Traditional COBOL environment
in [Cobol]
|
From: WangVS on 8 Apr 2010 10:59 On Apr 8, 9:42 am, "Kerry Liles" <kerry.removethisandoneperiod.li...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "WangVS" <wan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4a931ab3-f0e2-41f0-957b-24c6029cde30(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 28, 1:39 pm, Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > > > On Mar 28, 11:29 am, WangVS <tjun...(a)tjunker.com> wrote: > > > Did I mention that the Wang VS is a stack machine? Yep... stacks, > > > push and pop instructions, linked list manipulation instructions. > > > Good stuff. > > > While 'stack machines' may have been a novelty in the 60s and 70s it > > is unusual to find something that is not one today. > > True, but the Wang VS was based closely on the IBM 360, which I > believe was not a stack machine. From its early origins in the late > 1970s the Wang VS was designed with hardware and software use of > stacks clearly in mind, just as it was designed to be interactive. > > TJ > > Indeed, the /360 (and later machines like the /370 etc) were not stack > machines per se. However, many of us implemented "stacks" in software at the > first opportunity... I think 'push' and 'pop' macros were the first ones I > wrote in /360 assembler... First the tools, then the applications. Yes, and I did similar things for non-stack 16-bit minis, but the Wang VS is a true stack machine, meaning that the designated stack pointer register participates in calls, and there is a stack frame mechanism used in interrupt processing. The machine knows about and uses a main defined stack for each process even though a programmer can use any of the general registers as a stack pointer. TJ
From: Nomen Nescio on 8 Apr 2010 12:58 "Kerry Liles" <kerry.removethisandoneperiod.liles(a)gmail.com> wrote: > True, but the Wang VS was based closely on the IBM 360, which I > believe was not a stack machine. From its early origins in the late > 1970s the Wang VS was designed with hardware and software use of > stacks clearly in mind, just as it was designed to be interactive. What's a "stack machine"? None of the IBM hardware is stack-based, although MVS/ESA did introduce the Linkage Stack, it is only used for saving state, and not general purpose storage. There is no hardware notion of heap, stack, etc. in IBM-land, and not in most IBM system software, either.
From: Kerry Liles on 8 Apr 2010 13:06 "Nomen Nescio" <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote in message news:487250e8e05e60d55f2c4238a0799db0(a)dizum.com... > "Kerry Liles" <kerry.removethisandoneperiod.liles(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> True, but the Wang VS was based closely on the IBM 360, which I >> believe was not a stack machine. From its early origins in the late >> 1970s the Wang VS was designed with hardware and software use of >> stacks clearly in mind, just as it was designed to be interactive. > > What's a "stack machine"? None of the IBM hardware is stack-based, > although > MVS/ESA did introduce the Linkage Stack, it is only used for saving state, > and not general purpose storage. There is no hardware notion of heap, > stack, etc. in IBM-land, and not in most IBM system software, either. > I took it to mean "hardware support (instructions) permitting the implementation of stacks" As I mentioned, one can always implement the use of stacks via software, but the post I replied to indicated the Wang VS (machine?) had hardware-based stack support like push and pop instructions (for example). With the speed of hardware these days, it seems less relevant whether such things are implemented in hardware or software... in the old days (say, the mid 1970s) hardware assist was a significant performance boost and worth the effort in microcode.
From: robertwessel2 on 8 Apr 2010 15:08 On Apr 8, 11:58 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...(a)dizum.com> wrote: > "Kerry Liles" <kerry.removethisandoneperiod.li...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > True, but the Wang VS was based closely on the IBM 360, which I > > believe was not a stack machine. From its early origins in the late > > 1970s the Wang VS was designed with hardware and software use of > > stacks clearly in mind, just as it was designed to be interactive. > > What's a "stack machine"? None of the IBM hardware is stack-based, although > MVS/ESA did introduce the Linkage Stack, it is only used for saving state, > and not general purpose storage. There is no hardware notion of heap, > stack, etc. in IBM-land, and not in most IBM system software, either. I'm not sure what a hardware notion of a heap would be, but GETMAIN certainly implements a heap in the malloc() sense.
From: Michael Wojcik on 8 Apr 2010 14:13
WangVS wrote: > > I have not been trying to make a case that the Wang VS is the best > possible environment. I have been defensively trying to make the case > that the Wang VS and our new virtual Wang VS are viable environments > for business data processing, particularly back office business data > processing, where many of the bells and whistles of modern fashion- > trend-driven technologies are completely unnecessary. Well, sure. Emulated green-screen mainframe environments keep me in sausages too. I'm all for 'em. My concern was that the thread seemed to have degenerated into an argument over the relative merits of CICS and Wang VS, which doesn't seem terribly productive. For one thing, it's unlikely that many people would try to port an existing application from either one to the other (don't fix what isn't broken); or that new applications (and yes, people are still developing new applications for mainframe environments) would target one or the other based on perceived superiority - customers will go with what they already have experience in. I'd like to see your virtual Wang VS product do well. I think emulation is an efficient use of computing and development resources, and a good foundation for extension into newer environments where that makes sense. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University |