Re: Newbie question on table design.
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:30:15 -0300
Message-ID: <463b2728$0$4045$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
David Cressey wrote:
> "Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn_at_garlic.com> wrote in message
> news:m3lkg5yjkt.fsf_at_garlic.com...
>
>>"David Cressey" <cressey73_at_verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>>I know practically nothing of CDC culture, but quite a bit about DEC
>>>culture, going way back. My impression of CDC culture, gleaned
>
> indirectly
>
>>>from what Niklaus Wirth had to say about the CDCmachines, is that CDC
>>>culture discovered interactive development later than DEC culture did.
>
> I'm
>
>>>just about certain that IBM culture discovered interactive development
>
> later
>
>>>than DEC culture did. This is somewhat related to the topic at hand.
>>
>>I've often commented that it wasn't that IBM culture didn't have
>>interactive development ... which was compareable to features/size of
>>most other vendors (that might be considered interactive) ... it was
>>that in the 60s, 70s & much of the 80s, the batch market size dwarfed
>>the interactive.
>
> Fair enough. IBM culture was big enough, at the time, so it could
> accommodate a large number of internal subcultures. The part of IBM culture
> that was visible to me was definitely not into interactive development.
>
> Even though they had interactive terminals, on line editing, etc. etc.
> compiling a source program was a batch job. And that affected the workflow.
I have to say that can have some advantages. I know a couple people who were coding back then, and they know how to debug software. With interactive tools, it can be a little too easy to spend all of one's time in edit/compile/run mode rather than look/think/code mode. Received on Fri May 04 2007 - 14:30:15 CEST