From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:00:45 PM UTC+10, Joe Monk wrote:   
      
   > > I have no idea whether that is true or not, because I'm not   
   > > familiar with every mainframe on the planet like you   
   > > apparently are.   
   > >   
   > I'm familiar with generally applicable shop standards, just   
   > like you are familiar with the C90 standard. So I speak from   
   > the experience of having been thru multiple code audits,   
   > reviews, SOX audits from outside auditors....   
      
   But you are claiming universality, not "generally applicable".   
      
   ie you know what practice is in Russia, Slovakia,   
   Africa. And within that, every single company.   
      
   > > But with GCCMVS I have shown what is technically possible,   
   > > not what you perceive about audits.   
   > >   
   > Its not like you've reinvented the wheel. IBM C predates your   
   > work by at least two decades.... IBM has had C compilers   
   > running on the mainframe forever,   
      
   Yes, they also proved what was technically possible.   
      
   What is your complaint about either? Show me the S/370   
   assembler that shows that C is not a good match for   
   the mainframe.   
      
   If your complaint is only applicable to one C compiler,   
   then switch to the other.   
      
   > and GCC had an I370 target and was running on the   
   > mainframe long before you did anything with it.   
      
   It was? What year was GCC running on the mainframe?   
   It was riddled with ASCII shit for a very long time. The   
   first thing that cleaned that up was a fork by Dave Pitts.   
   And that was still dependent on IBM C. GCC couldn't   
   compile itself. And was still riddled with bugs.   
      
   It did have an i370 target for long before that though.   
   I'm not sure how useful it was when it was so riddled   
   with bugs though. Do you know what it was used for?   
      
   > IBM's C compiler actually handles records,   
      
   So what's your complaint about C not being a good   
   match for the mainframe then?   
      
   > and doesnt force people to play with files like they are arbitrary byte   
   streams...   
      
   And if someone has the opposite complaint, I have GCCMVS   
   (mainly PDPCLIB actually) waiting to answer that complaint.   
      
   > Im not here to attack you. Im just pointing out that your work   
   > is merely reproducing that which was already done.   
      
   It is not a reproduction. That is why some mainframers   
   have bitterly complained.   
      
   I have a different (in my opinion, better) model than IBM.   
      
   But if you, or Rod, gives me a specific complaint, that   
   doesn't involve an omniscient knowledge of auditors   
   on the entire planet, please let me know so that I can   
   *possibly* address the technical concern.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)