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

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Computerworld editorial: ASCII is better than EBCDIC
From: "James H H Lampert" <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:44:37 -0800
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>

"Mike Cunningham" <MCUNNING@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Did anyone else read Frank Hayes column in the Oct 23issue of Computerworld where hs states that ASCII is
better than EBCDIC. Any idea why he would say ASCII was
better?


Didn't read the column.

Anti-IBM bias, maybe? That is, after all, the onlyapparent reason why so many things outside the IBM worlduse Octal instead of Hex.


--
JHHL

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.