In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/27/2007
at 09:49 AM, Jeffrey D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The C language most definitely *is* a portable assembly language.
In the sense that a camel is a portable octopus.
The original *NIX compilers actually translated the C source code
into the native
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/27/2007
at 11:47 AM, Mohammad Khan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The point is that specific opcodes do not matter for generic
operations
only if you carefully rig the definition of generic to exclude things
in the instruction repertoire that are missing from the
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/28/2007
at 08:55 PM, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Much of this is due to the reliance on null-terminated strings, which
are not peculiar to C, but are rooted in the UNIX continuum between
applications programming and systems programming.
The Unix
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/28/2007
at 08:55 PM
interesting if KR went on to implement UNIX
on a 360 type machine. I assume they would have extended the
C language and library functions to better exploit the hardware.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#18 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
when i was undergraudate, i had added tty/ascii
Mohammad Khan wrote:
Well, C on UNIX is really assembler - just one step removed from the
bits and
bytes of the underlying CPU.
No, assembler is assembler on Unix. C is a high level language used as a
system programming and implementation language on Unix just as PL/I was
the implementation
On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:48:37 -0700, Henry Willard wrote:
[1] C seems to be particularly well suited to writing code susceptible
to buffer overrun bugs which have often made Unix systems easy prey for
attackers.
Much of this is due to the reliance on null-terminated strings, which
are not
:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#65 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#67 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#73 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#74 Non-Standard Mainframe Language
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/26/2007
at 11:07 AM, Mohammad Khan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Well, C on UNIX is really assembler
No, because it doesn't allow you to generate specific opcodes. Worse,
its preprocessor facility is far more feeble than that of any
assembler that I've used for decades.
-6452
303-774-9381 direct
303-484-6170 FAX
http://www.farsight-systems.com/
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Non-Standard
The point is that specific opcodes do not matter for generic operations and
the reduced tedium is worth any loss of efficiency. For other operations where
such hardware support is required, say atomic compare and swap, these can
be coded in assembly for the OS code and an API can be made
Well, C on UNIX is really assembler - just one step removed from the bits and
bytes of the underlying CPU. Its designers realized that there is not much
benefit in writing CPU specific code to copy x bytes of memory to another
location over the generic a = b kind of code. Same for other basic
When I configured my 3 MSU personal mainframe (
http://mainframe.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/my_personal_mai.html) the IBM
C/C++ compiler was unbelievably, ridiculously inexpensive. I was
shocked
OK, I just pulled up the U.K. price (which I have handy) for a 3 MSU
zNALC machine (or LPAR).
More seriously, it may be that the program was written with the
assumption that the processor on which it ran had an APL assist
feature
and your service bureau machine lacked the feature.
It's more likely that it was written to be elegant and concise,
rather than efficient. E.g., using
, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
More seriously, it may be that the program was written with the
assumption that the processor on which it ran had an APL
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:59:24 +0900, Timothy Sipples
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For perspective, the world's most installed operating system, Microsoft
Windows, does not ship with a C compiler, and it's extremely unlikely it
ever will.
True, but you can download one at no charge from MS.
Tony H.
throughout the 1980s. APL
was always thought of as a resource hog. IMHO it could be very efficient
or grotesque, depending on your data structures and algorithms. If you
wrote programs in the style of 3 GLs, it was typically a dog.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#65 Non-Standard Mainframe
PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
...
Assembler comes, of course; it's not standard in the sense
there is no OpenSource, ISO, ANSII Assembler standard; but
it's everywhere on zSeries
I didn't know that we had all standardized on C - guess I missed that
one.
Gary Garland Gregory, MS
CA
Senior Software Engineer
Tel: +1-214-473-1863
Fax: +1-214-473-1050
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Okay, that part I get. The part that interests me is since C was not
available, 'mainframe users
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory, Gary G
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
I didn't know that we had all standardized on C - guess I
I thought I saw a memo, but I thought it was referring to vitamins
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
I didn't know that we had all standardized on C - guess I missed that
one.
Gary Garland Gregory, MS
CA
Senior Software Engineer
Tel: +1-214-473-1863
Fax: +1-214-473-1050
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Okay, that part I get. The part that interests me
I was tempted to try rewriting my VTAM exits in C but, sadly, never got around
to it. I did have a slight worry over whether or not this would have been a
sensible idea for a production environment given the possibility of an
unacceptable overhead.
I wouldn't worry about the overhead of
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/23/2007
at 12:48 PM, Gary Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Am I missing something here?
Yes; the fact that the author is missing something.
ALGOL, COBOL and FORTRAN had ANSI standards before C existed. PL/I is
older than C and had an ANSI standard before C did. IMHO
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 19:41 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Now, C++ is a different matter.
When I took a C++ course, the instructor said we should NEVER code
(sub-)systems with it.
How about a quote from a fella who's had some experience in kernel code
in another universe:
Finally, while Linus
Chris Mason wrote:
software at all, Types 1, 2, 3 or 4. I remember only because of the
enormous row - led by Phil Nesbit if anyone remembers him - over the
possibility that the Assembler compiler may not be delivered with the
operating system which was to continue to be free - or at no
Shane wrote:
[...]
* you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc)
in C, _without_ the crap that is C++.
[...]
Well. To my knowledge the difference between C and C++ is that C++
allows to use object-oriented programing. In other words C plus OO is
C++. I asked
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 05/24/2007
at 09:34 AM, Anne Lynn Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Eventually there was a APL language development group formed in STL
which picked up APL\CMS responsibility as well as making it available
on MVS ... renaming it VS\APL (and later APL2).
Dont forget APL
Language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#70 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
yes, i skipped over some of the intermediate folklore.
there was a big uproar created with the phili science center apl\360
group when the cambridge science center did cms\apl and added system
services calls
://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#67 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#70 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#73 Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
the 145/148 ... for lots of typical kernel instruction paths ... there
was approximately
On May 24, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
---SNIP--
The OS/360 materials could not be used as a viable system, but
installations had to generate one to their preferences. And both
the stage 1 and some stage 2 steps required an assembler, so IBM
really didn't
Am I missing something here?
The below is an excerpt from a blog where the writer lamented that the
ubiquitous ? language C was available everywhere, for free, except for the
mainframe. And then rejoices that it finally came to the mainframe...
Okay, that part I get. The part that interests
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Green
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
Am I missing something here?
The below is an excerpt from a blog
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gary Green
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
Am I missing something here?
The below is an excerpt from a blog where
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
Am I missing something here?
The below is an excerpt from a blog where the writer lamented
that the ubiquitous language C was available
everywhere, for free, except for the mainframe. And then
rejoices that it finally
On 23 May 2007 10:14:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thompson,
Steve) wrote:
Congress shall not abridge the right of the people to peacefully
ASSEMBLE [emphasis mine].
So you see, C as a language is a Johnny come lately, the US
Constitution protected the right of Assembly even before there were
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:57 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
On 23 May 2007 10:14:58 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thompson,
Steve) wrote
Gary Green wrote:
I tried APL once, back in 77. I thought it was the perfect
programming language. One could write an entire program
on/in one line of code. And, the part I liked best, no one
could understand it and it looked like a computer
programming language.
Back in the seventies I was
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerhard Postpischil) writes:
Back in the seventies I was in charge of the systems group at a
service bureau. One of our customers was from a
Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
D'oh! I never thought about his background being in UNIX...
Never mind...
I tried APL once, back in 77. I thought
Mason
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Postpischil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
Gary Green wrote:
I tried APL once, back in 77. I thought
Chris Mason wrote:
But the other language program couldn't have been written in one line of
symbols. g
Reminds me of the one-line Pong look alike written in Basic that
was published in PC Magazine around 1982 or so. It took longer
to understand than to use.
More seriously, it may be that
42 matches
Mail list logo
