[Discussion] IBM Stretch Computer

[Thomas Clayton]

Dear Julian:

> Can I say PER?
I _hate_ to ask ... but what do you mean by "PER"?

Tom C

--- On Sun, 1/24/10, Julian Thomas <jt at jt-mj.net> wrote:

> From: Julian Thomas <jt at jt-mj.net>
> Subject: Re: [Discussion] IBM Stretch Computer
> To: "POSSI Discussion List" <discussion at lists.possi.org>
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 7:08 PM
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:27:34 -0800
> (PST) Thomas Clayton wrote:
> >
> >
> >"It is immensely ingeious,immensely complicated, and
> > extremely effective but somehow at the same time
> crude, wasteful,
> > and inelegant, and one feels that there must be a
> better way
> > of doing things."
> >--- C. Strachey (speaking not of Windows
> > but of the IBM Stretch computer in 1962)
> 
> A fair assessment of Stretch as compared to later versions
> of 370 and XA mainframes (although 
> they in their own right introduced 'immensely complicated'
> mechanisms, and some of the 
> architectural gimmicks and constraints were thought by some
> to be 'crude and wasteful').
> 
> Can I say PER?
> 
> -- 
>  Julian Thomas:   jt at jt-mj.net 
>   http://jt-mj.net
>  In the beautiful Genesee Valley of Western New York
> State!
>  -- --
>  Press any key... no, no, no, NOT THAT ONE!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at lists.possi.org
> http://lists.possi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>