🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Mar27.155139.13349@pdn.paradyne.com> roth@pdntg1.paradyne.com (Mike Rothman) writes:
>In article <1991Mar27.092533.6991@topaz.ucq.edu.au> enzerinkp@topaz.ucq.edu.au writes:
>>In article <27664@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes
>>
> [lots os stuff deleted]
>
>Ditto on all counts......
>
>Coming from an experienced programmer who IS in the real world.
>(Of course though PM C C++ REXX etc are nice to learn, but not necessary to
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be in the Comp. Sci world)

I guess nobody out there is spending billions of dollars a year developing
applications in C and C++ on everything from a lowly XT to a Cray super
mainframe, huh? So which languages/systems/tools do you use that seem to
be the *only* important ones that *are* necessary to be "in the Comp. Sci
world"?? I have programmed on everything from an AT to a Cray, including
8088,80286/386, Sun workstations and servers, Apollo, VAX, Alliant, Perkin-
Elmer, Pyramid, CDC Cyber, several Cray architectures, etc., etc., running
Berkely Unix 4.2/4.3, System V Unix, Release 2/Edition VII, Xelos, UNICOS,
Xenix, NOS, COS, MSDOS, Ultrix, VMS, etc., etc., and languages like FORTRAN,
Lisp, Assembly, C, C++, Pascal, Modula-2, Ada, etc., etc. Which of these
are not important and/or not necessary? Anything out there that people are
using to solve everyday work problems are important and *are* part of the
comp. sci. world - not just the tools that *you* are using. The original
poster may be a bit naive, but consider for a moment how you started in
this business. You are not the center of the "computer science universe"!

Glenn