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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: OOP in HLASM

du/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu> on behalf of Tony Thigpen <t...@vse2pdf.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 10:48 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu Subject: Re: OOP in HLASM I think that Paul has forgotten that his favori

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: OOP

t: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 2:48 PM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu Subject: Re: OOP On 2018-02-07, at 09:12:35, bernd.oppol...@t-online.de 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 Leve

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: 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: OOP in HLASM

>> Jon Perryman wrote: >> Pick any non-trivial macro (e.g. not save or return) > Peter Relson wrote:> FWIW, there might be others, but one > such language is PL/X. Not that that > helps you any because PL/X is not available > in general.The functional language and its macro > language were

Re: OOP in HLASM

>> 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 demonstrate it. I'm waiting for Dr Ward to respond before I supply

Re: OOP

The following article describes my REXX implementation of Quicksort, it is in German, unfortunately. But it contains the whole source code, first the recursive solution, which didn't work, and then the non-recursive solution. In fact, the problem occured at 45 levels with OS/2 REXX.

Re: OOP

On 2018-02-07, at 09:12:35, bernd.oppol...@t-online.de 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. > I just tried Regina on Linux. A minimal program SIGSEGVed at over 29,000 levels.

AW: Re: OOP

.de/service/redir/email_app_android_sendmail_footer.htm> --- Original-Nachricht --- Von: Jeremy Nicoll Betreff: Re: OOP Datum: 07.02.2018, 16:49 Uhr An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, at 06:34, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: > Something important about these AVL trees wh

Re: OOP in HLASM

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 05:05:44 +, Jon Perryman wrote: >> Paul Raulerson wrote: >> Clearly, this is getting silly. > >It's never silly to learn something new. Let's learn HLASM OOP. > >It's a simple question. Show us you know enough HLASM to do simple OOP (not >OOD). Your statements (not

Re: OOP in HLASM

Yep, and that is the way I tend to code applications in HLASM or other assembler languages as well. That methodology doesn’t set well with everyone though, as it is “not efficient” or “wastes code” or “but why would I go to the trouble?” And of course, HLASM doesn’t enforce this practice, even

Re: OOP

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, at 06:34, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: > Something important about these AVL trees which would make > an ASSEMBLER implementation difficult (not impossible, of course) > is the recursive nature of the problem. The searching is done using > a recursive function which calls itself as

Re: OOP in HLASM

Paul wrote (snipped): Please consider, HLASM is a fantastic platform for writing Bottom Up Design programs. It is fun to hack away in the weeds and see a really cool result pop out. It's also a fantastic language for writing top down design programs. I've started many projects by writing

Re: OOP

I think of assembler as the preferred language for efficient recursive algorithms; as Gil points out, we already have standard macros to implement saving status as we chain deeper and restoring status as we climb back out. And we can avoid getmains at every level by acquiring memory for a

Re: OOP

On 2018-02-06, at 23:34:29, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: > Something important about these AVL trees which would make > an ASSEMBLER implementation difficult (not impossible, of course) > is the recursive nature of the problem. The searching is done using > a recursive function which calls itself as

Re: OOP

I do think you are trying to assume expertise you do not have here, though points for trying. I’ll just drop out of the conversation with you until you produce this HLASM object you say you have coded. That might make for interesting conversation indeed! Typos courtesy of my iPhone and my

Re: OOP

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > l...@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Perryman > Sent: 07 February 2018 09:50 > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: OOP > > > Someone wrote: > > > &qu

Re: OOP

> Someone wrote: > "OOP is, I think, quite a bit more than a calling > standard - it boils down to an abstracted thought process > that you simply cannot do in Assembler. We can simplify OOP. Some background information: OOP is a programming concept derived from our ability to classify. (e.g.

Re: OOP

Something important about these AVL trees which would make an ASSEMBLER implementation difficult (not impossible, of course) is the recursive nature of the problem. The searching is done using a recursive function which calls itself as often as the tree has levels. With ASSEMBLER, you would

Re: OOP

I have to admit that I have not much experience with OOP, I only wrote some C++ programs to do an introductory class for C programmers on C++ and OOP concepts. For me, a good OOP example would be, for example, templates. I coded something in C which I consider OO design, that's a AVL tree

Re: OOP in HLASM

Tony, this has nothing to do with machine instructions nor bits & bytes. Every programming language has specific techniques to solve problems in that language ( Python, PHP, C, assembler, HTML5, Cobol, ...). I'm talking about a technique most HLASM programmers would recognize (and probably

Re: OOP

Hi Glen - like I said, I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I have never seen an OOP program written in Fortran 66. Object Fortran - maybe. ;) Care to share an example of what you are talking about? It is possible we are not talking about the same things. In my experience, OOP requires

Re: OOP in HLASM

> Paul Raulerson wrote: > Clearly, this is getting silly. It's never silly to learn something new. Let's learn HLASM OOP. It's a simple question. Show us you know enough HLASM to do simple OOP (not OOD). Your statements (not opinions) below are non-sense and you clearly aren't qualified to

Re: OOP in HLASM

Hi Tony - I don’t think so, but anything is possible. Of course, everything on every computer boils down to machine level instructions, but that isn’t relevant here, I think. You can’t write an OOP program in machine language either. :) OOP is, I think, quite a bit more than a calling

Re: OOP in HLASM

I think that Paul has forgotten that his favorite OOP still generates machine instructions. If C can do it, then it can be done in HLASM. OOP really boils down into a different type of 'calling' standard other than our nice and simple R1=>Parmlist, R14=return, R15=branch_to_address. It's just

Re: OOP in HLASM

> On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:09 PM, Jon Perryman wrote: > >> Poster wrote: reflects the poster's lack of knowledge of OOP. > > >> Poster wrote (Yes, many differences. The weakness of my example > >> kind of proves the larger point: HLASM is not an OOP language.) > > > This