Disassembler
in [Cobol]
|
From: on 2 Mar 2006 08:27 In article <46o20qFc3v26U1(a)individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:du5dgo$9b1$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >> In article <46mbn8Fbeu63U1(a)individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>>news:du1nsi$p2f$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>>> In article <1141137619.797762.312570(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>> <ozzy.kopec(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1141046648.949404.165450(a)v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> > Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I can think of at least two separate sites (and a number of occasions >>>>>> on >>>>>> both of them) where we were very glad to have source recreated from >>>>>> listings >>>>>> after decks of cards got shredded or minced in various readers or >>>>>> were >>>>>> destroyed by water after a storm where part of the roof was removed... >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe your bud's Boss was an oldtimer like me :-) >>>>> >>>>>I worked in a place where an operator dropped a whole tray of punched >>>>>jcl cards (and successfully mixed them quicker than a poker dealer >>>>>could have done). >>>> >>>> Oh, I *cannot* resist... >>>> >>>> 000100 AND WITH THESE AND OTHER INSTANCES IN MIND WE SHOULD, THEREFORE, >>>> 000200 MAKE SURE THAT ALL CODE IS BACKWARDSLY-COMPATIBLE WITH SUCH >>>> 000300 LIMITATIONS... JUST BECAUSE I HAVEN'T WORKED WITH A PUNCHED DECK >>>> 000400 IN DECADES IS NO REASON NOT TO 'JUST IN CASE' THINGS, RIGHT? >>>> >>>Cheap shot, Doc. >> >> I know... but I *couldn't* resist. >> >>> >>>When writing COBOL it is necessary to use level numbers anyway. Why >>>shouldn't they also assist in the (today) extremely unlikely event that >>>the source needs to be recreated from a listing? >> >> 'Grandpa, why do you snore so loud?' >> >I have this quaint idea running round in the back of my head that >"answering a question with a question is no answer at all". Can't imagine in >what den of iniquity or degraded bar I picked up that little gem ... :-) My apologies for being so neglectful, Mr Dashwood; in my haste to respond I forgot to preface the joke I related with 'Because the event is, admittedly, 'extremely unlikely'. It brings to my mind a bit of jocularity I was taught as a lad:' > >> 'To keep the tigers away.' >> >> 'Grandpa, there aren't any tigers anywhere near here.' >> >> 'See how well it works?' >> >I have indeed seen the same logic applied to snapping fingers in order to >deter elephants. With equal efficacy. If you are aware of the shortcomings of the logic of your argument, Mr Dashwood, then you might not be surprised when they are pointed out. > >> It used to be, back in the Oldene Dayse and on some sites I where I >> worked, that part of the Production Turnover Ritual involved generating a >> listing (on greenbar, of course) and replacing the previous version in the >> binder reserved for the program... Just In Case everything went kerflooie >> and one had to re-key the code from scratch. >> >> I haven't seen much greenbar lately. >> >I haven't seen many folders lately. Guess it's the weather. It might also be the places where you keep yourself, Mr Dashwood... different environments might make for different experiences. > >>> >>>I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels >>>at >>>12. It isn't problematic because there is room to insert other levels if >>>required. >> >> I've worked in places where Prod Review turned down my code because I used >> an 03 where the Site Standard dictated an 05. They sign my timesheets, >> they get what they ask for... within reason, of course. >> >Absolutely... (Hides Jobsworth award behind back and shuffles from one foot >to the other...) Mr Dashwood, unlike others I write code for a living; those who do not may have less cause to consider what the one who pays the piper gets to do. >>> >>>It isn't about 'just in case' anyway. It is about the habits of a >>>lifetime, which do no harm... >> >> Hmmmmmmm... it reminds me of a man of sixty saying 'I've thought this way >> about it ever since I was a lad of five.' >> >> On the one hand... it shows a five-year-old who has insights beyond his >> years and that is good. >> >> On the other hand... it shows a sixty-year-old who cannot see something >> differently than a five-year-old and that is... perhaps not-so-good. >> >"Except ye become as one of these, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of >Heaven." My concerns, Mr Dashwood, are - at the moment - more concerned with life *before* death rather than life after. > >> It might be that, once in a while, all things need to be questioned or >> re-questioned... including this statement, of course. >> >D'ja think so? :-) On that I can give you a definite 'maybe'. DD
From: LX-i on 2 Mar 2006 22:13 Pete Dashwood wrote: > "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message > news:7ecdf$440658c7$45491d7a$4125(a)KNOLOGY.NET... >> Pete Dashwood wrote: >>> I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels >>> at 12. >> I've been asked about it, because I adopted it. :) I like it... >> > "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." :-) > > I consider it an honour. > > Hope it never has to be used in earnest... heh... :) Yeah, if we go back to cards, we're all screwed! It's funny - each Friday (by management dictate) we have about an hour of training. Since I'm the senior military guy in the shop now, I end up doing a lot of it, and last week we did ECL (Executive Control Language - DOS for the Unisys 2200). Anyway, there's a statement called @PCH, which will punch a deck of cards for an input text element. The younger guys I was training thought that was funny. (Turns out that this processor *now* actually punches a "virtual" deck, that programs can read by reading a device assigned to "card-reader".) It was just funny - none of them had even seen a Hollerith card (or even heard the term Hollerith, for that matter). And I'm not even that old! :) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~ ~ / \/ o ~ ~ ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel(a)thebelowdomain ~ ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~ ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~ ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: CG on 3 Mar 2006 00:17 LX-i wrote: > CG wrote: >> This discussion has deteriorated to to the point of absurdity. When >> the attitude appears to be, "My mind's made up, do not confuse me with >> facts." it is time to quit! I'm done! > > What you're missing (or seem to be) is the point of what they're saying. > They're not saying that your product doesn't do something useful, or > that you've had customers use it and realize great gain from it. I said I was not going to reply any more, but I will repeat what I said in my first comment about this technology: It it NOT MY PRODUCT! I HAVE NO INTEREST, FINANCIAL NOR OTHERWISE IN THIS TECHNOLOGY! Therefore I have no customers for this technology. MY customers appreciate it when I can tell them about a good technology that will help them. They appreciate that I don't have to be paid to try to help them. My ONLY connection to the technology is that I have known the owner of the service for a long time, since we were both working on Y2K. I know that he has a large number of very satisfied customers who were very thankful for the source code that he was able to provide when all they had was object code that needed remediation. It is good technology. It works. It has nothing to do with OO, I never said it did. I simply tried to explain what it IS. If you don't need it, fine. I just hate to see people bad mouth something for not doing what it was never intended to do... And, personally, I could not care less if you don't bother to look at it. But, if someone needs it and does not, it is their loss, not mine.
From: Pete Dashwood on 3 Mar 2006 04:14 <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:du6rsu$3eb$1(a)reader2.panix.com... > In article <46o20qFc3v26U1(a)individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>news:du5dgo$9b1$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>> In article <46mbn8Fbeu63U1(a)individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>>>news:du1nsi$p2f$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>>>> In article <1141137619.797762.312570(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>>> <ozzy.kopec(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:1141046648.949404.165450(a)v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> > Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can think of at least two separate sites (and a number of >>>>>>> occasions >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> both of them) where we were very glad to have source recreated from >>>>>>> listings >>>>>>> after decks of cards got shredded or minced in various readers or >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> destroyed by water after a storm where part of the roof was >>>>>>> removed... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe your bud's Boss was an oldtimer like me :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>I worked in a place where an operator dropped a whole tray of punched >>>>>>jcl cards (and successfully mixed them quicker than a poker dealer >>>>>>could have done). >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I *cannot* resist... >>>>> >>>>> 000100 AND WITH THESE AND OTHER INSTANCES IN MIND WE SHOULD, >>>>> THEREFORE, >>>>> 000200 MAKE SURE THAT ALL CODE IS BACKWARDSLY-COMPATIBLE WITH SUCH >>>>> 000300 LIMITATIONS... JUST BECAUSE I HAVEN'T WORKED WITH A PUNCHED >>>>> DECK >>>>> 000400 IN DECADES IS NO REASON NOT TO 'JUST IN CASE' THINGS, RIGHT? >>>>> >>>>Cheap shot, Doc. >>> >>> I know... but I *couldn't* resist. >>> >>>> >>>>When writing COBOL it is necessary to use level numbers anyway. Why >>>>shouldn't they also assist in the (today) extremely unlikely event that >>>>the source needs to be recreated from a listing? >>> >>> 'Grandpa, why do you snore so loud?' >>> >>I have this quaint idea running round in the back of my head that >>"answering a question with a question is no answer at all". Can't imagine >>in >>what den of iniquity or degraded bar I picked up that little gem ... :-) > > My apologies for being so neglectful, Mr Dashwood; in my haste to respond > I forgot to preface the joke I related with 'Because the event is, > admittedly, 'extremely unlikely'. It brings to my mind a bit of > jocularity I was taught as a lad:' > >> >>> 'To keep the tigers away.' >>> >>> 'Grandpa, there aren't any tigers anywhere near here.' >>> >>> 'See how well it works?' >>> >>I have indeed seen the same logic applied to snapping fingers in order to >>deter elephants. With equal efficacy. > > If you are aware of the shortcomings of the logic of your argument, Mr > Dashwood, then you might not be surprised when they are pointed out. > >> >>> It used to be, back in the Oldene Dayse and on some sites I where I >>> worked, that part of the Production Turnover Ritual involved generating >>> a >>> listing (on greenbar, of course) and replacing the previous version in >>> the >>> binder reserved for the program... Just In Case everything went >>> kerflooie >>> and one had to re-key the code from scratch. >>> >>> I haven't seen much greenbar lately. >>> >>I haven't seen many folders lately. Guess it's the weather. > > It might also be the places where you keep yourself, Mr Dashwood... > different environments might make for different experiences. > ifferent places certainly make for different weather... :-) >> >>>> >>>>I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels >>>>at >>>>12. It isn't problematic because there is room to insert other levels if >>>>required. >>> >>> I've worked in places where Prod Review turned down my code because I >>> used >>> an 03 where the Site Standard dictated an 05. They sign my timesheets, >>> they get what they ask for... within reason, of course. >>> >>Absolutely... (Hides Jobsworth award behind back and shuffles from one >>foot >>to the other...) > > Mr Dashwood, unlike others I write code for a living; those who do not may > have less cause to consider what the one who pays the piper gets to do. > >>>> >>>>It isn't about 'just in case' anyway. It is about the habits of a >>>>lifetime, which do no harm... >>> >>> Hmmmmmmm... it reminds me of a man of sixty saying 'I've thought this >>> way >>> about it ever since I was a lad of five.' >>> >>> On the one hand... it shows a five-year-old who has insights beyond his >>> years and that is good. >>> >>> On the other hand... it shows a sixty-year-old who cannot see something >>> differently than a five-year-old and that is... perhaps not-so-good. >>> >>"Except ye become as one of these, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of >>Heaven." > > My concerns, Mr Dashwood, are - at the moment - more concerned with life > *before* death rather than life after. > >> >>> It might be that, once in a while, all things need to be questioned or >>> re-questioned... including this statement, of course. >>> >>D'ja think so? :-) > > On that I can give you a definite 'maybe'. > > DD >
From: Pete Dashwood on 3 Mar 2006 04:35
<docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:du6rsu$3eb$1(a)reader2.panix.com... > In article <46o20qFc3v26U1(a)individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>news:du5dgo$9b1$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>> In article <46mbn8Fbeu63U1(a)individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>>>news:du1nsi$p2f$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>>>> In article <1141137619.797762.312570(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>>> <ozzy.kopec(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:1141046648.949404.165450(a)v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> > Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can think of at least two separate sites (and a number of >>>>>>> occasions >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> both of them) where we were very glad to have source recreated from >>>>>>> listings >>>>>>> after decks of cards got shredded or minced in various readers or >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> destroyed by water after a storm where part of the roof was >>>>>>> removed... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe your bud's Boss was an oldtimer like me :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>I worked in a place where an operator dropped a whole tray of punched >>>>>>jcl cards (and successfully mixed them quicker than a poker dealer >>>>>>could have done). >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I *cannot* resist... >>>>> >>>>> 000100 AND WITH THESE AND OTHER INSTANCES IN MIND WE SHOULD, >>>>> THEREFORE, >>>>> 000200 MAKE SURE THAT ALL CODE IS BACKWARDSLY-COMPATIBLE WITH SUCH >>>>> 000300 LIMITATIONS... JUST BECAUSE I HAVEN'T WORKED WITH A PUNCHED >>>>> DECK >>>>> 000400 IN DECADES IS NO REASON NOT TO 'JUST IN CASE' THINGS, RIGHT? >>>>> >>>>Cheap shot, Doc. >>> >>> I know... but I *couldn't* resist. >>> >>>> >>>>When writing COBOL it is necessary to use level numbers anyway. Why >>>>shouldn't they also assist in the (today) extremely unlikely event that >>>>the source needs to be recreated from a listing? >>> >>> 'Grandpa, why do you snore so loud?' >>> >>I have this quaint idea running round in the back of my head that >>"answering a question with a question is no answer at all". Can't imagine >>in >>what den of iniquity or degraded bar I picked up that little gem ... :-) > > My apologies for being so neglectful, Mr Dashwood; in my haste to respond > I forgot to preface the joke I related with 'Because the event is, > admittedly, 'extremely unlikely'. It brings to my mind a bit of > jocularity I was taught as a lad:' > No apology required. I just believe that one cheap shot deserves another. I come from a long line of warmongers... :-) >> >>> 'To keep the tigers away.' >>> >>> 'Grandpa, there aren't any tigers anywhere near here.' >>> >>> 'See how well it works?' >>> >>I have indeed seen the same logic applied to snapping fingers in order to >>deter elephants. With equal efficacy. > > If you are aware of the shortcomings of the logic of your argument, Mr > Dashwood, then you might not be surprised when they are pointed out. > I see neither tigers, elephants nor logical shortcomings in my argument. This is obviously due to the snoring, finger snapping, and brilliant mind which conceived it. And nothing you point out ever surprises me Doc :-) >> >>> It used to be, back in the Oldene Dayse and on some sites I where I >>> worked, that part of the Production Turnover Ritual involved generating >>> a >>> listing (on greenbar, of course) and replacing the previous version in >>> the >>> binder reserved for the program... Just In Case everything went >>> kerflooie >>> and one had to re-key the code from scratch. >>> >>> I haven't seen much greenbar lately. >>> >>I haven't seen many folders lately. Guess it's the weather. > > It might also be the places where you keep yourself, Mr Dashwood... > different environments might make for different experiences. > Different environments definitely make for different weather :-) 25 degrees Celsius in Auckland today. How is it in the City that Never Sleeps? >> >>>> >>>>I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels >>>>at >>>>12. It isn't problematic because there is room to insert other levels if >>>>required. >>> >>> I've worked in places where Prod Review turned down my code because I >>> used >>> an 03 where the Site Standard dictated an 05. They sign my timesheets, >>> they get what they ask for... within reason, of course. >>> >>Absolutely... (Hides Jobsworth award behind back and shuffles from one >>foot >>to the other...) > > Mr Dashwood, unlike others I write code for a living; those who do not may > have less cause to consider what the one who pays the piper gets to do. > And what if you waited tables for a living, or drove a truck, or captained a battleship? Does the piper ALWAYS call the tune? What if the piper is blatantly insane? I used to play guitar and sing in a pub in London. People would often pay me to play their favourite song and I would if I could. (I usually could; it was in the days before the music died...) But there were certain songs at which I drew the line :-) "10 guitars" and "Candida" were 2 such... (While these are fine in drunken Rugby clubs in NZ, they are not fine to people who love music. (yours truly, and the other patrons of a very nice place in Victoria). Drunken ex-pat Kiwis wanting a taste of home would often request them. I'd politely suggest something else in the same vein and if that wasn't acceptable I simply wouldn't take their money. (I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I played "Pokarekare ana" and "Hoki Mai" and I have seen grown men cry at "Now is the Hour" (and, no, my playing iosn't that bad :-))). The point is that who pays the piper (or guitarist) DOESN'T necessarily call the tune. Service is important, but so is integrity. Of the two, it is a close call, but I would favour integrity. (The reason is I have to live with myself ALL my lifetime, whereas I only live with my employer SOME of it.) I totally respect your right to differ. >>>> >>>>It isn't about 'just in case' anyway. It is about the habits of a >>>>lifetime, which do no harm... >>> >>> Hmmmmmmm... it reminds me of a man of sixty saying 'I've thought this >>> way >>> about it ever since I was a lad of five.' >>> >>> On the one hand... it shows a five-year-old who has insights beyond his >>> years and that is good. >>> >>> On the other hand... it shows a sixty-year-old who cannot see something >>> differently than a five-year-old and that is... perhaps not-so-good. >>> >>"Except ye become as one of these, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of >>Heaven." > > My concerns, Mr Dashwood, are - at the moment - more concerned with life > *before* death rather than life after. Hahaha! Good response... :-) > >> >>> It might be that, once in a while, all things need to be questioned or >>> re-questioned... including this statement, of course. >>> >>D'ja think so? :-) > > On that I can give you a definite 'maybe'. > Faior enough. I'll see your maybe and not raise... :-) Pete. |