Computerworld editorial: ASCII is better than EBCDIC -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Computerworld editorial: ASCII is better than EBCDIC
From: "Mike Cunningham" <MCUNNING@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:57:49 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Did anyone else read Frank Hayes column in the Oct 23 issue of
Computerworld where hs states that ASCII is better than EBCDIC. When I
went thru school (I won't say when but it was after the birth of ASCII
in the '60s) we were taught that EBCDIC was better since it was 8-bit
and supported 256 characters and ASCII was 7 (at least at that time) and
only support 128 characters. Any idea why he would say ASCII was better?

 
p.s. I do agree that both should be retired and replaced by unicode

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Computerworld editorial: ASCII is better than EBCDIC , Carel Teijgeler
Re: Computerworld editorial: ASCII is better than EBCDIC , James H H Lampert

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.