From: Paul Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
Chris Lewis <[log in to unmask]>,  writes:
 
> On Sep 3, 11:05, "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" wrote:
> } Eric Thomas <[log in to unmask]>, writes:
> } > such as "it won't be useful unless it is written in C",
>
> } There are reports in the media that some of the worst time overrun
> } have been caused by development in the C language.  Lotus 123 had
> } one of its versions written in C - not sure if it was 2.2 or 3.0,
> } was probably the 2.2 and sufferred from terrible schedule slippage
> } and cost overruns.
>
> And I watched a Pascal flop that beats Lotus's problems by an order
> of magnitude or two.  $250 million down the tubes because the
> software never worked worth a damn.
 
Well, I'd love to know where management was to allow that kind of money to
be wasted.  I have heard that RCA lost more than a half-billion (1970)
dollars building a clone to the IBM 360/370 mainframe before selling off
the Spectra series of computers to Univac.  The guy who created the
project was able to stay on in some other capacity; all the "little people"
got fired when the department was eliminated.
 
Just goes to show you that if you're big enough in a company, losing
a lot of money won't necessarily get you fired.
 
> I wrote a mail system in Pascal/VS on VM mainframes almost 15 years
> ago, that is now used by about 60,000 users.  I'm rather proud of
> it. But my memories of development consist exclusively of the long
> fights with Pascal's limitations.
 
15 Years ago Standard Pascal suffered from severe limitations in it
including the lack of standard string handling, random file I/O and
terminal control plus inability to reach the hardware closely.  The
Turbo Pascal series of compilers will do anything on a PC that you
can do in the C language and do it cleaner.
 
> } > "if it's written in PASCAL it can't possibly be any good",
>
> } You might want to ask some people how long it takes to debug a
> } sendmail.cf script and yet allow mail service.  Listserv and
> } (the companion program that handles mail, is it L-Mail?) have
> } been in use at hundreds of sites by hundreds of thousands of
> } recipients of bitnet lists.
>
> How does that compare with hundreds of thousands of sites and
> over 10 million users?
 
Very well considering that the University of California, Berkleley
*gives away* sendmail, free, and that Listserv is a package that
places had to pay for.  There has to be a reason people would
pay for something that they can get in an equivalent package for
free.
 
> } After all, it was the beloved sendmail that had the
> } debugging feature that allowed Robert T. Morris Jr. to almost
> } shut down the Internet.
>
> And it was BITNET that got hit by the Christmas virus.  Most of
> VNET went down.
 
What is this, and what is VNET?  I'd like more details.  And was
the listserv program infected, or was it the sites that were
doing something?
 
> } How long does it take to setup a listserv?  Probably less
> time than it takes to install and configure sendmail.
>
> If you have to install sendmail.  Most people don't have to.
> And most sendmails come preconfigured.
 
Are you sure?  You're saying that the internet address and domain name of
a site is already pre-loaded into sendmail or that it automatically knows
where it is or what system it is on?  Interesting.
 
> } It's not a "serious" issue.  A serious issue is one where
> } there is a reason for doing something.
>
> It is a serious issue.  Portability.  C is far more portable than
> Pascal when used by reasonably skilled professionals.
 
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!   Are you just trying to kid people who don't
know better or are you simply saying something you know nothing about?
 
I've gotten private mail from people who spoke about this.  Many C
programs depend heavily on features that *cannot* be ported from one
machine to another.  I've been told that some C programs won't compile
when moved from one unix box to another.
 
I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that - at best - the
two languages are about equal in terms of portability for any
non-hardware specific applcations.  For ones that do very specific
hardware access, I will claim that a program written in C is going
to be much harder to port than one written in Pascal, if the facilities
are available on both machines.
 
> } Hopefully dinosaurs that think that way will become
> } extinct, when the asteroid of reality comes crashing down on
> } their environment.
>
> In this era of downsizing, one might hesitate before calling
> someone else a dinosaur, and choose more carefully what you
> believe to be reality.
 
Oh?  Mainframe computing has two very good applications left:
high volume transaction processing, and large server capabilities.
If you are running a large airline, you had better be using either a
Tandem nonstop running their transaction monitor, or else you
had better be running ACP or PARS on an IBM Mainframe or the
equivalent.  Anyone who suggests running 1500TPS applications on
PCs should be shot first, then fired.
 
The other thing that mainframes can be used for is the stuff that Novell
is making money off of: servers and such.  If they can figure a way to
allow those large 370s with huge disk capacity plus all that I/O bamdwidth
for line printers and tape drives, to efficiently be used for the transfer
of files, mail and the loading of applications, there will be even more
need to keep them around.  Not otherwise.
 
> } Here's one to answer people with: try setting up a unix-based
> } sendmail system, installed by an expert, versus a Listserv -
> } converted to C for this test if the site doesn't have a Pascal
> } Compiler - installed by a novice manager.  Now have both
> } systems be bombarded with mail, and see which of them has
> } problems keeping up with the load.  My guess is that sendmail
> } would crack long before listserv does.
>
> Perhaps.  But one wouldn't want to run sendmail in that
> scenario anyways.
 
So now you are saying that the beloved Sendmail, that comes "pre
configured" is now insufficient for general purpose mail delivery.
 
> You might want to read the UNIX Email Software Survey FAQ.  It's in
> rtfm.mit.edu's FTP area.  It's describes quite a number of solid,
> reliable and simple to use sendmail replacements that are far
> better suited to high loads.  The FAQ is quite good.
>
> Then again, of course it is.  I wrote it...
 
Well, Eric, you might want to look and see if it gives you
ideas about what you have to compete against.  I might take a
look at it sometime, if I get some interest in the subject.
 
 
 
---
Paul Robinson - [log in to unmask]