I need a new compiler...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL/CICS/DB2 - COBOL for MVS and compile option DYNAM -solution from 2006
Next: Still one more Overlapping operands test
From: Howard Brazee on 15 Dec 2008 12:34 On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:27:12 -0500, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >Oh, yes I will. The "portable assembler" claim has always been at best >a hyperbolic metaphor that captures only a few of C's characteristics. > It's no longer a useful characterization, particularly in light of >the language's evolution. I suppose the categories "assembler" and "compiler" in general have lost their usefulness. They were largely marketing anyway. Nowadays we have tools that don't fit the categories very well. When IDMS came out with multiple parents, to separate itself from IMS, Cullinet/Cullinane called it a "Network Database", instead of a "Hierarchal database". But at this late date, Hierarchal fits better. That said, many marketing terms have become part of our language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much replaced "graveyard". (Wide shoulder coffins have pretty much died out, replaced by caskets - still everybody recognizes the traditional coffin shape, even if such coffins aren't made anymore (that I know of)). I liked it when IBM "invented" virtual memory. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: tlmfru on 15 Dec 2008 13:43 Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:ln4dk45di2426735qdfmts6qn42stlgh3o(a)4ax.com... > I liked it when IBM "invented" virtual memory. > I was working for Univac at the time, and we had a good deal of trouble convincing prospects that re-entrant ("stateless" for the newer folk) was better than virtual memory - and in the case of multiple simultanous users of the same program, such as on-line apps, it did save a lot of I/O thrashing - but Univac aquired RCA, which had vm and had been marketing it for some time before IBM took notice, so we were able to go to our prospects and smile at them and say "You know all those bad things we were saying about VM last week? They don't matter any more! Because we have VM too!" Didn't do us any good that I can recall because IBM customers were IBM customers, come hell or high water. IBM was to a certain extent unclear on the concept then; the lowest model of the 370 line would run 128m (or was it 256m?) in 128k of physical memory! Had to chain the disk drives to the floor! PL
From: Anonymous on 15 Dec 2008 16:16 In article <ln4dk45di2426735qdfmts6qn42stlgh3o(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: [snip] >That said, many marketing terms have become part of our >language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much >replaced "graveyard". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cemetery shows 'Date: 15th century' and a derivation from Greek and Sanskrit. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graveyard shows 'Date: 1761' and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grave shows a derivation from Old Church Slavic. Pretty neat act of 'replacement', eh? DD
From: Howard Brazee on 15 Dec 2008 16:23 On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:16:40 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>That said, many marketing terms have become part of our >>language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much >>replaced "graveyard". > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cemetery shows 'Date: 15th >century' and a derivation from Greek and Sanskrit. > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graveyard shows 'Date: 1761' and >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grave shows a derivation from >Old Church Slavic. > >Pretty neat act of 'replacement', eh? Marketing rarely starts from a vacuum. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 15 Dec 2008 16:35
In article <gi63hm324ng(a)news7.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> If C, in fact, does *not* 'provide low-level access to memory' and is does >> *not* have a 'primary use is for "system programming", including >> implementing operating systems and embedded system applications, due to a >> combination of desirable characteristics such as code portability and >> efficiency, ability to access specific hardware addresses, ability to >> "pun" types to match externally imposed data access requirements' then it >> would seem that I am incorrect. >> >> (quoted material above taken from >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language) ... me, I'se jes' a >> COBOL-codin' fool) > >This is one of the dangers of using Wikipedia as a source: it is >frequently incorrect. Correct or not, this is why sources are cited and URLS given. >In this case, it's wrong about "provid[ing] >low-level access to memory", which is not a feature of the C language. >It is a feature of some implementations of C, and some languages which >are "extended" versions of C. > >ISO 9899-1999 is, of course, the authoritive source; but the >comp.lang.c FAQ would also have cleared up this misconception. I have found something calling it'sself the comp.lang.c FAQ at http://c-faq.com/ . This leads me to a section about pointers, http://c-faq.com/ptrs/index.html , and that leads me to a question about 'what is the difference between arrays and pointers' http://c-faq.com/aryptr/practdiff.html . From that page: --begin quoted text: A pointer is a reference to any data element (of a particular type) anywhere. --end quoted text Now... if the reference provided by a pointer is one towards low-level memory (a sub-set of 'anywhere') and if having a reference to a data element allows for access to the data then C would appear, via pointers, to allow low-level access to memory... but this, of course, is Logic, not necessarily Computer Programming. DD |