you were the only one laughing :). ) Maybe this is the key: BJ> No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. A few of us (including me) posted "I once wrote a 30-line program that worked right the first time", and what you heard is "am I not amazing, wonderful, brilliant? Do you not all admire me?" Is that what happened? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* When it comes to cooking, five years ago I felt guilty "just adding water." Now I want to bang the tube against the countertop and have a five-course meal pop out. If it comes with plastic silverware and a plate that self-destructs, all the better. -Erma Bombeck */ --- On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of > COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a > hierarchical database like IMS. > > --- On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application > experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they > would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course > was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a > break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such > desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
It simply seems that most of the comments demonstrate that most posters have no idea what they are doing. (1) Programs are not complex, problems are. If the program is complex and the problem is not, then you don't know what you are doing. (2) Programming is not intended to show how smart or clever an individual is. It should be written to provide the most straightforward solution to others that may need to support it in the future. (3) Most problems are not solved by singular programs, but may involve having multiple modules. If the claim is that this is written in one attempt, without errors, then it is either a lie or dumb luck. (4) If the claim is that programs are written without errors, then the claim is that the programs do not need to be tested. This is clearly a lie. The individual is basing their code on luck and not skill. The question is not whether there were any errors, but whether the author INTRENDED for this code to be error free or whether it was a matter of luck It seems that many of the comments are either taking credit for being lucky or they don't know what they are doing. Often the nation of an error is also discussed in an amateurish fashion. Are we talking about syntax mistakes? Any claim that these don't occur are simply fantasy. Are we talking about logic errors? As mentioned, what does "working right" even mean? It seems that this is a nonsensical discussion. Adam P.S. what kind of foolishness suggests that z/OS is the product of a weekend? Decades of coding, analysis, feedback, and error correction went into it. And yet someone posts this as being concocted by a set of developers are if this were simply discussed over the scribblings on a bar napkin. There is only ONE language and that is the machine language used by the hardware to process directions. Everything else is merely a human translation of that so stop pretending as if this were some great human skill. It is merely a vocation that changes with the next compiler that is made available. One can easily see that after decades of computing, we still don't know how to produce a secure system. We still can't produce code that doesn't crash and we still can't even ensure that we release memory that was acquired by programs. Instead of people being so clever, they might concentrate on producing code that is reliable and actually works in all environments. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bob Bridges Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. Bill, I don't understand what could have pushed your buttons. For instance: BJ> Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. But the only one making that comparison is you. (Maybe that's why you were the only one laughing :). ) Maybe this is the key: BJ> No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. A few of us (including me) posted "I once wrote a 30-line program that worked right the first time", and what you heard is "am I not amazing, wonderful, brilliant? Do you not all admire me?" Is that what happened? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* When it comes to cooking, five years ago I felt guilty "just adding water." Now I want to bang the tube against the countertop and have a five-course meal pop out. If it comes with plastic silverware and a plate that self-destructs, all the better. -Erma Bombeck */ --- On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of > COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a > hierarchical database like IMS. > > --- On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Worked right means what? Syntactically? Or performed exactly as you expected on input you controlled or knew what was in it? I’ve spent 40 years in ALL aspects of IT. I was an Ops manager once and used to get resumes from people who claimed to be Mainframe Computer Operators. Most didn’t know what JCL was. I wrote many programs that worked 1st try using EASYTRIEVE, SAS, REXX, CLIST, DF & SYNC SORT. Decades ago wrote some Assembler (simple) that worked 1st try. Wrote a boatload of PL/I in college. Fortran, COBOL, at employers, far more complex, that rarely worked 1st try. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 3:40 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: Bill, I don't understand what could have pushed your buttons. For instance: BJ> Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. But the only one making that comparison is you. (Maybe that's why you were the only one laughing :). ) Maybe this is the key: BJ> No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. A few of us (including me) posted "I once wrote a 30-line program that worked right the first time", and what you heard is "am I not amazing, wonderful, brilliant? Do you not all admire me?" Is that what happened? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* When it comes to cooking, five years ago I felt guilty "just adding water." Now I want to bang the tube against the countertop and have a five-course meal pop out. If it comes with plastic silverware and a plate that self-destructs, all the better. -Erma Bombeck */ --- On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of > COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a > hierarchical database like IMS. > > --- On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application > experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they > would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course > was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a > break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such > desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Bill, I don't understand what could have pushed your buttons. For instance: BJ> Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. But the only one making that comparison is you. (Maybe that's why you were the only one laughing :). ) Maybe this is the key: BJ> No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. A few of us (including me) posted "I once wrote a 30-line program that worked right the first time", and what you heard is "am I not amazing, wonderful, brilliant? Do you not all admire me?" Is that what happened? --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* When it comes to cooking, five years ago I felt guilty "just adding water." Now I want to bang the tube against the countertop and have a five-course meal pop out. If it comes with plastic silverware and a plate that self-destructs, all the better. -Erma Bombeck */ --- On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of > COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a > hierarchical database like IMS. > > --- On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application > experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they > would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course > was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a > break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such > desk-checking made far more sense. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Anyone who is writing something brand new and NOT referring to other working models (similar code chunks) is wasting their time. No one can keep everything in mind at once, especially once you start talking about truly complex beasts. NB: I'm assuming your question is not necessarily limited to standalone programs that are 100% of the function but should also include modules that can be plugged in (such as shared objects/DLLs and Linux kernel modules). For all of this, I'm only talking about fairly unique code, not small tweaks to existing code or rebuilding several chunks together to make a larger program. I've written a few dozen programs that are >1000 lines. I've never had one work perfectly the first time. With code of that size, the odds of having it work completely correctly the first time are astronomically small. I've probably written hundreds of new small (<50 LOC) programs. I would estimate 5% work correctly the first time (the benefit of experience with very similar programs). For the middle sized programs (on the order of 100s of lines), I would say that I've had maybe one or two out of hundreds that worked the first time. So, on the average, excluding code that is really just simple modifications of existing code, I would say 2-5% work correctly the first time, depending on how similar to something I have written before they are. Eric Rossman, CISSP® ICSF Cryptographic Security Development z/OS Enabling Technologies edros...@us.ibm.com "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" wrote on 08/21/2021 09:30:58 PM: > From: "Bob Bridges" > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 08/21/2021 09:31 PM > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Programs that work right the first time. > Sent by: "IBM Mainframe Discussion List" > > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a > program that works right the first time, with no compile or > execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or > even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the > language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Bill, no need to get defensive. I have written z/OS and Linux (multiple platform) internals and also user-facing code. Guess which one is harder? Rhetorical question. Both are really hard to do well. z/OS internals are notoriously under-commented and under-understood (I wanted to make up a word). Users are notoriously bad at doing "normal" things. They often do really unexpected things. Anyone can write complex code. However, writing complex code that WORKS even when the user or application calling you is not also you (or written by you) is really hard. Whether it's a massive behemoth (like z/OS) or a short 40-line REXX program, one should be able to appreciate quality code. Claiming that writing in REXX isn't really programming is just rude and you should go think about what you have done, in my opinion. Eric Rossman, CISSP® ICSF Cryptographic Security Development z/OS Enabling Technologies edros...@us.ibm.com > From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> > > No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. > What is more complex? The developers who wrote zOS or the > installation? The programs I wrote over my programming days were > much more complex than anything I’ve written in my SP days. And I’ve > written REXX & CLIST. Not all that hard. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I like to tell my younger colleagues that I am disappointed when my code works correctly the first time. No bugs to hunt down? Where’s the fun in that? On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 14:49 Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked to > prove it can’t. I get out of bed on the same side every day. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 2:21 PM, Jeremy Nicoll < > jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 18:43, Bill Johnson wrote: > > Anyone who writes a compiler or assembler is quite complex. And very > > likely thousands of lines of code that took years to develop. > > More than just a few thousand, I'd expect, unless it's very-table-driven. > > > > More in line with the COBOL programs I was referencing. Not some 40 > > line REXX program that took a day or two. > > You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 40-line REXX programs. > Why? What makes you think that REXX programs can't also be much > much longer? > > > In College, I wrote an ATM machine. It > > took the entire semester and was my class project. Way more complex > > than a 40 line REXX/CLIST > > There you go again. Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? > > > or the APL mirage you mention. Show me the 1 > > line complex APL program. Remembering, I’m a math major. > > I haven't programmed in APL since the early 1980s, so I cannot produce > an example of my own. But you could look at the "Game of Life" and > "HTML tags removal" code examples at > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) > > to get an idea of how unreadable APL can be. > > Note that it has a right to left execution order, and a huge range of > operators which almost all do different things depending on whether > they are used in a monadic or dyadic way - like the difference between > the way "-" in arithmetic is either used for negation or subtraction. > People who like deliberately writing impenetrable APL expressions > tend to write heavily nested expressions. Of course such things are > unmaintainable - it's a bit like the impossibility of understanding a > complex regular expression at a glance. > > It's definitely a programming language where people learn idiomatic > ways of achieving something then don't look again at the nitty-gritty of > what a series of operators actually do. If someone strings a sequence > of idioms together in one statement it's hard to see where each one > starts and ends. And if someone subtlely changes something inside > what looks like an idiom (but isn't) it'd be hard to spot that too. > > Although APL is good at handling multi-dimensional matrices of numbers > it can be used for non-mathematical things too; eg I wrote a simple full- > screen text editor, in APL, for editing APL functions. At the time the > supported (built-in) way of editing APL functions was much more like > line-mode editing of BASIC code. > > -- > Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. > > -- > 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 > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
You claim to know of a 1 line APL super complex program but when asked to prove it can’t. I get out of bed on the same side every day. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 2:21 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 18:43, Bill Johnson wrote: > Anyone who writes a compiler or assembler is quite complex. And very > likely thousands of lines of code that took years to develop. More than just a few thousand, I'd expect, unless it's very-table-driven. > More in line with the COBOL programs I was referencing. Not some 40 > line REXX program that took a day or two. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 40-line REXX programs. Why? What makes you think that REXX programs can't also be much much longer? > In College, I wrote an ATM machine. It > took the entire semester and was my class project. Way more complex > than a 40 line REXX/CLIST There you go again. Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? > or the APL mirage you mention. Show me the 1 > line complex APL program. Remembering, I’m a math major. I haven't programmed in APL since the early 1980s, so I cannot produce an example of my own. But you could look at the "Game of Life" and "HTML tags removal" code examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) to get an idea of how unreadable APL can be. Note that it has a right to left execution order, and a huge range of operators which almost all do different things depending on whether they are used in a monadic or dyadic way - like the difference between the way "-" in arithmetic is either used for negation or subtraction. People who like deliberately writing impenetrable APL expressions tend to write heavily nested expressions. Of course such things are unmaintainable - it's a bit like the impossibility of understanding a complex regular expression at a glance. It's definitely a programming language where people learn idiomatic ways of achieving something then don't look again at the nitty-gritty of what a series of operators actually do. If someone strings a sequence of idioms together in one statement it's hard to see where each one starts and ends. And if someone subtlely changes something inside what looks like an idiom (but isn't) it'd be hard to spot that too. Although APL is good at handling multi-dimensional matrices of numbers it can be used for non-mathematical things too; eg I wrote a simple full- screen text editor, in APL, for editing APL functions. At the time the supported (built-in) way of editing APL functions was much more like line-mode editing of BASIC code. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
No bee in my bonnet. Just don’t like braggarts. What is more complex? The developers who wrote zOS or the installation? The programs I wrote over my programming days were much more complex than anything I’ve written in my SP days. And I’ve written REXX & CLIST. Not all that hard. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 2:21 PM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 18:43, Bill Johnson wrote: > Anyone who writes a compiler or assembler is quite complex. And very > likely thousands of lines of code that took years to develop. More than just a few thousand, I'd expect, unless it's very-table-driven. > More in line with the COBOL programs I was referencing. Not some 40 > line REXX program that took a day or two. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 40-line REXX programs. Why? What makes you think that REXX programs can't also be much much longer? > In College, I wrote an ATM machine. It > took the entire semester and was my class project. Way more complex > than a 40 line REXX/CLIST There you go again. Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? > or the APL mirage you mention. Show me the 1 > line complex APL program. Remembering, I’m a math major. I haven't programmed in APL since the early 1980s, so I cannot produce an example of my own. But you could look at the "Game of Life" and "HTML tags removal" code examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) to get an idea of how unreadable APL can be. Note that it has a right to left execution order, and a huge range of operators which almost all do different things depending on whether they are used in a monadic or dyadic way - like the difference between the way "-" in arithmetic is either used for negation or subtraction. People who like deliberately writing impenetrable APL expressions tend to write heavily nested expressions. Of course such things are unmaintainable - it's a bit like the impossibility of understanding a complex regular expression at a glance. It's definitely a programming language where people learn idiomatic ways of achieving something then don't look again at the nitty-gritty of what a series of operators actually do. If someone strings a sequence of idioms together in one statement it's hard to see where each one starts and ends. And if someone subtlely changes something inside what looks like an idiom (but isn't) it'd be hard to spot that too. Although APL is good at handling multi-dimensional matrices of numbers it can be used for non-mathematical things too; eg I wrote a simple full- screen text editor, in APL, for editing APL functions. At the time the supported (built-in) way of editing APL functions was much more like line-mode editing of BASIC code. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 18:43, Bill Johnson wrote: > Anyone who writes a compiler or assembler is quite complex. And very > likely thousands of lines of code that took years to develop. More than just a few thousand, I'd expect, unless it's very-table-driven. > More in line with the COBOL programs I was referencing. Not some 40 > line REXX program that took a day or two. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 40-line REXX programs. Why? What makes you think that REXX programs can't also be much much longer? > In College, I wrote an ATM machine. It > took the entire semester and was my class project. Way more complex > than a 40 line REXX/CLIST There you go again. Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? > or the APL mirage you mention. Show me the 1 > line complex APL program. Remembering, I’m a math major. I haven't programmed in APL since the early 1980s, so I cannot produce an example of my own. But you could look at the "Game of Life" and "HTML tags removal" code examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) to get an idea of how unreadable APL can be. Note that it has a right to left execution order, and a huge range of operators which almost all do different things depending on whether they are used in a monadic or dyadic way - like the difference between the way "-" in arithmetic is either used for negation or subtraction. People who like deliberately writing impenetrable APL expressions tend to write heavily nested expressions. Of course such things are unmaintainable - it's a bit like the impossibility of understanding a complex regular expression at a glance. It's definitely a programming language where people learn idiomatic ways of achieving something then don't look again at the nitty-gritty of what a series of operators actually do. If someone strings a sequence of idioms together in one statement it's hard to see where each one starts and ends. And if someone subtlely changes something inside what looks like an idiom (but isn't) it'd be hard to spot that too. Although APL is good at handling multi-dimensional matrices of numbers it can be used for non-mathematical things too; eg I wrote a simple full- screen text editor, in APL, for editing APL functions. At the time the supported (built-in) way of editing APL functions was much more like line-mode editing of BASIC code. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I could write a million line program that does nothing. Not what my references were, so a straw man argument. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:09 AM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 02:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of > COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. So... if someone writes a compiler or assembler, or a whole OS - none of which contain IMS, DB2, or CICS calls - it's not "real programming"? The length of a program is no indication of its complexity. A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line. It's near guaranteed that it won't be comprehensible (APL is commonly regarded as a "write once, read (ie understand later) never" language. A COBOL program that makes calls out to IMS, DB2, CICS etc is quite a lot like a REXX exec that makes calls out to external services. The meat of the task is not being done by either COBOL or REXX which in both cases are the glue that holds the other stuff together. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Anyone who writes a compiler or assembler is quite complex. And very likely thousands of lines of code that took years to develop. More in line with the COBOL programs I was referencing. Not some 40 line REXX program that took a day or two. In College, I wrote an ATM machine. It took the entire semester and was my class project. Way more complex than a 40 line REXX/CLIST or the APL mirage you mention. Show me the 1 line complex APL program. Remembering, I’m a math major. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:09 AM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 02:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of > COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. So... if someone writes a compiler or assembler, or a whole OS - none of which contain IMS, DB2, or CICS calls - it's not "real programming"? The length of a program is no indication of its complexity. A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line. It's near guaranteed that it won't be comprehensible (APL is commonly regarded as a "write once, read (ie understand later) never" language. A COBOL program that makes calls out to IMS, DB2, CICS etc is quite a lot like a REXX exec that makes calls out to external services. The meat of the task is not being done by either COBOL or REXX which in both cases are the glue that holds the other stuff together. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
I seem to remember IBM listers poo pooing patents when I pointed out IBM leads the world in patents every year. Comparing a 40 line REXX/CLIST “program” to a 10,000 line IMS/COBOL program that scans a parts database is an absolute joke. Patent or not. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, August 22, 2021, 6:15 AM, David Spiegel wrote: Hi Bill, "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. ..." Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. Please see: https://patents.justia.com/patent/8261255 Regards, David On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, > with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in > COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of > COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a > hierarchical database like IMS. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in > human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing > trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of > mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is > an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application > experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they > would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course > was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a > break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such > desk-checking made far more sense. > > -- > 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 > . -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Interesting! Sounds like if it happened to any of us, it only happened once. Mine was a program where I copied the basics (CSECT, etc.) and then wrote about 30 new lines and was blown away when it not only assembled but ran as planned. It was something ad-hoc probably for a one-time run, but hey... I did it. And the only time I ever tried to land a plane I shut down the engine downleg and somehow chose the turns so we were at the right speed and altitude to hit the end of the runway with no additional power needed. Couldn't have been any better, except we were about 50 feet to the right of the runway because of a small cross wind. What are those pedals near my feet for? :) On 8/22/2021 4:55 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: Once only since 1980. And this was back about 1985 when we wrote out our programs on paper sheets and the key-punch group put them on diskette. (Once in the system, we did have a basic editor to fix things.) It was not a 'small' program, but also not a 'large' program. It was in Cobol. Of course, 'size' was based on my then current thought processes. What is 'small' now would have been considered bigger then. It compiled and ran correctly the very first time. I have always wondered if any variable names or other typos were 'corrected' by the person in the key-punch group. Now days, my development methods are much different. More 'code and test base program flow' then 'code and test additions'. And, if the test run takes some time, I actually code more lines while each test is running. I also write mostly 98% assembler where a L vs LA will get me every time. So, I don't expect it to ever happen again. It's kind of like that perfect 25k gusty cross-wind landing, but nobody else was in the plane with you to see it. If nobody else sees it, did it really happen? :-) Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on 8/21/21 9:30 PM: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Mine was much more trivial. It was back in college. I was getting my degree in Accounting; I thought programming sounded boring, but I should know something about it so I signed up for one class. Rather than talk about theory, our teacher set us to work writing simple programs in PL/C the very first day. I was immediately hooked. A few weeks in he gave us an assignment but, for the first time, wouldn't let us see the input data ahead of time; instead he handed us some JCL cards to include in our decks. That day when I got to the computer center, many of my class were there in a bit of a panic, trying to figure out how to look at the data before writing their programs. That hadn't occurred to me, but I reflected a bit and thought it shouldn't be too hard. I punched up some cards to GET and PUT the input file 80 bytes at a time. When the printout came back, I stared at it in confusion; I knew about where to look for the inevitable compile errors, but something was different about the layout this time. I was still puzzling when my buddy said "You turkey!" in my ear. The program, of course, was trivial in hindsight. But we'd all been programming only two or three weeks; and, as I said, it's the only time it happened when anyone was watching, so I still remember it fondly, and pretend it counts among my triumphs even though it didn't approach the 30 lines I specified below. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -Mark Twain */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 07:56 Once only since 1980. And this was back about 1985 when we wrote out our programs on paper sheets and the key-punch group put them on diskette. (Once in the system, we did have a basic editor to fix things.) It was not a 'small' program, but also not a 'large' program. It was in Cobol. Of course, 'size' was based on my then current thought processes. What is 'small' now would have been considered bigger then. It compiled and ran correctly the very first time. I have always wondered if any variable names or other typos were 'corrected' by the person in the key-punch group. Now days, my development methods are much different. More 'code and test base program flow' then 'code and test additions'. And, if the test run takes some time, I actually code more lines while each test is running. I also write mostly 98% assembler where a L vs LA will get me every time. So, I don't expect it to ever happen again. It's kind of like that perfect 25k gusty cross-wind landing, but nobody else was in the plane with you to see it. If nobody else sees it, did it really happen? :-) --- Bob Bridges wrote on 8/21/21 9:30 PM: > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program > that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm > not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or > thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they > vary in error-prone-ness. > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time > in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when > anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and > VBA. > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of > boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of > Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application > experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they > would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course > was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a > break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such > desk-checking made far more sense. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Once only since 1980. And this was back about 1985 when we wrote out our programs on paper sheets and the key-punch group put them on diskette. (Once in the system, we did have a basic editor to fix things.) It was not a 'small' program, but also not a 'large' program. It was in Cobol. Of course, 'size' was based on my then current thought processes. What is 'small' now would have been considered bigger then. It compiled and ran correctly the very first time. I have always wondered if any variable names or other typos were 'corrected' by the person in the key-punch group. Now days, my development methods are much different. More 'code and test base program flow' then 'code and test additions'. And, if the test run takes some time, I actually code more lines while each test is running. I also write mostly 98% assembler where a L vs LA will get me every time. So, I don't expect it to ever happen again. It's kind of like that perfect 25k gusty cross-wind landing, but nobody else was in the plane with you to see it. If nobody else sees it, did it really happen? :-) Tony Thigpen Bob Bridges wrote on 8/21/21 9:30 PM: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Hi Bill, "... "Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. ..." Maybe you should tell that to the US Patent Office in Washington, DC. They can then invalidate my patent retroactively. Please see: https://patents.justia.com/patent/8261255 Regards, David On 2021-08-21 21:51, Bill Johnson wrote: “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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 . -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 02:51, Bill Johnson wrote: > “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly > programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of > COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. So... if someone writes a compiler or assembler, or a whole OS - none of which contain IMS, DB2, or CICS calls - it's not "real programming"? The length of a program is no indication of its complexity. A good case in point is that in APL a useful program can be written in one line. It's near guaranteed that it won't be comprehensible (APL is commonly regarded as a "write once, read (ie understand later) never" language. A COBOL program that makes calls out to IMS, DB2, CICS etc is quite a lot like a REXX exec that makes calls out to external services. The meat of the task is not being done by either COBOL or REXX which in both cases are the glue that holds the other stuff together. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
While that may have been much more important in the days of cards and 24 hour turnaround, nowadays it is a waste of human time to deck check the program over and over again when the computer can do it faster and more effectively. On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 21:30:58 -0400 Bob Bridges wrote: :>This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. :> :>I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. :> :>In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. :> :>--- :>Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 :> :>/* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ :> :>-Original Message- :>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan :>Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 :> :>one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. :> :>I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. :> :>-- :>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, :>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
+1 On 2021-08-22 02:52, Seymour J Metz wrote: What is an application with thousands of lines of REXX code, chopped liver? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C9d2a5f868ff64cb95a2f08d965396ff2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637652119715193033%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=0zuvACI9SS0%2Fn29ucv6gGZ8vKmWvSmel0b1L0g6K9ms%3Dreserved=0 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 9:51 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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 -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
What is an application with thousands of lines of REXX code, chopped liver? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 9:51 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Programs that work right the first time. “Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
*Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS.* *Do until RC = 'GB'* *GET NEXT* *End* On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:32 PM Tom Conley wrote: > On 8/21/2021 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: > > This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a > program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution > errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; > let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it > seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. > > > > I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one > time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life > when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in > REXX and VBA. > > > > In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines > of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common > functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say > "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in > human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in > bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew > nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. > Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. > -F.B.Meyer */ > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Tom Brennan > > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 > > > > one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her > application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs > were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This > of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. > > > > I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her > a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where > such desk-checking made far more sense. > > > > I once wrote an IDMS database exit in assembler that ran correctly the > first time, and never required modification in the years that followed. > It is indeed the rarest of birds. Never before nor since have I had > the pleasure of seeing a program run perfectly the first time and never > require modification. > > Regards, > Tom Conley > > -- > 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
Maybe you should have bought a lottery ticket that day? On 2021-08-21 22:32, Tom Conley wrote: On 8/21/2021 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. I once wrote an IDMS database exit in assembler that ran correctly the first time, and never required modification in the years that followed. It is indeed the rarest of birds. Never before nor since have I had the pleasure of seeing a program run perfectly the first time and never require modification. Regards, Tom Conley -- 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
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
On 8/21/2021 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. I once wrote an IDMS database exit in assembler that ran correctly the first time, and never required modification in the years that followed. It is indeed the rarest of birds. Never before nor since have I had the pleasure of seeing a program run perfectly the first time and never require modification. Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programs that work right the first time.
“Programming” in REXX, CLIST, and similar types of languages is hardly programming. Real programming is hundreds or thousands of lines of COBOL, with IMS, DB2, or CICS calls. I was pretty damn good too. Started off in COBOL/IMS 4 decades ago. Did a little bit of COBOL/CICS and quite a bit of COBOL/DB2 later. Try putting together the necessary code to drill down a hierarchical database like IMS. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 21, 2021, 9:31 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: This part of the thread got me thinking. How often do you write a program that works right the first time, with no compile or execution errors? I'm not talking about two-liners, of course, or even ten-liners; let's say 30 or thereabouts. Please specify the language, too, since it seems to me they vary in error-prone-ness. I've done it occasionally, but by "occasionally" I mean "less than one time in twenty"; maybe much less, I'm not sure, and only once in my life when anyone was watching. That was in PL/C; mostly nowadays I write in REXX and VBA. In fact my REXXes typically start out with at least ten or fifteen lines of boilerplate, and any VBA/Excel program likely relies on a raft of common functions and/or objects that are part of my regular library, so when I say "30 lines", some of those lines don't really count. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The schools of ancient morality had four cardinal virtues: justice in human relations, prudence in the directions of affairs, fortitude in bearing trouble or sorrow, temperance or self-restraint. But they knew nothing of mercy or forgiveness, which is not natural to the human heart. Forgiveness is an exotic, which Christ brought with Him from Heaven. -F.B.Meyer */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 13:41 one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. -- 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
