From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-27 02:41:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!POSTED.monger.newsread.com!not-for-mail From: "Gary Labowitz" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy References: <9gsvr7$7ho$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9folnd$1t8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B1FE1FE.B49AE27F@noaa.gov> <9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> <3B25D5FB.15C9B240@dresdner-bank.com> <9g5as6$hbq$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g5ipg$roq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g614i$at4$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g7r02$mni$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b366a2b$6$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> <3B387768.FF5E9744@acm.org> Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:41:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.16.153.83 X-Complaints-To: Abuse Role , We Care X-Trace: monger.newsread.com 993634918 207.16.153.83 (Wed, 27 Jun 2001 05:41:58 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 05:41:58 EDT Organization: ENTER.net (enter.net) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9136 comp.lang.java.programmer:79050 comp.lang.pl1:1135 comp.lang.vrml:3921 comp.lang.java.advocacy:22063 Date: 2001-06-27T09:41:58+00:00 List-Id: I'm curious what you mean by "relocation" that you were shocked that S/360 didn't have it. From the very outset the OS/360 design included a relocating loader, which was very advanced for its time. The hardware redirection of memory addresses (dynamic address translation -or DAT) came later (as I recall about four years). The development activity in Poughkeepsie was very untypical at the time. The MP65 was pretty much a late-comer to market with multiprocessing, but it never really went anywhere. Neither, BTW, did Burroughs, NCR, or Bendix. Univac held on much longer. I remember losing a large contract to Univac in the early '70's, but they later switched back to IBM. As I went about learning PC's (and Apple) operating systems (including Win32) I was struck with the fact that much of what was the "new" thing was just a reimplementation of what we did on the S/360 in the mid '60's. Names changed, and there was a lot more packed into the hardware, but a great deal was the same. It has drifted a bit,by which I mean that there are some new concepts pushing PC development in a different direction from the way OS/360 did things, but we were very close to what OOP is all about. IBM's biggest mistake (like Apple) was trying to keep everything proprietary for market advantage, and losing to the clones. I think Java is finally breaking into the same sort of hold Microsoft has used by its "fully integrated" approach. I will, of course, learn C#, but frankly I'm having more fun now with Java than with VB (I never committed to C/C++). Perhaps it's just that it's newer to me, but as long as the performance improves steadily, Java may well be the challenge Microsoft needs for change, not court mandated crippling. Gary "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote in message news:3B387768.FF5E9744@acm.org... > > > Ken Garlington wrote: > > > > Let's say, just hypothetically, that you've been programming since 1960. How > > long can you remember trends in the computing industry (which, presumably, > > is different from either academic computing or hobbyist programming)? > > Trends were also different between scientific and commercial computing. > Centralized development was much more common in the commercial sector. > > > In fact, let's go further - does your memory confirm that the OS/360 > > development effort described in Brooks was fairly typical (if not advanced) > > for industrial computing in the early-to-mid 1960's? > > I remember being shocked that the S/360 didn't include any relocation > capability. I remember that OS/360 inherited some nice features from > IBSYS/IBJOB. Overall, my memory confirms that it was less advanced but more > comprehensive than what was available from other vendors. In particular, both > UNIVAC and Burroughs had working multiprocessors on standard lines well before > the 65MP or even the 9020. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > >