Re: Computerworld editorial: ASCII is better than EBCDIC

["Michael Ryan" <michaelrtr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Taking Unicode out of the picture, the 'better than' proposition probably
has something to do with usage. IBM (and I think Bull used to) is the user
of EBCDIC - all others use ASCII. And even IBM doesn't use EBCDIC on pSeries
and xSeries - just i and z. So, while Betamax may be better than VHS...

On 10/31/06, Neil Palmer <neilpalmer400mr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Vern,
>
> You should write to him and/or the Computerworld editor and call him out
> on this.  :-)
>
>
> Neil Palmer, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
>
> (This account not monitored for personal mail,
> remove the last two letters before @ for that)
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx" <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:48:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Computerworld editorial: ASCII is better than EBCDIC
>
>
> Frank Hayes has, according to the article, "has covered IT for more than
> 20 years." It seems he has not been around long enough to make the statement
> he does. And this very statement is patently ridiculous on the face of it::
>
> ASCII. A big improvement over IBM’s proprietary EBCDIC character set in
> the 1960s. But today we do business globally, and ASCII can’t even handle
> euro or yen signs.
>
> Original ASCII came from telexes, my cohort across the aisle says, and was
> 7-bit - plus various stop and parity stuff. EBCDIC is related to our
> favorite Hollerith cards. Who knows the whys and wherefores behind the
> design decisions. As to handling euro and yen, the writer seems not to know
> that there are several ASCII code pages. As to superiority, which one has
> more control codes? Of course, are they needed?
>
> The statement seems more about acceptance than about true improvements. My
> cohort also said that IBM made EBCDIC public long ago. And the 2 systems
> were probably developed in parallel - different origins. This is just
> another unfortunate silly example of something that people will accept
> without examining it for credulity. And I am probably off the mark, but I
> hope not so bad as that writer!!
>
> ;-)
> Vern
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: AGlauser@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > For those who are interested, I believe this is the article in question:
> >
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI
> > d=269598
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.