Ted MacNEIL started this latest sub-discussion within this thread with:
I was one of the ones, in Canada, complaining about the constant
changes in geometry. 3330-3350-3380-3390 (and don't forget
'compatability' mode.
Seymour J. Metz responded to Ted:
Because you didn't use system services
In 4c584ed4.8030...@ync.net, on 08/03/2010
at 12:16 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 4c56d535.9020...@ync.net, on 08/02/2010
at 09:24 AM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
Most of those geometry-related System Services didn't exist! :-)
In 4c584e96.3080...@ync.net, on 08/03/2010
at 12:15 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
I can remember that a OS/360 Stage-1 assembly took just over 2 hours
on a 256K 360/44 with a DSO and reader present.
The 2044 didn't have SS instructions, so you got a performance hit
simulating
In 4c5706d7.9050...@ync.net, on 08/02/2010
at 12:56 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
---snip---
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:24:53 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote:
In 4c56d535.9020...@ync.net, on 08/02/2010
at 09:24 AM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
Most of those geometry-related System Services didn't exist! :-)
What year are you talking about?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
In 4c56c44e.6000...@acm.org, on 08/02/2010
at 08:12 AM, Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org said:
I dealt with assemblers on other platforms in those early days and
didn't have to deal with Assembler on the S/360 platform until it had
over a decade to mature, but my impression from the remarks (and
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 4c56c44e.6000...@acm.org, on 08/02/2010
at 08:12 AM, Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org said:
I dealt with assemblers on other platforms in those early days and
didn't have to deal with Assembler on the S/360 platform until it had
over a decade to mature,
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 4c56d535.9020...@ync.net, on 08/02/2010
at 09:24 AM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
Most of those geometry-related System Services didn't exist! :-)
What year are you talking about?
Just about the time the 3390 first hit the street.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net wrote:
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 4c56d535.9020...@ync.net, on 08/02/2010
at 09:24 AM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said:
Most of those geometry-related System Services didn't exist! :-)
What year are you talking
This is somewhat off of what you did Rick but it is similar (IMO). We had 4
computers 2 mod 30's that ran DOS and 2 mod 50's that ran MFT (this was in the
early 70's).between the 30's we had (one) 2311 for a res pack.In order to do a
sysgen on the DOS system I created a macro library from the
In
232244336-1280529724-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1948933...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry,
on 07/30/2010
at 10:42 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said:
I think that was a good thing.
Of course.
I was one of the ones, in Canada, complaining about the constant
changes in
In
77142d37c0c3c34da0d7b1da7d7ca343c49...@nwt-s-mbx1.rocketsoftware.com,
on 07/20/2010
at 03:31 PM, Bill Fairchild bi...@mainstar.com said:
The Assembler I used in 1966 ran in 8K under BPS/360
Ah, so you're one of the few people on this list that actually did use
BAL.
--
Shmuel
In 027f01cb283c$5a3431f0$0e9c95...@net, on 07/20/2010
at 01:49 PM, William H. Blair wmhbl...@comcast.net said:
7. Already long-established, bad Assembler language coding
Habits. Assembler F was light years ahead of anything
else available at the time.
IBMAP. Even HLA doesn't have
On 08/01/2010 06:50 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In 027f01cb283c$5a3431f0$0e9c95...@net, on 07/20/2010
at 01:49 PM, William H. Blair wmhbl...@comcast.net said:
7. Already long-established, bad Assembler language coding
Habits. Assembler F was light years ahead of anything
---snip--
Because you didn't use system services to insulate yourself from changes.
---unsnip
Most of those geometry-related System Services didn't exist!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
In
77142d37c0c3c34da0d7b1da7d7ca343c49
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:24:53 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote:
---snip--
Because you didn't use system services to insulate yourself from changes.
---unsnip
Most of
: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
... 10K, which was all that was left after the approximately 6K self-loader
loaded in the supervisor from tape and then loaded the assembler from tape.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
In 8924.40203...@web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com, on 07/20/2010
at 08:08 AM, Lloyd Fuller leful...@sbcglobal.net said:
Remember: there used to be several levels of assembler: D, E, and F
as well as H. D and E in particular had lots of restrictions on
what
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:27:40 +, Bill Fairchild wrote:
The BPS supervisor took 2K, which left 6K for the application program. I
never ran this way on an 8K model 30, but you were supposedly able to
configure a model 30 with only 8K. The one I used had 16K. This left me with
a whopping 14K
Subject: Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:27:40 +, Bill Fairchild wrote:
The BPS supervisor took 2K, which left 6K for the application program. I
never ran this way on an 8K model 30, but you were supposedly able to
configure a model 30 with only
Old Man (like me) Bill Fairchild noted:
you were supposedly able to configure a model 30 with only 8K.
True, and IBM took a boatload of first-day orders for 8KB 360/30
boxes. Before any of them shipped, it was clear that nothing at
all useful could be done with them. I don't know if
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) offered:
IEFZGST1 and IEFZGST2 anyone?
Nah ... both of those at least had comments (line AND block).
--
WB
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
---snip---
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:24:53 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote:
---snip--
Because you didn't use system services to insulate yourself from changes.
On 3/08/2010 00:38 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:27:40 +, Bill Fairchild wrote:
The BPS supervisor took 2K, which left 6K for the application program. I never ran
this way on an 8K model 30, but you were supposedly able to configure a model 30 with only 8K. The one
In
of2e79944d.48a16ac6-on85257766.00544229-85257766.0054b...@uscmail.uscourts.gov,
on 07/20/2010
at 11:25 AM, John Kelly john_j_ke...@ao.uscourts.gov said:
The assemble didn't take labels for lengths and
displacement
Of course it did, even in DOS/360.
going thru fiche, to find displacement
In 8924.40203...@web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com, on 07/20/2010
at 08:08 AM, Lloyd Fuller leful...@sbcglobal.net said:
Remember: there used to be several levels of assembler: D, E, and F
as well as H. D and E in particular had lots of restrictions on
what MACROs and COPYs could do because of
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
I believe HLASM is based on the H level assembler with lots of
changes.
Soem of which had been developed at SLAC.
Yep. I was one of the ones that helped develop the business case for
them so that John could get the HLASM written after he moved to IBM.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Lloyd Fuller
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 8:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
I believe HLASM
W dniu 2010-07-31 00:30, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:01:09 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote:
I've seen other old programs with many hard-coded offsets and lengths
and always wondered why this was such common practice back then.
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced
---snip
But this reminds me of the current struggle to extend DASD volume sizes
beyond 54GB, largely because IBM apparently at the introduction of the
3390 made a committment to support forever programmers with the
On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 10:36 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote:
snip
Long ago, before the advent of SMS, IBM made a commitment to not change
device geometry after the 3390 was introduced. I, for one, salute IBM
for living up to that commitment.
Rick
In many ways, I agree with that sentiment.
In 4c45ba35.8000...@phoenixsoftware.com, on 07/20/2010
at 08:01 AM, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com said:
I've seen other old programs with many hard-coded offsets and
lengths and always wondered why this was such common practice back
then.
Was it because there were a lot of
Après moi, le déluge.Charles de Gualle was right in a way.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net shmuel%2bibm-m...@patriot.net wrote:
In 4c45ba35.8000...@phoenixsoftware.com, on 07/20/2010
at 08:01 AM, Edward Jaffe
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:01:09 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote:
I've seen other old programs with many hard-coded offsets and lengths
and always wondered why this was such common practice back then.
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced assembler programmers
writing code? Was it because
But this reminds me of the current struggle to extend DASD volume sizes beyond
54GB, largely because IBM apparently at the introduction of the 3390 made a
committment to support
forever programmers with the unconscionable habit of hard-
coding device geometry parameters rather than fetching them
On 07/30/2010 05:30 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:01:09 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote:
I've seen other old programs with many hard-coded offsets and lengths
and always wondered why this was such common practice back then.
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced
Remember: there used to be several levels of assembler: D, E, and F as well
as
H. D and E in particular had lots of restrictions on what MACROs and COPYs
could do because of lack of memory. I believe D would run in a 64K real
machine
and E required 96K machine.
And to make matters
I remember learning that method from an assembler programmer I worked with. I
can also remember poring over microfiche source code listings to get some of
this information so maybe the information was not readily available from IBM in
those days. The practice seemed to be fairly common in the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:01 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
Scott Rowe wrote:
2) In OSWAITRC (the ESTAE
snip
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced assembler programmers
writing code? Was it because people thought the platform would not last
and treated every program as a throw away? Was it due to limitations in
the assembler itself?
/snip
Having been 'part of that problem', I believe
Fairchild
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Lloyd Fuller
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
Remember: there used to be several levels
In a message dated 7/20/2010 10:18:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
elli...@aafes.com writes:
That happened (in my case at least) toward the end of the 1970s and
probably coincided with the rise of commercial software development as well as
the dreaded standards that were coming in.
-627-3803
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
John Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
snip
Was it because there were a lot
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:01:09 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote:
I've seen other old programs with many hard-coded offsets and lengths
and always wondered why this was such common practice back then.
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced assembler programmers
writing code? Was it because
On 7/20/2010 11:01 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
I've seen other old programs with many hard-coded offsets and
lengths and always wondered why this was such common practice
back then.
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced assembler
programmers writing code? Was it because people thought
Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
On 7/20/2010 11:01 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
I've seen other old programs with many hard-coded offsets and
lengths and always wondered why this was such common practice
back then.
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced assembler
programmers writing code? Was
snip
Could some of it have come about by disassembling to reconstruct or
reverse engineer unavailable source code?
/snip
NO
202-502-2390 (Office)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
Edward E Jaffe wonders:
... old programs with many hard-coded offsets and lengths
... why [was this] such common practice back then[?]
Younger and newer programmers followed the habits of those
who came before them. Many of those who first ventured into
OS extensions and neat, useful programs
--snip
Was it because there were a lot of inexperienced assembler programmers
writing code? Was it because people thought the platform would not last
and treated every program as a throw away? Was it due to
-snip-
Could some of it have come about by disassembling to reconstruct or
reverse engineer unavailable source code?
--unsnip--
Guilty as charged. I'm sure that was a
51 matches
Mail list logo
