🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BzGn32.37C@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>There were other choices. PICK for instance was a very highly regarded system
>but was killed through over agressive attempts to control it. Imagine a world in
>which EBSIDIC, not ASCII was the standard for charaters. We would see people
       ^^^^^^^
EBCDIC maybe, what is EBSIDIC?

And, EBCDIC has some superior features to ASCII, Especially when
converting Zone Style (string) and Packed (BCD) numbers into printable
characters and back.

IBM shops have been using EBCDIC for 30 years.  It *IS* a standard for
them, and the S/36 enviroment we use on our SCO UNIX box does everything
EBCDIC also.  There are some interesting searching & sorting impacts
from using EBCDIC also.

>praising the merits of the EBSIDIC standard as if the deliberate convolutions of
>the system were an advantage rather than a serious drawback.

here is no SERIOUS drawback to EBCDIC.  None, other than compatability
with ASCII systems.  There are also some advantages with business
applications.  EBCDIC was no "deliberate convolution", and when you look
at the BINARY representation of the codes *AND* the way numbers are
represented on the IBM style RPG/COBOL/... systems it begins to make
very good sense.

I grew up on ASCII and used EBCDIC later, and while I generally use
ASCII now whenever possible, this is more for portability reasons,
rather than because it is "BETTER" in any way.  Be real.
-- 
Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs      BBS 1-919-423-4216            Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...