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

On 2018-02-08, at 20:39:07, Tony Thigpen wrote: > Let me see if I can sum up the conversation: > > There is this high and mighty language call C++ to which all other languages > must strive to emulate, and, > any other language that does not handle strings the exact same way as C (and >

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

Let me see if I can sum up the conversation: There is this high and mighty language call C++ to which all other languages must strive to emulate, and, any other language that does not handle strings the exact same way as C (and variants) are sub-standard. And, to prove the point, the fact

Re: Don't feed the trolls

> Charles Mills wrote:> I know, I have been as guilty as anyone.> You think > "let me just answer this one point." Don't feed the trolls. Never once did you, Dr. Martin Wade and others ever contemplate that HLASM OOP is possible. Even when the assembler guys tried to help, there still was any

Re: OOP in HLASM

Sent from my iPad > On Feb 8, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: > > My understanding of US Copyright law is a bit different that yours. But, I'm > not an attorney and I certainly haven't stayed at a H/I Express. > > If M/F in acquiring Borland also by that purchase

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

Sent from my iPad > 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 knowledge of strings, > > The only "special knowledge" of strings

Re: OOP in HLASM

My understanding of US Copyright law is a bit different that yours. But, I'm not an attorney and I certainly haven't stayed at a H/I Express. If M/F in acquiring Borland also by that purchase obtained the copyrights and other IP, then I seriously doubt that this is in the public domain.

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

From: "Paul Raulerson" Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 9:46 AM Because they don’t have any special knowledge of strings, The only "special knowledge" of strings that is required is that a string is composed of bytes. only untyped data. And the lengths of the data

Re: OOP in HLASM

Hi Steve - Borland, 1990, USA, and as far as I can tell, the copyright was not renewed after the product was abandoned. Copyright law in 1990 was still somewhat sane... I am not a copyright lawyer though, so caveat emptor! Typos courtesy of my iPhone and my fat fingers! > On Feb 8, 2018, at

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

The terminator is specified in R0. It could be anything - want to parse CSV data? ...chris. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Raulerson Sent: February-08-18 2:46 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Re: OOP in HLASM

I must challenge your statement about the copyright's expiration, or did the author put it in the public domain? In what country was it originally copyrighted? Has the author been dead more than 20 years? [and that death date may be different for the item to pass into the public domain as in

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

Because they don’t have any special knowledge of strings, only untyped data. And the lengths of the data they operate on is fixed and defined at compile time, not at run time. How about taking as a definition of a string any text that SuperC will search for? Or a text string in ISP?

Re: OOP in HLASM

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Paul Raulerson wrote: > > How about the? Object Oriented ASSEMBLER LANGUAGE - from 1990. (grin) Not > HLASM, but a fun read for language historians, amateur or otherwise! > > > The manual is out of copyright, and the entire book is

Re: Man or boy test

Am 08.02.2018 um 21:42 schrieb Paul Gilmartin: 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. Algol 68? But you'd need to explicitly declare the thunks that realize call by name. Even so, I don't know in

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

All the instructions mentioned below have their lengths determined at compile time. String instructions (and strings in the sense of this thread) are strings with lengths varying at run time. This can be done on the mainframe using EX or MVCL, CLCL etc ... but not with the instructions

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. > Algol 68? But you'd need to explicitly declare the thunks that realize call by name. Even so, I don't know in what scope it resolves local variables.

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

WTF? How are CLC, MVC, TR and TRT not string instructions? Or do you only consider it to be a string if it conforms to the abominable C use of 0 as a string delimiter? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

A traceback is not a trace. An ON unit can display *current* values of a variable, not past values. I have no idea what you mean by "A trace is trivial with PROCEDURENAME." or how it provides a complete history of the program's execution, much less an interface for viewing it selectively. --

Re: OOP in HLASM

I can get down and dirty with machine code, but my standard coding practice is to use lots of macros to automate repetitive tasks, sometimes with different code paths depending on the target processor. As to library overhead, I've certainly written code design to fir well in a PL/I environment

Re: Man or boy test

PL/I is an Algol 60 descendent and has nested function declarations and function references, but not call by name (which the code didn't exploit) or constant/function dualism. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM

Re: Man or boy test

Am 08.02.2018 um 18:21 schrieb Paul Gilmartin: On 2018-02-08, at 08:33:37, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: Am 08.02.2018 um 15:50 schrieb Martin Ward: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Man_or_boy_test I would like to thank you very much for posting this. I never heard about this test before, but I am very

Re: Man or boy test (was: Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

PL/I has procedure parameters but not call by name. Algol 60 has call by name but not call by reference. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of Paul

Re: OOP

On 2018-02-08, at 09:20:33, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Why not OOREXX on Linux? > Yah. But I concentrate on developing portable skills. -- gil

Re: Man or boy test (was: Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

On 2018-02-08, at 08:33:37, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: > Am 08.02.2018 um 15:50 schrieb Martin Ward: >> >> >> http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Man_or_boy_test >> > I would like to thank you very much for posting this. > I never heard about this test before, but I am very fascinated by it, > and I will

Re: OOP

Why not OOREXX on Linux? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <0014e0e4a59b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> Sent: Wednesday,

Re: OOP in HLASM

In one sense of implementing OOP in HLASM, it's trivial but onerous.  Take an OOP language that has an open source compiler available for z/OS.  Using the object code if necessary, reverse engineer the entire compiler into assembler language and rebuild the compiler.  So you now have an OOP

Re: Man or boy test (was: Fair comparison C vs HLASM)

Am 08.02.2018 um 15:50 schrieb Martin Ward: On 08/02/18 14:29, Jon Perryman wrote: knowing full well I wouldn't waste my time learning a language that is irrelevant to me. I'm not sure why you think I am asking you to learn a new language. If you are not sure what the Algol 60 code for the

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

WTF? Since when does Algol 60 store local variables on a heap. Note that the original wiki article does not mention the heap. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu]

Don't feed the trolls

I know, I have been as guilty as anyone. You think "let me just answer this one point." Don't feed the trolls. Charles

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

Dr. Martin Ward, could you at least show us the parts of HLASM OOP you can figure out? You've seen OOP languages, so you should know the basics. I would love to show how easy it is to use HLASM OOP. > Dr. Martin Ward wrote: > The man or boy test Kudo's for being disrespectful without being

Re: OOP in HLASM

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:29:04 +, Jon Perryman wrote: > Jon Perryman wrote: >>It's a simple question. Show us you know enough HLASM to do simple OOP (not >>OOD).  >> Tom Marchant wrote: >>> You asserted that you can do OOP in HLASM. > >> Paul said he didn't believe it, and asked you to

Re: OOP in HLASM

On 08/02/18 01:29, Jon Perryman wrote: Clearly Dr. Ward does not respect me as a C or HLASM programmer. Can he earn my respect by showing he understands HLASM basics? I don't think he knows HLASM as well as he wants us to believe. I can't find any messages where I disrespect Jon as a C or

Re: tail recursion and Quicksort

On 2018-02-07, at 16:01:14, Glen wrote: > Someone [Bernd] wrote: > > "yes, I Had to do the Same, when I implemented Quicksort in REXX, because >the OS/2 Implementation of REXX only supported some 32 nesting Levels." >[ < http://bernd-oppolzer.de/blog_20150115_151000.htm > ] > > The

Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM

On 07/02/18 23:51, Tony Thigpen wrote: Does GEN_MOVE, ZC_CONV, ZC_PACK31 (and other major macros) in zCOBOL demonstrate enough of the OOP standard that our OOP evangelist here will accept that OOP can be added to HLASM using macros such as those examples? zCOBOL does not include any of the new