| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399304 is a reply to message #399247] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 02:34   |
Bob Martin
Messages: 157
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 4 Sep 2020 at 14:00:36, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2020 05:21:53 GMT, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3 Sep 2020 at 09:22:34, Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 3:37:23 PM UTC+10, Bob Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did an IBM PL/1 course in 1966 (I was one of the first software CEs).
>>>> Also, I worked with a few of the original developers in the early 70s
>>>> and it was still PL/1 then.
>>>> I don't know when it changed but I suspect it became PL/I because of a
>>>> typesetting error.
>>> ..
>>> From the first IBM manual, the language has been called PL/I.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> Well, here's the IBM manual from 1976:
> < http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/pli/GC33-0009-4_PLI_Che ckout_And_Opt_Compiler_Lang_Ref_Oct76.pdf>
>
> Here's a paper in "Communications of the ACM", from 1967, by Harold
> Lawson when he was at IBM:
> < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220424487_PLI_list_ processing>
>
> Here's the ACM's first PL/I bulletin from 1965:
> < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220424487_PLI_list_ processing>
>
> Here's the language specification, from IBM, from 1965:
> < http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/pli/C28-6571-1_PL_I_Lan guage_Specifications_Jul65.pdf>
>
> That document references an earlier one, C28-6571-0, which I can't
> find in its entirety, however the Oxford English Dictionary mentions
> it including several quotations from it in their entry on the letter
> "P". Search for "PL/I" on that page and you'll find it:
> <https://oed.com/oed2/00168890>.
>
> So it seems pretty clear that it was PL/I from at least 1965.
My apologies for the two empty posts - see below
We are obviously at cross-purposes, between what it was called and how it was written.
In speech it was pronounced pee-ell-one, never pee-ell-eye.
Wiki : "PL/I (Programming Language One, pronounced /(see below ***)/ and sometimes written PL/1)"
Googling PL/I gives 44 million hits, PL/1 gives 45.1 million hits.
BTW my course instructor was a developer from Hursley (50 miles away).
*** You'll have to see the wiki entry as my news client seems to object to
the characters used in the phonetic stuff, hence the empty posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399316 is a reply to message #399310] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 07:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: gareth evans
On 05/09/2020 10:47, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
>> <plonk>
>
> You kept reading things into my posts that I didn't write, then
> reacted angrily to those things I didn't write, descending
> to insults when I pointed out I didn't write those things.
>
> So, this is probably for the best.
>
Come on, buck up chaps ! ! ! ! !
Just because most of us are well on the way to
our second childhood is no reason to behave as
though we never left the first!
Interesting the current threads about the
IBM 360 et seq. Having cut my teeth on
DEC's products of the PDPs 11 & 8, and then
subsequently onto micros, mainly Intel, I
had always regarded the IBM products as the
be all and end all, up in the gods of computing.
Interesting to see the feet of clay!
Although I did have a passing acquaintance with
a 360 clone, the Perkin Elmer (Formerly Interdata)
8/32 programmed in CORAL, so no low level machine
code experience as is my wont.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399318 is a reply to message #399270] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 08:22 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-09-04, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Before Fortran 90, the language also had some serious deficiencies
> versus C (no structs, no inteface checking, no dynamic memory
> management). Fortran 90 came rather late, and was only sluggishly
> implemented by many compiler vendors. I think that was the window
> when the language lost a lot of popularity.
Well, it took quite a while for compiler support for C99 to show up,
too. But I guess C was (is!) so entrenched that it didn't hurt its
popularity much.
Niklas
--
Okay... so your machines are pipes... Does that mean you label the
tapes/floppies/cdroms in it things like "hash", "maryjane" and
"terbacca"?
-- Thorfinn
|
|
|
|
| Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad [message #399325 is a reply to message #399303] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 10:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 23:34:11 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:
> On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 3:25:28 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 18:10:40 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <dlo0lf91co44t5us8l285l3jc3tr4949us@4ax.com>,
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That's a data logger, it's not what is commonly thought of as a
>>>> "scientific machine".
>
>>> Aw, come on, you're making stuff up. A PDP-10 was a 36 bit computer
>>> with hardware floating point that ran a real operating system. It also
>>> had fast interrupts so it could do realtime work. For a long time
>>> DEC's strong point was computers that could do both realtime control
>>> and useful computing.
>
>>> IBM dabbled in that market with the 1800 (a faster 1130 with some
>>> realtime interfaces), 360/44, and their later System 7 and Series 1,
>>> but they never acted like they were very serious about the market,
>>> compared to DEC or HP.
>
>> You are conflating description of the use case with description of the
>> processor. You could hook a Cray X-MP to that same hardware and
>> collect that same data and the Cray would still be a data logger. It
>> would be an insanely expensive data logger most of whose capacity was
>> being wasted, but it would still be a data logger.
>
> Funny, I thought *you* were the one doing the conflating. A PDP-10 may be used
> as a data logger (the use case) but if you call it a data logger, then people
> will rightly interpret your statement to mean that you are claiming that the
> PDP-10 is accurately described as a computer the design of which is specifically
> optimized for the task of data logging.
>
> In other words, using the English language normally does not constitute
> "conflating the use case with the description of the processor". If you say that
> A is a B, you are *describing* A as being a B; if you mean to say that A is
> being used as a B, you have to say so if you expect to be correctly understood.
Quadi, nobody likes a pedant.
John Levine seems to have gotten my point and moved on. Why are you
having so much trouble with it?
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399326 is a reply to message #399304] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 10:08 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 5 Sep 2020 06:34:44 GMT, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2020 at 14:00:36, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2020 05:21:53 GMT, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Sep 2020 at 09:22:34, Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 3:37:23 PM UTC+10, Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I did an IBM PL/1 course in 1966 (I was one of the first software CEs).
>>>> > Also, I worked with a few of the original developers in the early 70s
>>>> > and it was still PL/1 then.
>>>> > I don't know when it changed but I suspect it became PL/I because of a
>>>> > typesetting error.
>>>> ..
>>>> From the first IBM manual, the language has been called PL/I.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>
>> Well, here's the IBM manual from 1976:
>> < http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/pli/GC33-0009-4_PLI_Che ckout_And_Opt_Compiler_Lang_Ref_Oct76.pdf>
>>
>> Here's a paper in "Communications of the ACM", from 1967, by Harold
>> Lawson when he was at IBM:
>> < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220424487_PLI_list_ processing>
>>
>> Here's the ACM's first PL/I bulletin from 1965:
>> < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220424487_PLI_list_ processing>
>>
>> Here's the language specification, from IBM, from 1965:
>> < http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/pli/C28-6571-1_PL_I_Lan guage_Specifications_Jul65.pdf>
>>
>> That document references an earlier one, C28-6571-0, which I can't
>> find in its entirety, however the Oxford English Dictionary mentions
>> it including several quotations from it in their entry on the letter
>> "P". Search for "PL/I" on that page and you'll find it:
>> <https://oed.com/oed2/00168890>.
>>
>> So it seems pretty clear that it was PL/I from at least 1965.
>
> My apologies for the two empty posts - see below
>
> We are obviously at cross-purposes, between what it was called and how it was written.
> In speech it was pronounced pee-ell-one, never pee-ell-eye.
>
> Wiki : "PL/I (Programming Language One, pronounced /(see below ***)/ and sometimes written PL/1)"
>
> Googling PL/I gives 44 million hits, PL/1 gives 45.1 million hits.
>
> BTW my course instructor was a developer from Hursley (50 miles away).
>
> *** You'll have to see the wiki entry as my news client seems to object to
> the characters used in the phonetic stuff, hence the empty posts.
Verbally I agree it was always "Pee Ell One". But it wasn't written
that way by IBM in official documentation. I find some web pages and
other non-IBM documents that will use "PL/I" and then a few sentences
later "PL/1", and then a few more sentences on it's back to "PL/I"
again.
|
|
|
|
| Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399351 is a reply to message #399287] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 15:02 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <riutkd$nel$1@dont-email.me>,
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The notion that APL needs a special keyboard is a myth. It does not
>> now and never did. What it needs is a way to display the special
>> character set. On the 2741 you changed the type ball. On the PC
>> there was a ROM. I don't know if the APL character set was extra cost
>> on the 3270s.
>
> I remember seeing 3270s with APL symbols all over the keys.
> Wikipedia says that on the 2741 you placed keycaps over the normal keys.
> Is that something you dispense with now?
Depends whether you look at the keys when you type.
> How does a programmer know which key or keys to hit to get the symbol
> he wants?
Generally by looking at a cheat sheet somewhere nearby. It's the same
way I know how to type é and ü on my US keyboard.
>> I think that Iverson gave up on the special character set at exactly
>> the wrong time--he abandoned it right when the display of nonstandard
>> characters was becoming trivial.
Back in the 1970s, Ken Thompson implemented a large subset of APL as a
weekend Unix hack. Somehow I got a copy of it at Yale, where we had
early bitmap screen terminals attached to our PDP-11. I added a set of
APL characters to the terminal emulator, taking advantage of the fact
that doing overstrikes with bitmaps is really easy (an OR instruction
does the trick.) Then I added a few things to his APL to make it more
usable, most importantly >save and )load and put it on an early Usenix
tape. We did not have special keycaps but it was usable enough.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
| Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399361 is a reply to message #399351] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 16:23 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
> In article <riutkd$nel$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The notion that APL needs a special keyboard is a myth. It does not
>>> now and never did. What it needs is a way to display the special
>>> character set. On the 2741 you changed the type ball. On the PC
>>> there was a ROM. I don't know if the APL character set was extra cost
>>> on the 3270s.
>>
>> I remember seeing 3270s with APL symbols all over the keys.
>> Wikipedia says that on the 2741 you placed keycaps over the normal keys.
>> Is that something you dispense with now?
>
> Depends whether you look at the keys when you type.
Well, see your next sentence!
>> How does a programmer know which key or keys to hit to get the symbol
>> he wants?
>
> Generally by looking at a cheat sheet somewhere nearby. It's the same
> way I know how to type é and ü on my US keyboard.
So you're looking at a cheat sheet near the keyboard instead of the
keyboard. Same difference pretty much.
I got used to having Copy/Front/Open on my keyboard back when I used
Sun workstations. So, now I'm using the 6 key pad right above the
4 key arrow pad for those keys.
I wish I could find keys labeled like that. Before anyone looks
I have a keyboard with keys lit by LEDs. The symbols aren't printed
on the keys.
So, anyway, I cut a rectangular frame out of oaktag type paper which
surrounds the 6 key pad. Not the best solution but when my mind
goes on vacation I can look down and find the key.
Right now:
INS = Front HOME=Open PGUp=Again
PgDn = Copy
Some of those are Emacs bindings, some are WM bindings.
>>> I think that Iverson gave up on the special character set at exactly
>>> the wrong time--he abandoned it right when the display of nonstandard
>>> characters was becoming trivial.
>
> Back in the 1970s, Ken Thompson implemented a large subset of APL as a
> weekend Unix hack. Somehow I got a copy of it at Yale, where we had
> early bitmap screen terminals attached to our PDP-11. I added a set of
> APL characters to the terminal emulator, taking advantage of the fact
> that doing overstrikes with bitmaps is really easy (an OR instruction
> does the trick.) Then I added a few things to his APL to make it more
> usable, most importantly >save and )load and put it on an early Usenix
> tape. We did not have special keycaps but it was usable enough.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399365 is a reply to message #399361] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 16:37 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 16:23:42 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> In article <riutkd$nel$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The notion that APL needs a special keyboard is a myth. It does not
>>>> now and never did. What it needs is a way to display the special
>>>> character set. On the 2741 you changed the type ball. On the PC
>>>> there was a ROM. I don't know if the APL character set was extra cost
>>>> on the 3270s.
>>>
>>> I remember seeing 3270s with APL symbols all over the keys.
>>> Wikipedia says that on the 2741 you placed keycaps over the normal keys.
>>> Is that something you dispense with now?
>>
>> Depends whether you look at the keys when you type.
>
> Well, see your next sentence!
>
>>> How does a programmer know which key or keys to hit to get the symbol
>>> he wants?
>>
>> Generally by looking at a cheat sheet somewhere nearby. It's the same
>> way I know how to type é and ü on my US keyboard.
>
> So you're looking at a cheat sheet near the keyboard instead of the
> keyboard. Same difference pretty much.
>
> I got used to having Copy/Front/Open on my keyboard back when I used
> Sun workstations. So, now I'm using the 6 key pad right above the
> 4 key arrow pad for those keys.
>
> I wish I could find keys labeled like that. Before anyone looks
> I have a keyboard with keys lit by LEDs. The symbols aren't printed
> on the keys.
>
> So, anyway, I cut a rectangular frame out of oaktag type paper which
> surrounds the 6 key pad. Not the best solution but when my mind
> goes on vacation I can look down and find the key.
>
> Right now:
>
> INS = Front HOME=Open PGUp=Again
> PgDn = Copy
>
> Some of those are Emacs bindings, some are WM bindings.
IF you have a keyboard with Cherry MX keys you can get custom keycaps
for it (I mean _really_ custom--they'll do whatever artwork you
provide as long as it will fit on the key).
< https://www.maxkeyboard.com/custom-backlight-compatible-keyc ap-for-backlit-keyboard.html>
It's possible to 3d-print keycaps for other models but you're kind of
on your own as to finding the masters.
>>>> I think that Iverson gave up on the special character set at exactly
>>>> the wrong time--he abandoned it right when the display of nonstandard
>>>> characters was becoming trivial.
>>
>> Back in the 1970s, Ken Thompson implemented a large subset of APL as a
>> weekend Unix hack. Somehow I got a copy of it at Yale, where we had
>> early bitmap screen terminals attached to our PDP-11. I added a set of
>> APL characters to the terminal emulator, taking advantage of the fact
>> that doing overstrikes with bitmaps is really easy (an OR instruction
>> does the trick.) Then I added a few things to his APL to make it more
>> usable, most importantly >save and )load and put it on an early Usenix
>> tape. We did not have special keycaps but it was usable enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: fun with APL, was IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399372 is a reply to message #399369] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 17:09 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 16:57:47 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> IF you have a keyboard with Cherry MX keys you can get custom keycaps
>> for it (I mean _really_ custom--they'll do whatever artwork you
>> provide as long as it will fit on the key).
>> < https://www.maxkeyboard.com/custom-backlight-compatible-keyc ap-for-backlit-keyboard.html>
>
> Yep, current keyboard is Cherry.
> I would have never guessed I could order custom keys for it.
>
> Thanks!
Thank the gamer world. Computer games aren't just kids having fun in
their mother's basement anymore. When there are millions of dollars
on the line people will pay for whatever they think they need to win.
>> It's possible to 3d-print keycaps for other models but you're kind of
>> on your own as to finding the masters.
>
> I know someone with a 3d printer too.
>
> I think I'm going to find my new keyboard first.
>
> The last one I was looking at was using a new key
> design instead of Cherry because they wanted to get
> the LED light right up near the key surface.
|
|
|
|
| Re: PDP-10, was KDF9, not IBM system/360 ad [message #399387 is a reply to message #399303] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 20:38 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 3:25:28 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 18:10:40 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <dlo0lf91co44t5us8l285l3jc3tr4949us@4ax.com>,
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That's a data logger, it's not what is commonly thought of as a
>>>> "scientific machine".
>
>>> Aw, come on, you're making stuff up. A PDP-10 was a 36 bit computer
>>> with hardware floating point that ran a real operating system. It also
>>> had fast interrupts so it could do realtime work. For a long time
>>> DEC's strong point was computers that could do both realtime control
>>> and useful computing.
>
>>> IBM dabbled in that market with the 1800 (a faster 1130 with some
>>> realtime interfaces), 360/44, and their later System 7 and Series 1,
>>> but they never acted like they were very serious about the market,
>>> compared to DEC or HP.
>
>> You are conflating description of the use case with description of the
>> processor. You could hook a Cray X-MP to that same hardware and
>> collect that same data and the Cray would still be a data logger. It
>> would be an insanely expensive data logger most of whose capacity was
>> being wasted, but it would still be a data logger.
>
> Funny, I thought *you* were the one doing the conflating. A PDP-10 may be used
> as a data logger (the use case) but if you call it a data logger, then people
> will rightly interpret your statement to mean that you are claiming that the
> PDP-10 is accurately described as a computer the design of which is specifically
> optimized for the task of data logging.
>
> In other words, using the English language normally does not constitute
> "conflating the use case with the description of the processor". If you say that
> A is a B, you are *describing* A as being a B; if you mean to say that A is
> being used as a B, you have to say so if you expect to be correctly understood.
>
I think most of us have an idea about what constitutes a “scientific”,
“commercial”, or maybe “database” machine, but trying to pin down a
definition is hard.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399389 is a reply to message #399287] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 20:38 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 21:00:29 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:53:20 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I get upset by any arsewipe who wastes my time with a lot of bullshit.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's a little unfair to blame your apparent lack of reading
>>>> >> comprehension on other people, and then start insulting them when
>>>> >> this is pointed out to you.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> If you want to port gfortran to MVS
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I don't, particularly. I think it would be much better if IBM
>>>> >> ported their own xlf compiler.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The stanard that VS Fortran is based on has been superseded for
>>>> >> almost 30 years, and there have been five succeeding revisions
>>>> >> of Fortran since. I think it is fair to that what IBM offers its
>>>> >> customers for Fortran on MVS sub-standard (pun intended).
>>>> >
>>>> > Oops, I think you're going to set him off again.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, just killfiled him as a waste of time. If he wants to lobby IBM
>>>> to change something he's welcome to do so, but haranguing me about it
>>>> is pointless.
>>>
>>> Well, I didn't read him as him trying to tell you to do anything and I
>>> found his insights into the gcc development process interesting.
>>> I don't know much about Fortran so I had no basis for judging
>>> gfortan vs anything else.
>>>
>>>> > I recall reading somewhere that stuff that used to be done
>>>> > with Fortran is now often done with C.
>>>>
>>>> It is and we are slowly, a piece at a time, rewriting our Fortran code
>>>> in C, not because there is anything wrong with the Fortran but because
>>>> Fortran programmers are getting almost as hard to find as COBOL
>>>> programmers.
>>>
>>> COBOL programmers. Always found that an interesting concept.
>>> If you can program in any language you should be able to do COBOL.
>>> Probably people just don't want to do COBOL. I never minded but
>>> I suppose other languages could be more fun.
>>
>> My experience is that COBOL is like APL--it requires different thought
>> patterns from a FORTRAN-like language.
>>
>>>> > At first that seems counter-intuitive. Fortran mimics
>>>> > the language of mathematics so should be something a mathematician
>>>> > would want to use. But I suppose mathematicians are fully capable
>>>> > of using a simple programming language.
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of being accused of being "set off", I don't much to
>>>> choose between them from a notational viewpoint. I find them both
>>>> primitive and klunky in about equal measure. My first language was
>>>> APL, if you know APL you'll understand why I find the claim that
>>>> Fortran "micks the language of mathematics" to be risible.
>>>
>>> I never messed with APL but all those funny symbols were scary.
>>> I guess modern APL has a way around having a special keyboard.
>>
>> The notion that APL needs a special keyboard is a myth. It does not
>> now and never did. What it needs is a way to display the special
>> character set. On the 2741 you changed the type ball. On the PC
>> there was a ROM. I don't know if the APL character set was extra cost
>> on the 3270s.
>
> I remember seeing 3270s with APL symbols all over the keys.
> Wikipedia says that on the 2741 you placed keycaps over the normal keys.
> Is that something you dispense with now?
I used APL keycaps on my 3290 - pop out the old ones and press on the new.
I never used it for APL but it had some special characters I wanted: }{ and
maybe ][.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399399 is a reply to message #399389] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 22:05 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 17:38:40 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 21:00:29 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:53:20 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> I get upset by any arsewipe who wastes my time with a lot of bullshit.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It's a little unfair to blame your apparent lack of reading
>>>> >>> comprehension on other people, and then start insulting them when
>>>> >>> this is pointed out to you.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> If you want to port gfortran to MVS
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I don't, particularly. I think it would be much better if IBM
>>>> >>> ported their own xlf compiler.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The stanard that VS Fortran is based on has been superseded for
>>>> >>> almost 30 years, and there have been five succeeding revisions
>>>> >>> of Fortran since. I think it is fair to that what IBM offers its
>>>> >>> customers for Fortran on MVS sub-standard (pun intended).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Oops, I think you're going to set him off again.
>>>> >
>>>> > Nope, just killfiled him as a waste of time. If he wants to lobby IBM
>>>> > to change something he's welcome to do so, but haranguing me about it
>>>> > is pointless.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't read him as him trying to tell you to do anything and I
>>>> found his insights into the gcc development process interesting.
>>>> I don't know much about Fortran so I had no basis for judging
>>>> gfortan vs anything else.
>>>>
>>>> >> I recall reading somewhere that stuff that used to be done
>>>> >> with Fortran is now often done with C.
>>>> >
>>>> > It is and we are slowly, a piece at a time, rewriting our Fortran code
>>>> > in C, not because there is anything wrong with the Fortran but because
>>>> > Fortran programmers are getting almost as hard to find as COBOL
>>>> > programmers.
>>>>
>>>> COBOL programmers. Always found that an interesting concept.
>>>> If you can program in any language you should be able to do COBOL.
>>>> Probably people just don't want to do COBOL. I never minded but
>>>> I suppose other languages could be more fun.
>>>
>>> My experience is that COBOL is like APL--it requires different thought
>>> patterns from a FORTRAN-like language.
>>>
>>>> >> At first that seems counter-intuitive. Fortran mimics
>>>> >> the language of mathematics so should be something a mathematician
>>>> >> would want to use. But I suppose mathematicians are fully capable
>>>> >> of using a simple programming language.
>>>> >
>>>> > At the risk of being accused of being "set off", I don't much to
>>>> > choose between them from a notational viewpoint. I find them both
>>>> > primitive and klunky in about equal measure. My first language was
>>>> > APL, if you know APL you'll understand why I find the claim that
>>>> > Fortran "micks the language of mathematics" to be risible.
>>>>
>>>> I never messed with APL but all those funny symbols were scary.
>>>> I guess modern APL has a way around having a special keyboard.
>>>
>>> The notion that APL needs a special keyboard is a myth. It does not
>>> now and never did. What it needs is a way to display the special
>>> character set. On the 2741 you changed the type ball. On the PC
>>> there was a ROM. I don't know if the APL character set was extra cost
>>> on the 3270s.
>>
>> I remember seeing 3270s with APL symbols all over the keys.
>> Wikipedia says that on the 2741 you placed keycaps over the normal keys.
>> Is that something you dispense with now?
>
> I used APL keycaps on my 3290 - pop out the old ones and press on the new.
> I never used it for APL but it had some special characters I wanted: }{ and
> maybe ][.
[] is the one that anybody working in C needs that isn't there in the
default character set. An annoyance is that EBCDIC doesn't have a
single assignment for those. If everybody's working with the same
terminal setup it's not an issue but if you have two different
terminal emulation vendors one show garbage characters where the other
shows the square brackets.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399420 is a reply to message #399399] |
Sun, 06 September 2020 09:30 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 17:38:40 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 21:00:29 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 16:53:20 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> I get upset by any arsewipe who wastes my time with a lot of bullshit.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It's a little unfair to blame your apparent lack of reading
>>>> >>>> comprehension on other people, and then start insulting them when
>>>> >>>> this is pointed out to you.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> If you want to port gfortran to MVS
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I don't, particularly. I think it would be much better if IBM
>>>> >>>> ported their own xlf compiler.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The stanard that VS Fortran is based on has been superseded for
>>>> >>>> almost 30 years, and there have been five succeeding revisions
>>>> >>>> of Fortran since. I think it is fair to that what IBM offers its
>>>> >>>> customers for Fortran on MVS sub-standard (pun intended).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Oops, I think you're going to set him off again.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Nope, just killfiled him as a waste of time. If he wants to lobby IBM
>>>> >> to change something he's welcome to do so, but haranguing me about it
>>>> >> is pointless.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, I didn't read him as him trying to tell you to do anything and I
>>>> > found his insights into the gcc development process interesting.
>>>> > I don't know much about Fortran so I had no basis for judging
>>>> > gfortan vs anything else.
>>>> >
>>>> >>> I recall reading somewhere that stuff that used to be done
>>>> >>> with Fortran is now often done with C.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is and we are slowly, a piece at a time, rewriting our Fortran code
>>>> >> in C, not because there is anything wrong with the Fortran but because
>>>> >> Fortran programmers are getting almost as hard to find as COBOL
>>>> >> programmers.
>>>> >
>>>> > COBOL programmers. Always found that an interesting concept.
>>>> > If you can program in any language you should be able to do COBOL.
>>>> > Probably people just don't want to do COBOL. I never minded but
>>>> > I suppose other languages could be more fun.
>>>>
>>>> My experience is that COBOL is like APL--it requires different thought
>>>> patterns from a FORTRAN-like language.
>>>>
>>>> >>> At first that seems counter-intuitive. Fortran mimics
>>>> >>> the language of mathematics so should be something a mathematician
>>>> >>> would want to use. But I suppose mathematicians are fully capable
>>>> >>> of using a simple programming language.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> At the risk of being accused of being "set off", I don't much to
>>>> >> choose between them from a notational viewpoint. I find them both
>>>> >> primitive and klunky in about equal measure. My first language was
>>>> >> APL, if you know APL you'll understand why I find the claim that
>>>> >> Fortran "micks the language of mathematics" to be risible.
>>>> >
>>>> > I never messed with APL but all those funny symbols were scary.
>>>> > I guess modern APL has a way around having a special keyboard.
>>>>
>>>> The notion that APL needs a special keyboard is a myth. It does not
>>>> now and never did. What it needs is a way to display the special
>>>> character set. On the 2741 you changed the type ball. On the PC
>>>> there was a ROM. I don't know if the APL character set was extra cost
>>>> on the 3270s.
>>>
>>> I remember seeing 3270s with APL symbols all over the keys.
>>> Wikipedia says that on the 2741 you placed keycaps over the normal keys.
>>> Is that something you dispense with now?
>>
>> I used APL keycaps on my 3290 - pop out the old ones and press on the new.
>> I never used it for APL but it had some special characters I wanted: }{ and
>> maybe ][.
>
> [] is the one that anybody working in C needs that isn't there in the
> default character set. An annoyance is that EBCDIC doesn't have a
> single assignment for those. If everybody's working with the same
> terminal setup it's not an issue but if you have two different
> terminal emulation vendors one show garbage characters where the other
> shows the square brackets.
>
I just declared CP1047 to be our official standard, and used it throughout.
I think 1047 has now been superseded. .
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399591 is a reply to message #399281] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 14:53 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 9:00:33 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
> COBOL programmers. Always found that an interesting concept.
> If you can program in any language you should be able to do COBOL.
> Probably people just don't want to do COBOL. I never minded but
> I suppose other languages could be more fun.
Among some compsci types there was a prejudice against
COBOL (and business processing). Somehow the compsci
types thought all of that was beneath them. IBM
mainframes were beneath them as well. They loved
the PDP, Unix, C and Internet related stuff.
> I never messed with APL but all those funny symbols were scary.
> I guess modern APL has a way around having a special keyboard.
APL, like PL/I, was a specialty language. There were a few
fans who loved it, but the rest of the world ignored it.
IMHO, APL was only good for very specialized applications.
The greek letters were a nuisance and we were always
searching for the special font needed on the teleprinter.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399594 is a reply to message #399281] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 14:59 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 9:00:33 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
> I was very lucky to live through the heyday of computer programming.
It sure seems they want to take all the fun out of programming.
But that's actually nothing new. Because of the high
demand for programmers and special needs of the job,
corporate management was forced to tolerate a less
(sometimes much less) structured work environment than
they mandated for other jobs such as accountants or
engineers. Geez, I remember many managers who couldn't
stand the fact that programmers simply couldn't work
the standard 9-5 lunch 12-1 because of the demands
of running a job when the computer happened to be
free. They didn't like programmers violating the
corporate dress code; programmers collaborating
with each other or roaming about lost in thought.
Now with demand reduced and other changes, corporate
America has achieved its goal of cracking down in
many installations. They even use security
badges as time clocks to track comings and goings.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399596 is a reply to message #399282] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 15:04 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 9:09:58 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>> I was very lucky to live through the heyday of computer programming.
>>
>
> Indeed. I miss those days, we thought of ourselves as special, and were
> treated that way. Plus, we felt like we were doing a good thing for
> society, or at least our employers.
Yes, there was some degree of satisfaction in the early years.
Back then we felt we were actually helping people by expediting
transactions and reducing clerical drudgery. I remember when
we automated a manual card index tracking system the clerks
were very grateful as the computer made their job easier
and more productive (no one was laid off). I remember
when our reports found bottlenecks that people were happy
to identify and fix.
Maybe I'm cynical in my old age, but it seemed COOPERATION
was the name of the game in the old days. Today it sure
seems to be CONTENTION.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399597 is a reply to message #399286] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 15:09 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
> I have read some claims that there are calculus courses/knowledge that
> can come in handy in theoretical physics.
Oh yes. Science majors take physics after getting a foundation
in calculus. You need calculus to do college physics.
If fading memory serves, high school physics dealt with objects
moving with a constant rate of acceleration. But in college
the acceleration varied. Also, the path could be curved.
For that calculus was necessary.
I think advanced physics was almost all expressed in calculus
terms.
In bitsavers there are notes of early conferences discussing
how the machines of the day could be used to solve complex
physics problems. They have some nasty integrals.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399598 is a reply to message #399304] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 15:16 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 2:34:46 AM UTC-4, Bob Martin wrote:
> We are obviously at cross-purposes, between what it was called and how it was written.
> In speech it was pronounced pee-ell-one, never pee-ell-eye.
Perhaps the "I" is a roman numeral one.
IBM had other products in the same format. I think there was
a DL/I.
Nobody particularly cared. It was actually hard to tell given
the typeface. For instance, think of Illinois abbreviated.
Often we'll see three vertical lines though one is a capital
I and the others are lower case L.
Programmers knew in coding they had to be careful to
differentiate between the letter O and the numeral 0,
and the letter I and the number 1.
One of the reasons the phoneco dumped lettered exchanges
was confusion between 0/0 and 1/I/Y causing wrong numbers.
It always puzzled me how certain fields things like part
numbers or engineering designations would be cryptic
alpha-numeric combinations. Like a vacuum tube code.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399599 is a reply to message #399594] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 15:22 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 9:00:33 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> I was very lucky to live through the heyday of computer programming.
>
> It sure seems they want to take all the fun out of programming.
>
> But that's actually nothing new. Because of the high
> demand for programmers and special needs of the job,
> corporate management was forced to tolerate a less
> (sometimes much less) structured work environment than
> they mandated for other jobs such as accountants or
> engineers. Geez, I remember many managers who couldn't
> stand the fact that programmers simply couldn't work
> the standard 9-5 lunch 12-1 because of the demands
> of running a job when the computer happened to be
> free. They didn't like programmers violating the
> corporate dress code; programmers collaborating
> with each other or roaming about lost in thought.
>
> Now with demand reduced and other changes, corporate
> America has achieved its goal of cracking down in
> many installations. They even use security
> badges as time clocks to track comings and goings.
That is all so accurate.
The part about "sometimes much less" made me laugh.
I think I did my best to make that happen.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399607 is a reply to message #399597] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 16:00 |
|
|
Originally posted by: gareth evans
On 08/09/2020 20:09, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
>
>> I have read some claims that there are calculus courses/knowledge that
>> can come in handy in theoretical physics.
>
> Oh yes. Science majors take physics after getting a foundation
> in calculus. You need calculus to do college physics.
>
> If fading memory serves, high school physics dealt with objects
> moving with a constant rate of acceleration. But in college
> the acceleration varied. Also, the path could be curved.
> For that calculus was necessary.
If your memory is right, then USA school mathematics must
be way behind that here in Brit.
In a Brit grammar school (Nailsea, before it got comprehensivised)
we got out first tentative contact with The Calculus at
about age 14.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399626 is a reply to message #399591] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 18:37 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:53:12 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 9:00:33 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>
>> COBOL programmers. Always found that an interesting concept.
>> If you can program in any language you should be able to do COBOL.
>> Probably people just don't want to do COBOL. I never minded but
>> I suppose other languages could be more fun.
>
> Among some compsci types there was a prejudice against
> COBOL (and business processing). Somehow the compsci
> types thought all of that was beneath them. IBM
> mainframes were beneath them as well. They loved
> the PDP, Unix, C and Internet related stuff.
>
>
>> I never messed with APL but all those funny symbols were scary.
>> I guess modern APL has a way around having a special keyboard.
>
> APL, like PL/I, was a specialty language. There were a few
> fans who loved it, but the rest of the world ignored it.
>
> IMHO, APL was only good for very specialized applications.
> The greek letters were a nuisance and we were always
> searching for the special font needed on the teleprinter.
Was? The ol' gal ain't dead yet.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399629 is a reply to message #399596] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 18:35 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Maybe I'm cynical in my old age, but it seemed COOPERATION
> was the name of the game in the old days. Today it sure
> seems to be CONTENTION.
Maybe I've been lucky but it's always been about cooperation
everywhere I've worked.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399638 is a reply to message #399304] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 22:07 |
Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 4:34:46 PM UTC+10, Bob Martin wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2020 at 14:00:36, J. Clarke <j.......@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2020 05:21:53 GMT, Bob Martin <b.......@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Sep 2020 at 09:22:34, Robin Vowels <r........@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 3:37:23 PM UTC+10, Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I did an IBM PL/1 course in 1966 (I was one of the first software CEs).
>>>> > Also, I worked with a few of the original developers in the early 70s
>>>> > and it was still PL/1 then.
>>>> > I don't know when it changed but I suspect it became PL/I because of a
>>>> > typesetting error.
>>>> ..
>>>> From the first IBM manual, the language has been called PL/I.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>
>> Well, here's the IBM manual from 1976:
>> < http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/pli/GC33-0009-4_PLI_Che ckout_And_Opt_Compiler_Lang_Ref_Oct76.pdf>
>>
>> Here's a paper in "Communications of the ACM", from 1967, by Harold
>> Lawson when he was at IBM:
>> < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220424487_PLI_list_ processing>
>>
>> Here's the ACM's first PL/I bulletin from 1965:
>> < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220424487_PLI_list_ processing>
>>
>> Here's the language specification, from IBM, from 1965:
>> < http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/pli/C28-6571-1_PL_I_Lan guage_Specifications_Jul65.pdf>
>>
>> That document references an earlier one, C28-6571-0, which I can't
>> find in its entirety, however the Oxford English Dictionary mentions
>> it including several quotations from it in their entry on the letter
>> "P". Search for "PL/I" on that page and you'll find it:
>> <https://oed.com/oed2/00168890>.
>>
>> So it seems pretty clear that it was PL/I from at least 1965.
> My apologies for the two empty posts - see below
>
> We are obviously at cross-purposes, between what it was called and how it was written.
> In speech it was pronounced pee-ell-one, never pee-ell-eye.
That's because it is a Roman I.
You don't pronounce Roman III as "eye-eye-eye."
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399639 is a reply to message #399326] |
Tue, 08 September 2020 22:13 |
Robin Vowels
Messages: 426
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 12:08:23 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2020 06:34:44 GMT, Bob Martin <b......@excite.com> wrote:
> Verbally I agree it was always "Pee Ell One". But it wasn't written
> that way by IBM in official documentation.
Go read the IBM PL/I manuals. It's been "PL/I" for the past 55 years.
> I find some web pages and
> other non-IBM documents that will use "PL/I" and then a few sentences
> later "PL/1", and then a few more sentences on it's back to "PL/I"
> again.
That's irrelevant. They are not primary sources.
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399695 is a reply to message #399607] |
Wed, 09 September 2020 15:45 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 21:00:16 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 08/09/2020 20:09, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> I have read some claims that there are calculus courses/knowledge that
>>> can come in handy in theoretical physics.
>>
>> Oh yes. Science majors take physics after getting a foundation
>> in calculus. You need calculus to do college physics.
>>
>> If fading memory serves, high school physics dealt with objects
>> moving with a constant rate of acceleration. But in college
>> the acceleration varied. Also, the path could be curved.
>> For that calculus was necessary.
>
> If your memory is right, then USA school mathematics must
> be way behind that here in Brit.
>
> In a Brit grammar school (Nailsea, before it got comprehensivised)
> we got out first tentative contact with The Calculus at
> about age 14.
Yeah... In 7th grade I took algebra. My dad got transferred. The new
school told me no algebra until 9th grade. So I took it twice, once in
junior high and once in high school.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: IBM system/360, whiz or dog? [message #399700 is a reply to message #399629] |
Wed, 09 September 2020 16:17 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 7:00:05 PM UTC-4, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm cynical in my old age, but it seemed COOPERATION
>> was the name of the game in the old days. Today it sure
>> seems to be CONTENTION.
>
> Maybe I've been lucky but it's always been about cooperation
> everywhere I've worked.
Some managers believed in deliberate contention to motivate
workers. Watson Jr said so in his memoir.
Unfortunately, many places went for contention. A shame.
Then another generation of managers is brought up in
that approach and they apply it.
IMHO, cooperation works better.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
