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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-05 17:24:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!newsfeeds.bigpond.com!not-for-mail From: R. Vowels Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Message-ID: Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 00:09:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.134.49.190 X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 994378195 144.134.49.190 (Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:09:55 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:09:55 EST Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9516 comp.lang.java.programmer:80804 comp.lang.pl1:1203 comp.lang.vrml:3987 comp.lang.java.advocacy:22733 Date: 2001-07-06T00:09:55+00:00 List-Id: "Gary Labowitz" writes: > This is getting ridiculous. You are SO hoping that computing and programming > were not centralized that you skip an entrie generation. > When most people talk about early days, they mean when computers actually > came into the marketplace and were large centralized systems. Certainly > programmers could be stationed anywhere. But terminal systems (starting with > the various 1050-type systems) weren't available in the "early days." > Actually, I remember the introduction of the 1050 as a big deal (about 1963 > or so, maybe a little later). To get programming into the machine it first > had to be keypunched, and that was almost always "centralized." We did almost ALL of our own keypunching until 1970 and even then quite some after that. > You sent > your coding sheets to the center to be keypunched. Some of us would go there > ourselves and do our own keypunching (those that typed). I finished up buying a keypunch in about 1977 so that I could do some at home.. > On the Univac-I we > went to the computer and used the console keypunch. > Anyway, the later systems developed the RJE-type systems, which > decentralized the point at which program streams could be entered and > printed. They still connected to centralized processing, however. Since all > the terminals were dumb, there was only decentralized job entry and > printing. > The real point is: so what? So you said "in the early days we had > decentralized computing" and were wrong. > Live with it. > Let's get on with today's problems. > Gary > "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote in message > news:3B432AD8.3828FB9@acm.org... > > > > > > Lao Xiao Hai wrote: > > > > > I must be missing the point. What was not centralized? > > > > As I said multiple times, programming. > > > > > > > Programming was pretty > > > much centralized and under the control of a data processing manager. > Computers > > > were pretty much centralized, and there weren't that many that could > drive remote > > > terminals really well. > > > > Well enough. Can you say RAX? QUICKTRAN? CRBE? CRJE? RJE? SGJP? ATS? HASP > Multileaving? And > > that's just IBM supplied. There were also ALPHA, ROSCOE (nee WRAP) and > Wylbur on S/360, and > > others on non-IBM hardware. There was enough time sharing and remote batch > to drive a market > > in plug-compatible terminals and modems. > > > > > Most of the data processing was in batch mode. > > > > Which doesn't make it centralized. > > > > > > > That is not how I remember it. > > > > Clearly. Either your experience was limited or your memory is faulty. > > > > > > > > > Most of the programs I recall were written by the > > > programmers > > > at the service bureau. Some were packages purchased from elsewhere. > It was the rare > > > customer who had programming resources on which they could rely for > their own software. > > > > By the 70s most service bureaus were offering remote access. Ever wonder > why? > > > > > > > Not that common. > > > > Common enough to drive a market in brand X clones of terminals and modems, > e.g., Cope 45 for > > remote batch, Vadic modems. > > > > > > > And it was expensive. > > > > TI 700s were dirt cheap in the 70s and 80s, as were acoustic couplers. > > > > > > > I have done both. Certainly a lot of scientific computing was done > using remote > > > computers. However, I recall quite vividly those sites that had their > own IBM 1130 > > > and did their own Fortran programming. I spent many late night hours > writing Fortran II > > > and debugging on the 1130. > > > > And how many of those 1130s cost $150,000? To say nothing of the fact that > a lot of them were > > submitting jobs to larger machines. > > > > > > > The IBM 1401 was the workhorse of industry for a long time. > > > > And cost nowhere near $150,000. > > > > > > > Oh, and you forgot one of my personal favorites, the CDC > > > 160 series. > > > > I didn't forget it, any more than I forgot LGP or RCA; I omitted it > because I was > > concentrating on the IBM marketplace. > > > > > The IBM System 360 series came along in 1964 and, along with its > lots of > >