Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
“A few of us at I.P. Sharp Associates ported SHARP APL to the PC when that came out.” Yes. I bought an IBM PC with APL installed from Isaac Ehrlick in 1983. And ran it until the cards bent out of shape from repeated heating/cooling cycles fifteen years later! I remember him saying when I bought it that: “If it doesn’t malfunction in the next two weeks, it never will”. I am currently running a Lenovo! But no longer actively using APL. If I need it in the future I will use J, I think. Rodney. > On Apr 13, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Robert Bernecky > wrote: > > I agree, Ian, > > A few of us at I.P. Sharp Associates ported SHARP APL > to the PC when that came out. When IBM announced the > XT/370 expansion card for the PC/XT, we snagged a few > of them, probably with help from Lisa Fincato, our IBM > sales rep. And then, we got the AT/370 card, which was almost > entirely usable as an APL system. SHARP APL on the AT/370 ran at > about the same speed as an IBM 360/40 mainframe, > so it definitely represented a threat to IBM's big iron business: > The cards were expensive to purchase, but probably > ran about the same price as a one-day rental of a 360/40. > > IBM could have cranked the entire PC business into a > 370-compatible architecture, but the bean counters ensured > that it was hidden under as many baskets as they could find. > The 370 architecture of that day would still have been a > far superior system to the rubbish X86 "designs" that we have > now. Oh, Atlantis! > > I may still have one of those cards kicking around, and > I donated another to the Canadian Computer Museum > at York University. It was still working when I last saw it, > running SHARP APL/PC370 (name?) thanks to an assist from Bill Kindree, and > support from Dr. Z at York U. > > We took one of our AT/370 (or maybe it was just SHARP > APL/PC, running our hand-crafted S370 emulator. Not sure...) > systems to APL86 in Manchester, UK, > and demonstrated it at the IPSA booth there. > I had earlier designed* fast algorithms for inner products > on SHARP APL, and proceeded to race our PC interpreter > on that against Jim Brown and his APL2 (dialup connection) > system. My STAR algorithm did (at least) 32 bits at a time, > so those inner products ran about 1000X faster than previously. > > I showed Jim something like +/,M∨.∧⍉M←1000 1000 ⍴0 1 > and it took maybe seven seconds. He then tried it on his > gonzo Big Iron, and after waiting a few minutes, gave up, > but could not break out of execution of the expression, so > hung up the phone. He tried again later, with the same result, > only to receive word from the data center operators to > please stop what he was doing, because he had crashed their > entire system. Twice. > > Good algorithms win over tin. > > Bob > > * "Designed" is one of those computer words, akin to T.S Eliot's: >"good writers borrow, great writers steal." > >A few people at IPSA (I was not among them, alas. My days >in supercomputing lay ahead.) implemented a STAR APL, >an APL interpreter for the CDC STAR-100 supercomputer, >then being designed and built just outside Toronto. >This machine had a >memory-to-memory architecture (no registers, vector or >otherwise), as was fairly common at the time (IBM 1620, >IBM 1401). It took a long time for a STAR instruction to >get started, but it ran at a very good clip then, much like >typical APL interpreters. >Hence, just like good APL code, good STAR code >encouraged minimizing instruction counts to get more >results per op by vector ops. > >The crew implementing STAR APL realized that >a row-column scalar inner product was not going to work >well, so somebody (I don't know who, but would like to find >out, so that I can give them credit in the future...) tweaked >the computation loop order so that, for Z←⍺ F.G ⍵ > > - each element of ⍺ was fetched exactly once > - that element would be applied against an entire row of ⍵, >scalar-vector: > t←⍺[k;m] G ⍵[i;] > - the resulting vector, t, would be applied vector-vector: > t2←Z[j;] G t >If the STAR was like other CDC/CRAY architectures, >it hardware-fused those two ops, so never actually generated t. >[They had a phrase to describe that generalized fusion >capability, but I can't remember what it was called.] > >Alas, the STAR's Achilles' Heel was the slow startup >time for instructions. This meant that it worked great >on big arrays, and poorly on small ones. [Does this >sound like an APL interpreter?] Hence, later CDC/CRAY >architectures had much-improved scalar support. > >Back to Booleans: I was being pestered by one of >the deep-pocket IPSA customers to "fix" the dismal >performance of inner product when one of the arguments >was Boolean. I remembered the STAR APL algorithm, >
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
> Good algorithms win over tin. I love that story, Bob. Not to mention the punch line. Could you take a moment to copy what you wrote into the J wiki? …To stop it disappearing into the bowels of pipermail – and I'll promise I'll soon find an excuse to link to it. On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 18:17, Ian Clark wrote: > Ah… PL/I. Spelt with a /I, not with a 1. The salesmen were most insistent > about that. > But no – I wouldn't exactly call it "unsuccessful" … > > Salesmen-driven designs invariably succeed at what they're designed to do: > sell products. That's not to say they always work. > > Back in the 70s when PL/I emerged, programming depts had two enduring > problems: (a) productivity, (b) recruitment. IBM salesmen sold PL/I (a > smash-together of Cobol and Fortran) on the basis that even your coffee > ladies could use it. So you could fire all your *über*-expensive, > *unter*-productive > ASM programmers, who were kept on-hand to fill the gaps left by your > Cobblers. > > (Banks and Insurance companies didn't use Fortran. Only engineers. And > serious math had no place in finance –haha! Why, accountants don't even > believe in minus numbers!) > > Product Test at IBM Hursley put together a tool called the Syntax Machine > (you fed it syntax and it spat out wffs) which they used to compile random > PL/I programs. They were then able to show that PL/I was hopelessly > ambiguous and inconsistent. As you can imagine they got bags of gratitude > for that! > > But some sinners are redeemed in their children. PL/I… PL/360… BCPL… C > (the software counterpart of the reduced instruction set)… > The best thing about C was its neat preprocessor. This enabled any fool > who thought they could do better to come up with their own language. > > Are you thinking what I'm thinking? J with a "C" preprocessor?… say, now! > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 16:13, 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat < > c...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > >> And do not forget their efforts in software! They invented - and tried >> to inflict on everyone, including me - that incredibly stupid and >> incredibly unsuccessful language, giving it the arrogant name PL1. Having >> learned it at the University of Toronto, I discovered there was no place >> within hundreds of miles to use it! Meanwhile they ignored the wonderful >> APL, hatched in their own nest. >> >> Yes. You are right. Thinking about it, it is a bit strange that they >> are still in business. >> >> Rodney. >> >> >> >> > On Apr 13, 2021, at 8:56 AM, Ian Clark wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> >> They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored >> it. >> > >> > Not as I recall. Mainframe division understood it all too well. They >> fought >> > like hell in the early 80s to stop it happening. And to stop >> microcomputers >> > (the PC wasn't the first, or – as Bill Gates pointed out – the best) >> > driving out the IT dept from banks and insurance companies, the main >> milch >> > cows. >> > >> > Others in the company saw the victory of micros as inevitable, and >> wanted a >> > slice of the action. So they set up Boca Raton behind a Chinese Wall. I >> > think their battle cry was: No EBCDIC! >> > >> > The counter-arguments were quite persuasive (e.g. dispersal of the >> > expertise concentrated in IT depts, so employees would get all these >> > wonderful PCs but never learn how to use them) - but not persuasive >> enough, >> > and their shock-horror projections all came to pass. >> > >> > Including the ill effects for customers. Wall-to-wall Excel has not >> been an >> > unmitigated success. >> > >> > As for what happened next, I recommend Lou Gerstner's book: *Who Says >> > Elephants Can't Dance?* Every old-school IBMer's darkest nightmare: a >> > customer takeover. Lou even got IBM selling chips as a commodity. >> > >> > Well… you don't get rich selling clothes-pegs to gypsies. >> > >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 13:59, Don Guinn wrote: >> >> >> >> They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored >> it. >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 7:09 PM Björn Helgason >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> When i was a product manager there I was told that when we wanted to >> sell >> >>> something the selling price should deliver at least 10 times more than >> >>> cost. >> >>> >> >>> Less than that they were not interested. >> >>> >> >>> We are not in the fingers and toes business I was told. >> >>> >> >>> That was 30 years ago. >> >>> >> >>> They have been going downhill ever since I left. >> >>> >> >>> Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 18:25 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat skrifaði < >> >>> c...@jsoftware.com>: >> >>> >> “ 13 layers of managers.” >> >> The explanation of their survival is, I believe, their huge profit >> margins. >> >> I still recall when they got a contract to electronically handle the >> Toronto Stock Exchange trading system where they charged $18 per >> transaction. Their cost of course was just a few electrons per >> >>>
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
Ah… PL/I. Spelt with a /I, not with a 1. The salesmen were most insistent about that. But no – I wouldn't exactly call it "unsuccessful" … Salesmen-driven designs invariably succeed at what they're designed to do: sell products. That's not to say they always work. Back in the 70s when PL/I emerged, programming depts had two enduring problems: (a) productivity, (b) recruitment. IBM salesmen sold PL/I (a smash-together of Cobol and Fortran) on the basis that even your coffee ladies could use it. So you could fire all your *über*-expensive, *unter*-productive ASM programmers, who were kept on-hand to fill the gaps left by your Cobblers. (Banks and Insurance companies didn't use Fortran. Only engineers. And serious math had no place in finance –haha! Why, accountants don't even believe in minus numbers!) Product Test at IBM Hursley put together a tool called the Syntax Machine (you fed it syntax and it spat out wffs) which they used to compile random PL/I programs. They were then able to show that PL/I was hopelessly ambiguous and inconsistent. As you can imagine they got bags of gratitude for that! But some sinners are redeemed in their children. PL/I… PL/360… BCPL… C (the software counterpart of the reduced instruction set)… The best thing about C was its neat preprocessor. This enabled any fool who thought they could do better to come up with their own language. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? J with a "C" preprocessor?… say, now! On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 16:13, 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat < c...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > And do not forget their efforts in software! They invented - and tried to > inflict on everyone, including me - that incredibly stupid and incredibly > unsuccessful language, giving it the arrogant name PL1. Having learned it > at the University of Toronto, I discovered there was no place within > hundreds of miles to use it! Meanwhile they ignored the wonderful APL, > hatched in their own nest. > > Yes. You are right. Thinking about it, it is a bit strange that they are > still in business. > > Rodney. > > > > > On Apr 13, 2021, at 8:56 AM, Ian Clark wrote: > > > > > >> > >> They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored > it. > > > > Not as I recall. Mainframe division understood it all too well. They > fought > > like hell in the early 80s to stop it happening. And to stop > microcomputers > > (the PC wasn't the first, or – as Bill Gates pointed out – the best) > > driving out the IT dept from banks and insurance companies, the main > milch > > cows. > > > > Others in the company saw the victory of micros as inevitable, and > wanted a > > slice of the action. So they set up Boca Raton behind a Chinese Wall. I > > think their battle cry was: No EBCDIC! > > > > The counter-arguments were quite persuasive (e.g. dispersal of the > > expertise concentrated in IT depts, so employees would get all these > > wonderful PCs but never learn how to use them) - but not persuasive > enough, > > and their shock-horror projections all came to pass. > > > > Including the ill effects for customers. Wall-to-wall Excel has not been > an > > unmitigated success. > > > > As for what happened next, I recommend Lou Gerstner's book: *Who Says > > Elephants Can't Dance?* Every old-school IBMer's darkest nightmare: a > > customer takeover. Lou even got IBM selling chips as a commodity. > > > > Well… you don't get rich selling clothes-pegs to gypsies. > > > >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 13:59, Don Guinn wrote: > >> > >> They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored > it. > >> > >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 7:09 PM Björn Helgason wrote: > >>> > >>> When i was a product manager there I was told that when we wanted to > sell > >>> something the selling price should deliver at least 10 times more than > >>> cost. > >>> > >>> Less than that they were not interested. > >>> > >>> We are not in the fingers and toes business I was told. > >>> > >>> That was 30 years ago. > >>> > >>> They have been going downhill ever since I left. > >>> > >>> Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 18:25 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat skrifaði < > >>> c...@jsoftware.com>: > >>> > “ 13 layers of managers.” > > The explanation of their survival is, I believe, their huge profit > margins. > > I still recall when they got a contract to electronically handle the > Toronto Stock Exchange trading system where they charged $18 per > transaction. Their cost of course was just a few electrons per > >>> transaction. > > They were in effect a monopoly at the time. And monopolies always > >> waste > huge quantities of resources, accordingly reducing everone’s living > standards. > > Rodney. > > > > On Apr 12, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Björn Helgason > >> wrote: > > > > apl lives on even if ibm goes away. > > > > it is really amazing that ibm is still around. > > > > 13 layers of managers. > > > >
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
I agree, Ian, A few of us at I.P. Sharp Associates ported SHARP APL to the PC when that came out. When IBM announced the XT/370 expansion card for the PC/XT, we snagged a few of them, probably with help from Lisa Fincato, our IBM sales rep. And then, we got the AT/370 card, which was almost entirely usable as an APL system. SHARP APL on the AT/370 ran at about the same speed as an IBM 360/40 mainframe, so it definitely represented a threat to IBM's big iron business: The cards were expensive to purchase, but probably ran about the same price as a one-day rental of a 360/40. IBM could have cranked the entire PC business into a 370-compatible architecture, but the bean counters ensured that it was hidden under as many baskets as they could find. The 370 architecture of that day would still have been a far superior system to the rubbish X86 "designs" that we have now. Oh, Atlantis! I may still have one of those cards kicking around, and I donated another to the Canadian Computer Museum at York University. It was still working when I last saw it, running SHARP APL/PC370 (name?) thanks to an assist from Bill Kindree, and support from Dr. Z at York U. We took one of our AT/370 (or maybe it was just SHARP APL/PC, running our hand-crafted S370 emulator. Not sure...) systems to APL86 in Manchester, UK, and demonstrated it at the IPSA booth there. I had earlier designed* fast algorithms for inner products on SHARP APL, and proceeded to race our PC interpreter on that against Jim Brown and his APL2 (dialup connection) system. My STAR algorithm did (at least) 32 bits at a time, so those inner products ran about 1000X faster than previously. I showed Jim something like +/,M∨.∧⍉M←1000 1000 ⍴0 1 and it took maybe seven seconds. He then tried it on his gonzo Big Iron, and after waiting a few minutes, gave up, but could not break out of execution of the expression, so hung up the phone. He tried again later, with the same result, only to receive word from the data center operators to please stop what he was doing, because he had crashed their entire system. Twice. Good algorithms win over tin. Bob * "Designed" is one of those computer words, akin to T.S Eliot's: "good writers borrow, great writers steal." A few people at IPSA (I was not among them, alas. My days in supercomputing lay ahead.) implemented a STAR APL, an APL interpreter for the CDC STAR-100 supercomputer, then being designed and built just outside Toronto. This machine had a memory-to-memory architecture (no registers, vector or otherwise), as was fairly common at the time (IBM 1620, IBM 1401). It took a long time for a STAR instruction to get started, but it ran at a very good clip then, much like typical APL interpreters. Hence, just like good APL code, good STAR code encouraged minimizing instruction counts to get more results per op by vector ops. The crew implementing STAR APL realized that a row-column scalar inner product was not going to work well, so somebody (I don't know who, but would like to find out, so that I can give them credit in the future...) tweaked the computation loop order so that, for Z←⍺ F.G ⍵ - each element of ⍺ was fetched exactly once - that element would be applied against an entire row of ⍵, scalar-vector: t←⍺[k;m] G ⍵[i;] - the resulting vector, t, would be applied vector-vector: t2←Z[j;] G t If the STAR was like other CDC/CRAY architectures, it hardware-fused those two ops, so never actually generated t. [They had a phrase to describe that generalized fusion capability, but I can't remember what it was called.] Alas, the STAR's Achilles' Heel was the slow startup time for instructions. This meant that it worked great on big arrays, and poorly on small ones. [Does this sound like an APL interpreter?] Hence, later CDC/CRAY architectures had much-improved scalar support. Back to Booleans: I was being pestered by one of the deep-pocket IPSA customers to "fix" the dismal performance of inner product when one of the arguments was Boolean. I remembered the STAR APL algorithm, and realized that it could enable a few Good Things: 1. Application of G could work a row of ⍵ at a time, so for common G (∨ ∧ ...), we could compute 32 bits of that with one instruction (Booleans are stored one-bit per element, in ravel order.). 2. Application of F often would also allow operating on 32 bits at a time. 3. If an element of ⍺ is an identity for G, we can skip that computation step, and just use the row of ⍵. 4. Similarly, if an element of ⍺ is a "zero" for G, AND if that "zero" is a left identity for F, we can skip both computations. And so on. The cost
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
And do not forget their efforts in software! They invented - and tried to inflict on everyone, including me - that incredibly stupid and incredibly unsuccessful language, giving it the arrogant name PL1. Having learned it at the University of Toronto, I discovered there was no place within hundreds of miles to use it! Meanwhile they ignored the wonderful APL, hatched in their own nest. Yes. You are right. Thinking about it, it is a bit strange that they are still in business. Rodney. > On Apr 13, 2021, at 8:56 AM, Ian Clark wrote: > > >> >> They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored it. > > Not as I recall. Mainframe division understood it all too well. They fought > like hell in the early 80s to stop it happening. And to stop microcomputers > (the PC wasn't the first, or – as Bill Gates pointed out – the best) > driving out the IT dept from banks and insurance companies, the main milch > cows. > > Others in the company saw the victory of micros as inevitable, and wanted a > slice of the action. So they set up Boca Raton behind a Chinese Wall. I > think their battle cry was: No EBCDIC! > > The counter-arguments were quite persuasive (e.g. dispersal of the > expertise concentrated in IT depts, so employees would get all these > wonderful PCs but never learn how to use them) - but not persuasive enough, > and their shock-horror projections all came to pass. > > Including the ill effects for customers. Wall-to-wall Excel has not been an > unmitigated success. > > As for what happened next, I recommend Lou Gerstner's book: *Who Says > Elephants Can't Dance?* Every old-school IBMer's darkest nightmare: a > customer takeover. Lou even got IBM selling chips as a commodity. > > Well… you don't get rich selling clothes-pegs to gypsies. > >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 13:59, Don Guinn wrote: >> >> They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored it. >> >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 7:09 PM Björn Helgason wrote: >>> >>> When i was a product manager there I was told that when we wanted to sell >>> something the selling price should deliver at least 10 times more than >>> cost. >>> >>> Less than that they were not interested. >>> >>> We are not in the fingers and toes business I was told. >>> >>> That was 30 years ago. >>> >>> They have been going downhill ever since I left. >>> >>> Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 18:25 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat skrifaði < >>> c...@jsoftware.com>: >>> “ 13 layers of managers.” The explanation of their survival is, I believe, their huge profit margins. I still recall when they got a contract to electronically handle the Toronto Stock Exchange trading system where they charged $18 per transaction. Their cost of course was just a few electrons per >>> transaction. They were in effect a monopoly at the time. And monopolies always >> waste huge quantities of resources, accordingly reducing everone’s living standards. Rodney. > On Apr 12, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Björn Helgason >> wrote: > > apl lives on even if ibm goes away. > > it is really amazing that ibm is still around. > > 13 layers of managers. > > Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 13:51 Raul Miller skrifaði < rauldmil...@gmail.com >> : > >> That's disappointing. >> >> Not surprising -- just disappointing. >> >> Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k and q. >> >> Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays >>> and >> gpus. >> >> And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? >> >> Who knows... >> >> -- >> Raul >> >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:05 AM Björn Helgason wrote: >>> >>> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apl2-whats-new >>> >>> -- >>> For information about J forums see >>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> >> -- >> For information about J forums see >>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > >> -- > For information about J forums see >> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> -- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >> -- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > -- > For information about J
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
> They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored it. Not as I recall. Mainframe division understood it all too well. They fought like hell in the early 80s to stop it happening. And to stop microcomputers (the PC wasn't the first, or – as Bill Gates pointed out – the best) driving out the IT dept from banks and insurance companies, the main milch cows. Others in the company saw the victory of micros as inevitable, and wanted a slice of the action. So they set up Boca Raton behind a Chinese Wall. I think their battle cry was: No EBCDIC! The counter-arguments were quite persuasive (e.g. dispersal of the expertise concentrated in IT depts, so employees would get all these wonderful PCs but never learn how to use them) - but not persuasive enough, and their shock-horror projections all came to pass. Including the ill effects for customers. Wall-to-wall Excel has not been an unmitigated success. As for what happened next, I recommend Lou Gerstner's book: *Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?* Every old-school IBMer's darkest nightmare: a customer takeover. Lou even got IBM selling chips as a commodity. Well… you don't get rich selling clothes-pegs to gypsies. On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 13:59, Don Guinn wrote: > They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored it. > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 7:09 PM Björn Helgason wrote: > > > When i was a product manager there I was told that when we wanted to sell > > something the selling price should deliver at least 10 times more than > > cost. > > > > Less than that they were not interested. > > > > We are not in the fingers and toes business I was told. > > > > That was 30 years ago. > > > > They have been going downhill ever since I left. > > > > Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 18:25 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat skrifaði < > > c...@jsoftware.com>: > > > > > “ 13 layers of managers.” > > > > > > The explanation of their survival is, I believe, their huge profit > > > margins. > > > > > > I still recall when they got a contract to electronically handle the > > > Toronto Stock Exchange trading system where they charged $18 per > > > transaction. Their cost of course was just a few electrons per > > transaction. > > > > > > They were in effect a monopoly at the time. And monopolies always > waste > > > huge quantities of resources, accordingly reducing everone’s living > > > standards. > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Björn Helgason > wrote: > > > > > > > > apl lives on even if ibm goes away. > > > > > > > > it is really amazing that ibm is still around. > > > > > > > > 13 layers of managers. > > > > > > > > Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 13:51 Raul Miller skrifaði < > > > rauldmil...@gmail.com > > > >> : > > > > > > > >> That's disappointing. > > > >> > > > >> Not surprising -- just disappointing. > > > >> > > > >> Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k > > > and q. > > > >> > > > >> Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays > > and > > > >> gpus. > > > >> > > > >> And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? > > > >> > > > >> Who knows... > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Raul > > > >> > > > >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:05 AM Björn Helgason > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apl2-whats-new > > > >>> > > -- > > > >>> For information about J forums see > > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > >> > -- > > > >> For information about J forums see > > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > -- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
They misunderstood the PC. They thought it was just a toy and ignored it. On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 7:09 PM Björn Helgason wrote: > When i was a product manager there I was told that when we wanted to sell > something the selling price should deliver at least 10 times more than > cost. > > Less than that they were not interested. > > We are not in the fingers and toes business I was told. > > That was 30 years ago. > > They have been going downhill ever since I left. > > Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 18:25 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat skrifaði < > c...@jsoftware.com>: > > > “ 13 layers of managers.” > > > > The explanation of their survival is, I believe, their huge profit > > margins. > > > > I still recall when they got a contract to electronically handle the > > Toronto Stock Exchange trading system where they charged $18 per > > transaction. Their cost of course was just a few electrons per > transaction. > > > > They were in effect a monopoly at the time. And monopolies always waste > > huge quantities of resources, accordingly reducing everone’s living > > standards. > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Björn Helgason wrote: > > > > > > apl lives on even if ibm goes away. > > > > > > it is really amazing that ibm is still around. > > > > > > 13 layers of managers. > > > > > > Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 13:51 Raul Miller skrifaði < > > rauldmil...@gmail.com > > >> : > > > > > >> That's disappointing. > > >> > > >> Not surprising -- just disappointing. > > >> > > >> Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k > > and q. > > >> > > >> Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays > and > > >> gpus. > > >> > > >> And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? > > >> > > >> Who knows... > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Raul > > >> > > >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:05 AM Björn Helgason > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apl2-whats-new > > >>> > -- > > >>> For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > >> -- > > >> For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > >> > > > -- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > -- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
When i was a product manager there I was told that when we wanted to sell something the selling price should deliver at least 10 times more than cost. Less than that they were not interested. We are not in the fingers and toes business I was told. That was 30 years ago. They have been going downhill ever since I left. Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 18:25 'Rodney Nicholson' via Chat skrifaði < c...@jsoftware.com>: > “ 13 layers of managers.” > > The explanation of their survival is, I believe, their huge profit > margins. > > I still recall when they got a contract to electronically handle the > Toronto Stock Exchange trading system where they charged $18 per > transaction. Their cost of course was just a few electrons per transaction. > > They were in effect a monopoly at the time. And monopolies always waste > huge quantities of resources, accordingly reducing everone’s living > standards. > > Rodney. > > > > On Apr 12, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Björn Helgason wrote: > > > > apl lives on even if ibm goes away. > > > > it is really amazing that ibm is still around. > > > > 13 layers of managers. > > > > Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 13:51 Raul Miller skrifaði < > rauldmil...@gmail.com > >> : > > > >> That's disappointing. > >> > >> Not surprising -- just disappointing. > >> > >> Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k > and q. > >> > >> Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays and > >> gpus. > >> > >> And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? > >> > >> Who knows... > >> > >> -- > >> Raul > >> > >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:05 AM Björn Helgason > wrote: > >>> > >>> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apl2-whats-new > >>> -- > >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> -- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> > > -- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
“ 13 layers of managers.” The explanation of their survival is, I believe, their huge profit margins. I still recall when they got a contract to electronically handle the Toronto Stock Exchange trading system where they charged $18 per transaction. Their cost of course was just a few electrons per transaction. They were in effect a monopoly at the time. And monopolies always waste huge quantities of resources, accordingly reducing everone’s living standards. Rodney. > On Apr 12, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Björn Helgason wrote: > > apl lives on even if ibm goes away. > > it is really amazing that ibm is still around. > > 13 layers of managers. > > Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 13:51 Raul Miller skrifaði > : > >> That's disappointing. >> >> Not surprising -- just disappointing. >> >> Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k and q. >> >> Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays and >> gpus. >> >> And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? >> >> Who knows... >> >> -- >> Raul >> >>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:05 AM Björn Helgason wrote: >>> >>> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apl2-whats-new >>> -- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> -- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
apl lives on even if ibm goes away. it is really amazing that ibm is still around. 13 layers of managers. Þann mán., 12. apr. 2021, 13:51 Raul Miller skrifaði : > That's disappointing. > > Not surprising -- just disappointing. > > Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k and q. > > Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays and > gpus. > > And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? > > Who knows... > > -- > Raul > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:05 AM Björn Helgason wrote: > > > > https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apl2-whats-new > > -- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
It's not the end... Log-On is taking over as IBM replacement, check out the announcement below: https://log-on.com/2021/01/26/log-on-software-announces-log-on-apl2/ Log-On APL2 web page: https://log-on.com/apl2-solution-page/ Best, Eric Le 12/04/2021 à 15:50, Raul Miller a écrit : That's disappointing. Not surprising -- just disappointing. Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k and q. Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays and gpus. And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? Who knows... -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jchat] ibm goes down
That's disappointing. Not surprising -- just disappointing. Still, there's J, there's Dyalog APL, there's GNU APL, and there's k and q. Not to mention various hardware array concepts, such as greenarrays and gpus. And, maybe, IBM will go back up at some point? Who knows... -- Raul On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:05 AM Björn Helgason wrote: > > https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apl2-whats-new > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
