Brits' RIP ripped! 
Author Message
 Brits' RIP ripped!



Quote:


> > And while I'm on the subject, loosely, is there anyone here does Perl,
> > and since I've years and years of PL/1 which is a bit like Perl at
> > times, just how many years Perl/CGI should I lie on my CV to having?

> If you feel VERY proficient, I'd say that five years would not be a stretch
> under the circumstances.  Keep in mind that the basics of PERL can be
> learned in hours but that extreme proficiency is SELDOM exhibited.  (You
> could probably fool me, since I have very little personal practical
> experience.)

Don't worry about it and don't sweat it, :Dave.   You're a firm
providing services, not :Dave looking for a job.  

Your Quals are the AND of all the Quals on your team.  It doesn't matter
if you have 6 months of PERL and your subcontractor has 5 years.  Your
firm brings "over 5 years of PERL" to the table.

Similarly, your hourly rate doesn't matter much if you're doing off-site
contract work.   If they contract for pages that serve up motor vehicle
registration information or announce sales of knickers, they've budgeted
perhaps $10,000 for the job.  If you run over budget, even if you take
three times as long as expected, you can only bill the $10,000
originally contracted for.

The exception is if they change the specs along the way, you can
renegotiate an engineering change.  

Quote:
> > Sick really - for over 20 years my CV has been just about as straight as
> > a die, hardly even any exaggeration, and now at the age of 47 I'm going
> > to have to resort to lying to put my meat and two veg on the table :(

> Forty-seven!  You're nothing but a young punk.  I thought that you were at
> least as old as I (53).  Keep in mind that I have yet to see a resume on
> which at least a few of the details were a bit ... shall we say ...
> moderately 'anticipatory'.  I suppose that I could have missed one or two
> over the past twenty years.  ;-)

In general, your resume doesn't win the job.   All of my contracts in
the last 5 years have been through personal referals.  I've known the
CEO, CIO, project manager and they've asked for my help.  

Quote:
> > Ah well, back to the CGI stuff which is, well (embarrassed cough), FUN!

> So's XML.  On the other hand, expect to see dead-from-the-neck-upward
> headhunters looking for XLM programmers with ten years experience.  (The
> very first W3C Recommendation was published only two years ago.)  Yet
> another good reason to employ a bit of  "creative writing" to your CV, I
> suppose.

I suppose you could put down:

"20 Years of document formatting including XML, HTML, SGML, GML,
Readiwriter, Script, ATMS, and the TSO Format command."  

But as a firm, :Dave, you have to walk in with the confidence that you
can do the job.   You've done it before.  You won't fail.   They must be
able to smell the confidence on you.  

If you have to low-ball the job to get your foot in the door, well, do
it.  

Explain to them that it's a $10,000 job but since they are a new
client, you'll give them a good discount for Net 10 days payment.  

If you have to toss in freebies, do that too.  For example, "Maintenance
and support for 60 days including updates and corrections."   Ideally,
they will discover that they spec'ed something wrong and will want the
work done as part of the 60 days of updates and corrections.   That's
when you tell them to declare the original job done, cut you the check
so that you can start work on the free part.

If you do an honest, best-effort job during the 60 days, they will come
back to you for a followup.   During the 60 days, give them regular
status updates and remind them that this is part of the "full service",
"customer satisfaction" policy of your firm.  

If you have another gig, this is evening, weekend time or hours charged
to your R&D and business development budget.    If you don't have
another gig, you are trading bench-time for a shot at follow-up work.

Some consider this is "Illegal" in U.S. government contracting.   The
reason is that you are bribing the officers by making them look good,
giving them successes to curry favor and get a future contract.  

You can legitimize this bribe by writing it in as "60 days free
maintenance".

The goal is to get that contract, get it.  Get it locked down.   If you
have to give up a little on rates or toss in upgrades, that's a minor
issue.  

Quote:
> Ciao,

> Scott

Once you have the contract, you'll want payment and the follow-on.   The
best marketing is a success on the job.

Anyone else think that it's time for IBM to set PL/I free?   Toss the
source to the Optimizing Compiler into the GNU-pool so that it can be
ported to Linux, so that the Open Source community can enhance PL/I.

--
cory hamasaki



Sat, 28 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

Quote:
> Anyone else think that it's time for IBM to set PL/I free?   Toss the
> source to the Optimizing Compiler into the GNU-pool so that it can be
> ported to Linux, so that the Open Source community can enhance PL/I.

Yes, this would save me a nearly unimagineable amount of fun, er, work.

-dq



Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!
As a PL/I zealot since about 1964 (I actually did some beta testing on
the original compiler before it was generally available to the first few
firms with 360/65 mainframes) I have always felt that PL/I never got the
recognition it deserves.

If "setting it free" could improve its stature you have my vote.

I am curious about your use of the word "enhance".  I thought that PL/I
can do just about everything you'd ever want...   :-)

Quote:

> > Anyone else think that it's time for IBM to set PL/I free?   Toss the
> > source to the Optimizing Compiler into the GNU-pool so that it can be
> > ported to Linux, so that the Open Source community can enhance PL/I.

> Yes, this would save me a nearly unimagineable amount of fun, er, work.

> -dq



Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

Quote:

>> > Anyone else think that it's time for IBM to set PL/I free?   Toss the
>> > source to the Optimizing Compiler into the GNU-pool so that it can be
>> > ported to Linux, so that the Open Source community can enhance PL/I.
>As a PL/I zealot since about 1964 (I actually did some beta testing on
>the original compiler before it was generally available to the first few
>firms with 360/65 mainframes) I have always felt that PL/I never got the
>recognition it deserves.

First time I used it was in 1974 on a 360/40 - D level.

Quote:

>If "setting it free" could improve its stature you have my vote.

>I am curious about your use of the word "enhance".  I thought that PL/I
>can do just about everything you'd ever want...   :-)

Unless there's a new version of it, it doesn't have any web interaction
- at least with the Microfocus version of Cobol there's an exec HTML
command, though it's not too clever handling nicely indented and
structured code!  PL/1 would be vastly better at handling HTML strings
than Cobol is.  Strangely enough that's reckoned to be a strength of
Perl as well.

Pl/1 is of course to Cobol what a hammer is to a rock, though it's
probably not, work-wise, very clever of me to say so.  Only thing I
prefer Cobol for is in a dump - at least you can read the machine code
from Cobol - PL/1 once you're just getting going, along comes a library
call and you're done for (yes I know, there are other ways).

If it had been anyone else but IBM that came up with PL/1, it would have
become universally popular.  In much the same way that MCA was far
better than ISA.  But no-one trusted them to make it truly Open I guess
- plus the usual jealousy factor.

Anyway, there you go.

:Dave
--
Dave Eastabrook;    http://www.largs.org    Chat room now Open!



Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:09:28 GMT, "Donald L. Dobbs"

Quote:

>I am curious about your use of the word "enhance".  I thought that PL/I
>can do just about everything you'd ever want...   :-)

I can't ABEND.   That means you can't force conditional disposition
(DISP=(NEW,CATLG,KEEP) always results in a catalogued dataset).

Back in the mid-70s I spent several weeks trying EVERYTHING I could
think of to do a controlled ABEND.  In the end, we wrote PLABEND in
assembler to do the job.   If I recall correctly the load module was
about 20 bytes.

Frank Clarke
Tampa Area REXX Programmers' Alliance
REXX Language Assn
Join us at www.rexxla.org



Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!
Dave:

You're right about the HTML (or lack thereof).  It's a new world now and
some kind of capability in that area would be welcomed, of course.
About 5 years ago (plus/minus 1) IBM (or somebody) did have an internal
Visual PL/I (a la Visual Basic) product. I saw some really neat
windows-based (lower case w, by the way) demos.  For some unknown reason
(at least unknown to me) the product was not released publicly.  It
would have been "a natural" for web extensions, etc.

   -- Don.

Quote:



> >> > Anyone else think that it's time for IBM to set PL/I free?   Toss the
> >> > source to the Optimizing Compiler into the GNU-pool so that it can be
> >> > ported to Linux, so that the Open Source community can enhance PL/I.

> >As a PL/I zealot since about 1964 (I actually did some beta testing on
> >the original compiler before it was generally available to the first few
> >firms with 360/65 mainframes) I have always felt that PL/I never got the
> >recognition it deserves.

> First time I used it was in 1974 on a 360/40 - D level.

> >If "setting it free" could improve its stature you have my vote.

> >I am curious about your use of the word "enhance".  I thought that PL/I
> >can do just about everything you'd ever want...   :-)

> Unless there's a new version of it, it doesn't have any web interaction
> - at least with the Microfocus version of Cobol there's an exec HTML
> command, though it's not too clever handling nicely indented and
> structured code!  PL/1 would be vastly better at handling HTML strings
> than Cobol is.  Strangely enough that's reckoned to be a strength of
> Perl as well.

> Pl/1 is of course to Cobol what a hammer is to a rock, though it's
> probably not, work-wise, very clever of me to say so.  Only thing I
> prefer Cobol for is in a dump - at least you can read the machine code
> from Cobol - PL/1 once you're just getting going, along comes a library
> call and you're done for (yes I know, there are other ways).

> If it had been anyone else but IBM that came up with PL/1, it would have
> become universally popular.  In much the same way that MCA was far
> better than ISA.  But no-one trusted them to make it truly Open I guess
> - plus the usual jealousy factor.

> Anyway, there you go.

> :Dave
> --
> Dave Eastabrook;    http://www.largs.org    Chat room now Open!



Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:09:28 GMT, "Donald L. Dobbs"

Quote:

>As a PL/I zealot since about 1964 (I actually did some beta testing on
>the original compiler before it was generally available to the first few
>firms with 360/65 mainframes) I have always felt that PL/I never got the
>recognition it deserves.

There is only one real PL/1, that used on the Multics system. I spent
a few years in college with it, and it was amazing. After college, DEC
VMS PL/I was ok, but nowhere near Multics class.

st



Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

Quote:
>There is only one real PL/1, that used on the Multics system.

Oh, Pshaw!

I started PL/I in the late '60's (along with 360 BAL, fortran,
COBOL and ALGOL) and when I was at the 'Tute (undergrad,
'69, early '70's) I did PL/1 on Multics.  The PL/1 compiler for
Multics was OK, but not terribly better than IBM's compilers.  

I remember clearly one day when Saltzer (IIRC, maybe Corbie)
asked about a label I had between the ends of blocks in a four or
five level deep nesting.  The label was named
SATISFY_STUPID_COMPILER
and was not referred to anywhere in the program.  With that
label, Multics PL/1 compiled it and it ran perfectly.  Without
that label Multics PL/1 generated a spurious error message
about unreachable code and refused to emit object.

That error in Multics PL/1 was quite reproducable, until they
fixed it (I think they eventually fixed it).
Also,  IIRC, Multics PL/1 did not implement the Sterling data type,
so there!  ;-)
--
Kevin G. Rhoads, Ph.D. (The Cheshire Cat for official Internet mascot.)



Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

snipped

Quote:

> Anyone else think that it's time for IBM to set PL/I free?   Toss the
> source to the Optimizing Compiler into the GNU-pool so that it can be
> ported to Linux, so that the Open Source community can enhance PL/I.

> --
> cory hamasaki

I loved PL/1 back when I had access to it.  Of course, I have enough
trouble getting my present employer to allow me to write in C rather
than FORTRAN, but I'd like to use it again.

Regards,
Russell Martin
--
At the helm of Science, steering the ship of Progress away
from the reef of Ignorance.



Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

Quote:

> I loved PL/1 back when I had access to it.  Of course, I have enough
> trouble getting my present employer to allow me to write in C rather
> than FORTRAN, but I'd like to use it again.

The Digital Research compiler for PL/I on DOS has been available for
a number of years, also PL/I for OS/2 -- substantially
enhanced over the original PL/I release for the S/360.
Quote:
> Regards,
> Russell Martin



Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

Quote:

> Also,  IIRC, Multics PL/1 did not implement the Sterling data type,
> so there!  ;-)

That would have been a serious drawback for sterling areas (incl. UK).
Even we were using sterling in those days!
Quote:
> --
> Kevin G. Rhoads, Ph.D. (The Cheshire Cat for official Internet mascot.)




Wed, 01 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

Quote:

> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:09:28 GMT, "Donald L. Dobbs"

> >As a PL/I zealot since about 1964 (I actually did some beta testing on
> >the original compiler before it was generally available to the first few
> >firms with 360/65 mainframes) I have always felt that PL/I never got the
> >recognition it deserves.

> There is only one real PL/1, that used on the Multics system. I spent
> a few years in college with it, and it was amazing. After college, DEC
> VMS PL/I was ok, but nowhere near Multics class.

> st

I started out on PL/I (F) on OS/MFT 18.6 HASP II in 1970 on a S/360 50,
3 selector channels, 2314 DASD.   That compiler, OS, and machine still
defines a mainframe.

Interestingly Hercules/390 on fast Pentium will run that software and
give that iron a run for its money.

Instead of Multics and PL/I, we have Unix and C (same semicolons, same
/*  */, same structures and pointers)  This is progress?

I like PL/I X, the Optimiser is quite a piece of work.

I'd like to see IBM GNU PL/I.    PL/X too.
--
cory hamasaki   But then, Rexx isn't bad either.



Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!


Quote:
>The Digital Research compiler for PL/I on DOS has been available for
>a number of years, also PL/I for OS/2

How much?

Frank Clarke
Tampa Area REXX Programmers' Alliance
REXX Language Assn
Join us at www.rexxla.org



Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!


Quote:


>>The Digital Research compiler for PL/I on DOS has been available for
>>a number of years, also PL/I for OS/2

>How much?

DRI PL/1 was around when I was in college in the early 80's. We had
some running on CPM/86.  Sucky compiler back then, in line with
everyone else's (Borland Turbo C 1.0, yea!!!) but it got better. I
remember playing with a copy in the later 80's, a few hundrend dollars
maybe. The OS/2 PL/1 was probably IBM's. There was also PL/1 for Unix
from LPI, a few hundrend dollars / license if memory serves well. IBM
may have Visual something PL/1.

st



Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 Brits' RIP ripped!

Quote:


> >The Digital Research compiler for PL/I on DOS has been available for
> >a number of years, also PL/I for OS/2

> How much?

Free for non-commercial use.
Quote:
> Frank Clarke
> Tampa Area REXX Programmers' Alliance
> REXX Language Assn
> Join us at www.rexxla.org



Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 22 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. DR PL/I for DOS (was Brits' RIP ripped!)

2. Don't Get Ripped Off!

3. J rip-off? - cla-jul.24a (1/1)

4. SmalltalkAgents: R.I.P.?

5. The passing of an era - Clarion/TopSpeed Forum at CompuServe - RIP

6. Hans Rakow RIP

7. RIP char >127? help

8. ASAP: Help, Rip a CDs folders to!

9. ACM SigForth: R.I.P.

10. "HELP ME" - Rip-off warning

11. Quicksite and no pays are they rip offs?

12. MASM RIP?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software