[Info-vax] New VSI Roadmap (yipee!)

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <mdahjf$fqt$2 at pechter.eternal-september.org>,
	pechter at S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes:
> In article <cllt4nFrc48U1 at mid.individual.net>,
> Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>In article <md2ssm$kpk$1 at dont-email.me>,
>>	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>> lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:57:47 -0500
>>>> David Froble via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
>>>>>>> I can't imagine ever using floating point in a new money handling
>>>>>>> application these days given all the other options available.
>>>>>> It was *never* acceptable!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even when there was no other options?
>>>> 
>>>> Especially when there was no other option.
>>>> 
>>>> Integers with software scaling (i.e. treat all amounts as cents) would have
>>>> probably been better depending on what calculations and how many
>>>> calculations were involved and what integer types were available. But if
>>>> you had no integer type big enough to represent the largest amount as
>>>> cents that is a real problem and strongly suggests the solution should not
>>>> be coded on that platform.
>>> 
>>> Ok, let me see if I can understand this attitude ..
>>> 
>>> If you can't do it the way you consider "proper", then don't do it at 
>>> all?  Gee, I could have been a man of leisure.  Poor man of leisure.
>>> 
>>> Integers, huh?  Let me see, -32768 to 32767, yeah, that's more than 
>>> enough to show the company's monthly sales.
>>> 
>>> I'm wondering about your age, because you don't seem to have much of an 
>>> idea what type of computing resources was available in the early 1970s.
>>> 
>>> I'll say it once more.  We used what we had, and we made it work, and 
>>> IT'S WORKED WELL FOR OVER 40 YEARS!!!  That's one thing more recent 
>>> stuff cannot say, and will probably never be able to say.
>>
>>My favorite response to this kind of stuff is: "Hindsight is always 20/20."
>>
>>Anecdote time!!
>>
>>One of my early tasks as an application programmer was to write
>>a system to emulate the online data entry system for a microcomputer
>>with the idea that at the end of the day all the data would be
>>uploaded.  Reasoning being that the serial lines used by the data
>>entry clerks were a rare and expensive resource.  I got assigned the 
>>task for one very simple reason.  My peers were all mainframe
>>programmers, CDC, Honeywell and Univac.  The target microcomputer
>>was a Terak.  LSI 11/02 with 28K Words of memory (minus the I/O
>>page of course) and SS/DD 8" floppies.  My peers were unanimous in
>>the opinion that nothing practical could be done with such limited
>>resources.  I was already playing with Z80's at home and was quite
>>experienced at shoehorning programs into small memory spaces.  :-)
>>I did it all in UCSD-Pascal.
>>It got to be even more fun when I set up the Terak system on my desk
>>with 4 8" floppy drives and started doing COBOL under RT-11.
>>
>>bill
>>
>>-- 
>>Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
>>billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>>University of Scranton   |
>>Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
> 
> There was an RT11 Cobol... Tell us more 8-).
> I knew about Dibol... didn't know about Cobol.
> 

Geeze Bill, why would there not be?  RT-11 supported BATCH (and I think
RJE although I never did it) and most COBOL in those days would definitely
have been BATCH.  I know I saw more RT-11 systems running "normal" programs
rather than "real time" programs.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>