Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:11 PM, Paul Raulerson wrote: MM- I think you misread a comment I left, which was a bit unclear, and have rather gone off on a bit of a tangent. When I said ‘unless the null terminates the string” in a previous comment, what I was saying was

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

None of the inst5ructions mentioned have their lengths determined at compile time. If I do an EX of a CLC, it remains a CLC. How does a string stop being a string if I remove the VARYING keyword? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

"Because they don’t have any special knowledge of strings, only untyped data." "special knowledge" is not relevant. The string operations in PL/I have no special knowledge of strings either; the compare, concatenate and copy regardless of the language of the text. Nor is the length fixed at

Re: Man or boy test

call by value: CALL P(A); P: PROC (X BYVALUE);  ... /* this is not ALGOL ... */ the actual parameter A (which may be an expression) is copied to the formal parameter X of the procedure P; X is much like a local variable of P. If P changes X, only the local variable X is changed. A remains

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

I already answered that question; I don't consider EBCDIC code pages to be intrinsically superior to most other 8-bit code pages. The reason that it's superior to ASCII is that ASCII is 8 bit. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

Re: Man or boy test

It really is call by name. In your case, the name is "RAND()" The name in question is an expression (well, a closure) rather than it's value or a location containing its value. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM

Re: Man or boy test

I found the article to be clear. Unfortunately, it is also wrong, and I've added a comment to the talk page. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

On 2018-02-09, at 15:05:19, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Pretty much any EBCDIC code page is superior to ASCII. As to what to call > 8-bit code pages, I'd suggest using the term" 8-bit code page" and reserving > the term "ASCII" for ASCII. Especially if you find yourself having to > transfer data

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

Pretty much any EBCDIC code page is superior to ASCII. As to what to call 8-bit code pages, I'd suggest using the term" 8-bit code page" and reserving the term "ASCII" for ASCII. Especially if you find yourself having to transfer data among machines using different code pages. I insist on

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

On 2018-02-09, at 13:32:29, Seymour J Metz wrote: > I would argue that EBCDIC is intrinsically superior to ASCII. I would also > argue that it is not intrinsically superior to, e.g., ISO-8859-15. > Let's not compare an apple to an orange grove. I know you insist on precision; that ASCII is a

Re: Man or boy test

I read this wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy and it is clear as mud. I think I have led a sheltered life. As an aside, I followed the OOP discussion. The session manager (TPX) I worked on had a kind of OOP. It had a stack for each thread, the htreads were

Re: Man or boy test

As I understand it, call-by-name means the following: Suppose for example if you coded a subroutine that expected some sort of parameter, and called it with a random number function, the random number function would (in most languages) get evaluated once before your subroutine was called, and

Re: Man or boy test

Can I ask a very timid question, what the heck is call by name.  Let's go back to COBOL FOR A MINUTE ISCALL 'FUNC1' USING ...an example of call by name Is77 FUNCNAME PIC X(8) VALUE 'FUNC2'. CALL FINCNAME USING ...an example for call by name Is none of them a call by name Let's go to Perl sub

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

"Question - why do you think IBM added string specific instructions if MVC is all one ever really needs?" The obvious reason is that K put the implementation of varying strings in the language specificatand IBM wanted to be able to compile efficient code from C programs. -- Shmuel (Seymour

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

I would argue that EBCDIC is intrinsically superior to ASCII. I would also argue that it is not intrinsically superior to, e.g., ISO-8859-15. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List

Re: Man or boy test

No lazy evaluation is not equivalent to call by name, or even similar. An example of using call by name would be a routine to use Simpson's Method for integration. The parameters would include the integration variable and the integrand, called by name. The value would in general be different

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

Paul Raulerson wrote on Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:43 AM > No, you just asked what if the string “contains” null characters. > The most correct answer to that is that the “string” is not then a string. How does the presence of a valid character, ASCII code Null

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

On 2018-02-09, at 07:17:05, Robin Vowels wrote: > From: "Paul Gilmartin" > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 2:54 PM > >> Too much sarcasm. It's analogous to the ASCII-EBCDIC confrontation. I >> prefer >> ASCII, but EBCDIC, with no intrinsic superiority, ... > > It was superior for 80-column

Re: Don't feed the trolls

OK, Jon. That's enough. I've been following along (well, reading... haven't programmed in Assembler for many years, and hardly program at all now that I'm retired, so the HLASM OOP discussion is way over my head). But I do recognize name-calling and general incivility when I see it, in

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

> On Feb 9, 2018, at 7:46 AM, Robin Vowels wrote: > > From: "Paul Raulerson" > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:03 PM > > >>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 7:31 PM, Robin Vowels wrote: >> >>> From: "Paul Raulerson"

Re: Man or boy test

On 2018-02-08, at 12:08:06, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: Pascal indeed does not have call by name, I doubt that any modern language has it. The modern descendant of call by name is lazy evaluation, which is particularly useful in functional languages. Usually, the delayed evaluation function (the

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

From: "Paul Gilmartin" <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 2:54 PM Too much sarcasm. It's analogous to the ASCII-EBCDIC confrontation. I prefer ASCII, but EBCDIC, with no intrinsic superiority, It was superior for 80-column punch card input and

Re: Strings (was : Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

From: "Paul Raulerson" Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:03 PM On Feb 8, 2018, at 7:31 PM, Robin Vowels wrote: From: "Paul Raulerson" Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 9:46 AM Because they don’t have any special

Re: OOP in HLASM

PL/X is good compared to C. It would take some getting used to because it does some strange things. The procedure caught me off guard because it can define a macro or actual code. A procedure in PL/X cannot define a macro. A procedure in PL/X is a code construct. Peter Relson z/OS Core