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 Tec
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 obtained the copyright
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. Which
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
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
> 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 available over at
> Bitsaver
ur J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf
of Tony Thigpen
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 favorite OOP still generates
machine inst
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 co
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 demonstra
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 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 cr
>> 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 t
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 opinions
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 i
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 al
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 used
> 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 make
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 stand
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
> 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 poster and several C p
20 matches
Mail list logo
