hboswell@jackson.UUCP (Harry Boswell) (07/07/88)
Does anyone know of an editor available for unix that emulates the
ISPF/PDF editor of IBM mainframe-environment fame? We connect to
an MVS system and most programmers I can hire have worked only in that
environment (no unix here in the deepest South). Vi tends to be a shock
to them.
--
Harry Boswell (601) 354-6454 ext.352
{pyramid or bellcore or tness..}!swbatl!jackson!hboswell
Do not go gently into that good night, but rage against the dying of the light" Maynard) (07/07/88)
In article <272@jackson.UUCP> hboswell@jackson.UUCP (Harry Boswell) writes: >Does anyone know of an editor available for unix that emulates the >ISPF/PDF editor of IBM mainframe-environment fame? We connect to >an MVS system and most programmers I can hire have worked only in that >environment (no unix here in the deepest South). Vi tends to be a shock >to them. Me too! I spend all day, every day, in front of ISPF/PDF. Coming home to another editor is disconcerting, to say the least. I've gotten MicroEMACS, which is a distinct improvement over vi, but having the same thing on Unix as I use at work would be very nice. ...Jay -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (07/13/88)
In article <574@splut.UUCP>, jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > In article <272@jackson.UUCP> hboswell@jackson.UUCP (Harry Boswell) writes: > >Does anyone know of an editor available for unix that emulates the > >ISPF/PDF editor of IBM mainframe-environment fame? We connect to > >an MVS system and most programmers I can hire have worked only in that > >environment (no unix here in the deepest South). Vi tends to be a shock > >to them. > > Me too! > I spend all day, every day, in front of ISPF/PDF. Coming home to another > editor is disconcerting, to say the least. I've gotten MicroEMACS, which > is a distinct improvement over vi, but having the same thing on Unix as > I use at work would be very nice. > ...Jay > I, too, spend all day in front of the ISPF editor. It's ghastly. Unfortunately there is not way (that I know of) to put a decent editor on a block-transfer terminal, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. If your new programmers can't learn new editors--you need a better grade of programmer. Before you write me off as some kid that learned vi in school and resents anything else, let me note that when I started programming you had to worry about the difference between an 024 keypunch and an 026. I was a student at Berkeley before UNIX existed. I currently have to keep track of 4 TSO, 1 VM, and 3 UNIX accounts--and that's just at work. So what's a couple of different editors among friends? --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
mark@lakesys.UUCP (Mark Storin) (07/13/88)
In article <16534@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: > >If your new programmers can't learn new editors--you need a better grade >of programmer. > What a novel idea ;-). Programmers should be flexible? >I currently have to keep track of 4 TSO, 1 VM, and 3 UNIX accounts--and >that's just at work. So what's a couple of different editors among >friends? > Editors are tools. Some tools are better for some things than others. You wouldn't expect much fun from trying a standard screwdriver on a philips head screw. In the spirit of the original question, students should learn as many editors as they are capable of learning. School is where you should be learning these things. You develop your capability to learn new instruction sets. Adds flexibility to your thinking. Improves concentration, etc. Preferences? Everybody has preferences. -- Mark A. Storin Lake Systems, Milw., WI UUCP: {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!mark
zjat02@apctrc.UUCP (Jon A. Tankersley) (07/14/88)
The IBM'ers of the UNIX world need to unite and press Mansfield Software or other vendors to port Kedit and Rexx to UNIX. I am not sure that IBM would be able to do it, they'd probably come out with YAE (yet another editor). Maybe TSO edit, CMS Edit or Edgar. :-)... Kedit/Xedit with Rexx would be a big win for the RT and the PS/2 systems. But what do I know, I'm only a UNIX systems administrator. As always, the usual disclaimer. -tank-
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (07/16/88)
In article <814@lakesys.UUCP>, mark@lakesys.UUCP (Mark Storin) writes: > Editors are tools. Some tools are better for some things than others. > You wouldn't expect much fun from trying a standard screwdriver on a philips > head screw. In the spirit of the original question, students should learn as > many editors as they are capable of learning. School is where you should be > learning these things. You develop your capability to learn new instruction > sets. Adds flexibility to your thinking. Improves concentration, etc. > > Preferences? Everybody has preferences. You bet. Possibly we also need a better grade of student. I'm been slowly coming to the conclusion that there is so much that REALLY NEEDS to be understood to have complete education (see the the debate about requirements out of Stanford a few months ago) that College undergraduate curricula should be considered to be 5 years rather than 4. You want flexibility? When I was a student, the beginning CS course taught Algol in 9 weeks. The corresponding EECS course did FORTRAN and Algol in the same time. I suspect the real reason for hiring marginal programmers is because the demand for anyone who can code exceeds the supply of those whose talents run in that direction. Companies are reaching farther and farther down the talent pool and coming up with some piss-poor examples. All this is complicated by the "title inflation" that took place during Nixon's wage-price freeze. At that time, people got title promotions for doing the same work in order to be paid more. coders became programmers and programmers became programmer-analysts or systems analysts. Now, "coder" is never used. Pity, one sees so many analysts (who used to be 'programmers') that can't write competent code or debug without elaborate help. [Help! Stop me before I tell more 'good old days' stories!] --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
" Maynard) (07/16/88)
In article <479@apctrc.UUCP> zjat02@apctrc.UUCP (Jon A. Tankersley) writes: >The IBM'ers of the UNIX world need to unite and press Mansfield Software or >other vendors to port Kedit and Rexx to UNIX. Yuk. Pooey. Bleh. :-P I want ISPF, not XEDIT. Maybe it's because I've been using ISPF for 6 years, and only used XEDIT at one job, and then only until I could figure out how to use ISPF under VM. Now, I might call Command Technology Corporation... To the poster who suggested that real programmers can learn any editor: I'm writing this right now under microEMACS. I *can* use it and vi under Unix. The point is, though, that I don't *want* to. I want ISPF. I may have to write it, though, to get it... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz ) (07/19/88)
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: >You bet. Possibly we also need a better grade of student. I'm been >slowly coming to the conclusion that there is so much that REALLY NEEDS >to be understood to have complete education (see the the debate about >requirements out of Stanford a few months ago) that College undergraduate >curricula should be considered to be 5 years rather than 4. >---------- Sorry, I don't go along with this at all. It was tough enough for me to get my 4 years in, paying my own way. If you make it 5 years, you either have to subsidize it, or you prevent all but the most fortunate of students from gaining the degree. Also, I don't believe that 5 years is necessary. I am an engineer at HP, and I am a reasonably competent software engineer. I had 6 months of computer training at a trade school. The rest I learned on the job. I think that motivation is really the key. I taught myself Pascal, and have taught it at HP. I taught myself C, etc. I taught myself Fortran and then consulted on customer conversions from Fortran 66 to Fortran 77. My original training was Cobol, RPG II, and IBM Assembler. I picked up enough VI to do my work in about a week. In 4 years, students should have plenty of time to learn multiple editors (even write their own). Some students are incompetent to work as "programmers" upon graduation. Who knows why? Maybe they really aren't inspired by any field, and they just took CS because it was a guaranteed job at the end? Perhaps, also, some companies so overload their staff that they are not given time to further their skills. If so, it is too bad. I think I have been fortunate to work for companies where learning new things is encouraged, not discouraged. Oh well, down off my soap box. I respect your right to disagree with me. I won't take it personally if you don't take it personally! G. Paul Houtz HP Tecnology Access Center 10670 N. Tantau Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 gph%hpsemc@hplabs.HP.COM (408) 725-3864
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (07/21/88)
In article <810021@hpsemc.HP.COM>, gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz ) writes: > whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: > > Also, I don't believe that 5 years is necessary. I am an engineer > at HP, and I am a reasonably competent software engineer. I had 6 months > of computer training at a trade school. The rest I learned on the job. > > . . . > > Oh well, down off my soap box. I respect your right to disagree > with me. I won't take it personally if you don't take it personally! > Suggested reading: "The Two Cultures," by C. P. Snow. *sigh* At last! Someone who can converse without getting mad! Followups will be by mail as we are getting far from the topic. --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh
aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (07/27/88)
In article <810021@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz ) writes: >whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes: >>requirements out of Stanford a few months ago) that College undergraduate >>curricula should be considered to be 5 years rather than 4. > Sorry, I don't go along with this at all. It was tough enough for >me to get my 4 years in, paying my own way. If you make it 5 years, you >either have to subsidize it, or you prevent all but the most fortunate of >students from gaining the degree. I graduated from CMU in December. I'm paying for it until 1998. > Also, I don't believe that 5 years is necessary. I am an engineer >at HP, and I am a reasonably competent software engineer. I had 6 months >of computer training at a trade school. The rest I learned on the job. > I think that motivation is really the key. I taught myself Pascal, >and have taught it at HP. I taught myself C, etc. I taught myself >Fortran and then consulted on customer conversions from Fortran 66 to >Fortran 77. My original training was Cobol, RPG II, and IBM Assembler. >I picked up enough VI to do my work in about a week. In 4 years, students >should have plenty of time to learn multiple editors (even write their own). > Some students are incompetent to work as "programmers" upon graduation. >Who knows why? Maybe they really aren't inspired by any field, and they >just took CS because it was a guaranteed job at the end? The CMU CS department does not offer a CS undergraduate degree. The reason publicly given is that they don't feel you can learn enough about "Computer Science" in 4 years to warrant a degree. So I, just like everyone else, got my degree in "Applied Math/CS track". My experience there was that the whole education, and indeed "Computer Science" as I perceive it, has little or nothing to do with computers anymore. You spend your time writing large quantities of capital sigmas with ellipsis between them, and learn very little about computers. I know about things like virtual memory not because my OS course taught it, but because I read the book (Dinosaur). I work now as a System Administrator, and I can say with all honesty that absolutely nothing I do has anything to do with any class I ever took in college. It's all based on what I did on my jobs during school, and the hacking around I did instead of doing my graph theory homework. At CMU at least, it's the case that students often can't find time to sleep, not to mention explore. They're too busy attempting near-impossible homework. Still, I occasionally wake up with the dread fear that I slept through a test or forgot to turn in homework.-- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is beak is not Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (07/29/88)
In article <1932@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > > > The CMU CS department does not offer a CS undergraduate degree. The reason > publicly given is that they don't feel you can learn enough about "Computer > Science" in 4 years to warrant a degree. So I, just like everyone else, > got my degree in "Applied Math/CS track". My experience there was that > the whole education, and indeed "Computer Science" as I perceive it, has > little or nothing to do with computers anymore. You spend your time Please strike the "anymore." The problem you have described was common in the late sixties as well--and I assume the intervening years also. At many institutions "CS" amounted to a math major with a few computer- related courses thrown in. Useless, unless you're going to be a "Computer Scientist" (presumably with a Ph.D. teaching at a university). The unusual place was UC Berkeley--where there were 2 "CS" majors. One was as you've described in the math dept. The other was in EE and had a lot more emphasis on computers. This amounted to a fair amount of programming, some theory, and a good dose of hardware. As a working programmer, I've found over the years that having a feel for hardware has been a real help. The root cause of the problems associated with CS is probably American universities aversion to anything truly useful. --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh