Why I hate ASCII: 1. It's 7 bits
2. It had code points with dual glyphs early on 3. When you look at 8-bit supersets of ASCII, there are more code pages than there are for EBCDIC Unicode? IETF has settled on UTF-8 as the normative transform. That is, IMHO, a better choice than the one m$ uses 9UTF-16). An interactive editor should be easy to learn. ISPF is; vi isn't. "emacs is a wonderful operating system. All that it needs is a decent editor." -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: z/OS V2R5 Will be the Last Release to Include JES3 On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:41:14 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >I'm not the one who says "I hate EBCDIC"; I certainly like EBCDIC better than >ASCII. > Why? Is it largely 8-bit vs. 7-bit? Would it be fairer to compare (any of) the EBCDIC code pages to (any of) ISO-8859-x? In either case there's code point instability. Unicode? But which representation of Unicode? UTF-8 seems to be the modal choice. >As for Perl, my primary use of it is on OS/2, nd it did things that would have >been awkward with REXX. OTOH, I wish that the regex syntax were moe like >SNOBOL. > Depends. An interactive editor should be keystroke-economical (ISPF isn't.) Its scripted companion should be referentially transparent (vi isn't.) -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
