This post is simply a link to a web page which describes more programming work which I accomplished using the Bash scripting language. So, about another contrivance, but no content here. Please enjoy the page at https://sanbachs.net/bruce/ntkm/
Why a separate page? Because I needed to use features of HTML and CSS which are difficult to embed in this blog.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Confusion without compromise
[1[2author
Another off-topic post*, this one about communication with a corporation. This corporation currently has a campaign entitled, "We're listening." It is intended, I suppose to convince the customers that they are listening.
As it happened, I had a little problem with one of their accounting procedures, and so I was taken in by the slogan, and tried to tell them about the problem. Here is the conversation, stripped down to its essence.
[3chase-customer [2author I am having difficulty because of one of your accounting procedures. (Description of procedure.)]]
[3chase [2charlotte We understand your frustration. Here is how it works. (How the procedure is supposed to work.)]]
[3chase-customer [2author I don't feel listened to. I would be very happy if your procedure worked the way you describe it. But it actually works like this. (Description of procedure.)]]
[3chase [2josue We understand your frustration. Here is how it works. (How the procedure is supposed to work.)]]
[3chase-customer [2author You aren't listening. I would be very happy if your procedure worked the way [2charlotte] and [2josue] describe it. But it actually works like this. (Description of procedure.) I will have to minimize my use of your service.]]
[3chase [2mark We appreciate your business. We would have loved nothing better than to satisfy you with our replies. We are sorry you are going to minimize your use of our service, and hope you will reconsider. If you have any further questions, please contact us.]]
The ball is in my court again, but I think that I will just retire from the field. I have lost this volley. The corporation has lost some business. How could it have the slogan, "we're listening," while not listening? Of course, I wasn't listening either, in the sense of believing what they said. I prefer to believe what I see them actually doing.
For the record, the accounting procedure actually works the way I described it (to a customer's disadvantage) and not the way the corporation describes it (which would be to the customer's advantage).
Neither side has truly communicated to the other. Nothing will change, and the customer confusion will continue. Neither side changed its position. This is confusion without compromise.
* Inspired by Myrna's post-the-first and post-the-second about another corporation which didn't communicate well.
]]
Another off-topic post*, this one about communication with a corporation. This corporation currently has a campaign entitled, "We're listening." It is intended, I suppose to convince the customers that they are listening.
As it happened, I had a little problem with one of their accounting procedures, and so I was taken in by the slogan, and tried to tell them about the problem. Here is the conversation, stripped down to its essence.
[3chase-customer [2author I am having difficulty because of one of your accounting procedures. (Description of procedure.)]]
[3chase [2charlotte We understand your frustration. Here is how it works. (How the procedure is supposed to work.)]]
[3chase-customer [2author I don't feel listened to. I would be very happy if your procedure worked the way you describe it. But it actually works like this. (Description of procedure.)]]
[3chase [2josue We understand your frustration. Here is how it works. (How the procedure is supposed to work.)]]
[3chase-customer [2author You aren't listening. I would be very happy if your procedure worked the way [2charlotte] and [2josue] describe it. But it actually works like this. (Description of procedure.) I will have to minimize my use of your service.]]
[3chase [2mark We appreciate your business. We would have loved nothing better than to satisfy you with our replies. We are sorry you are going to minimize your use of our service, and hope you will reconsider. If you have any further questions, please contact us.]]
The ball is in my court again, but I think that I will just retire from the field. I have lost this volley. The corporation has lost some business. How could it have the slogan, "we're listening," while not listening? Of course, I wasn't listening either, in the sense of believing what they said. I prefer to believe what I see them actually doing.
For the record, the accounting procedure actually works the way I described it (to a customer's disadvantage) and not the way the corporation describes it (which would be to the customer's advantage).
Neither side has truly communicated to the other. Nothing will change, and the customer confusion will continue. Neither side changed its position. This is confusion without compromise.
* Inspired by Myrna's post-the-first and post-the-second about another corporation which didn't communicate well.
]]
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Contrast without contempt
[1[2author
Or, to put it a different way, "I will stop calling you a sinner, if you will stop calling me stupid." Is it possible for people whose beliefs differ to understand one another without expressing some kind of contempt?
Here is an attempt at comparing and contrasting secular humanism (SH) with the church to which I belong, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). I trust that these acronyms will not be too invasive in the prose, and I will use a lower-case version so that it looks less like shouting. I did resist the temptation to use a longer acronym with "belief system" after each of the names. Nevertheless, it is indeed the respective belief systems that I am comparing and contrasting.
A belief system is an entity in World Three*, so alternating paragraphs will be enclosed in special brackets to indicate the world, and which belief system is speaking**. The speeches are entirely of my making and do not necessarily represent the official doctrine*** of either belief system. This is personal, as indicated formally by the bracketing of the entire post as such.
[3sh This life is an accident. The species homo sapiens is the product of a long evolutionary process. Our mind is an illusion, a story we each tell ourselves. No superior beings care what happens to the human race and we must take care of the world ourselves. Many years ago, we invented gods and religions as explanations for the world around us.]
[3lds This life is a test. We are beings with a dual nature. Our spirits are literally children of our Heavenly Father. He created our bodies, starting with Adam and Eve. Our mind awakens as our body's brain matures, but memories of pre-mortal life are veiled from us. We are co-eternal with God, who created the world for us and cares about it and us.]
The tension is already very thick. These are very different belief systems. Continuing, looking for commonality.
[3sh Our body will eventually die. Since our mind is nothing separate from our brain which also dies, we will each cease to exist, and the elements of our body will eventually return to the earth. We will continue to live on in the minds of those who cared about us until they also cease to exist. Some very famous people will be remembered longer.]
[3lds Our body will eventually die. Our spirit will carry our memories into another world, and the elements of our body will eventually return to the earth. We will continue to live on in the minds of those who cared about us. Some very famous people will be remembered longer. Eventually every person will be remembered and resurrected.]
There is quite a lot in common, with regards to death, but an enormous difference in what it means to the individual.
[3sh We are aware that there are misguided people who believe in [3lds]. It is sad that they are so deluded, and we need to present the concepts of [3sh] to them to free them from their slavery to false ideas about how the world really is.]
[3lds We are aware that there are people who believe in [3sh]. If they are willing to listen, we should teach them about [3lds] and testify to them of its truth, so that they can rejoice with us in the knowledge of how the world really is.]
I am hoping to avoid contempt. Some supporters of [3sh] do exhibit a great deal of contempt for believers in religion, so I have included a bit of that bias (with the concept of "delusion"). In fairness, there are also supporters of [3lds] who feel contempt for supporters of [3sh] but I do not, and this is personal.
The next point is really a sideline, exploring one step further this awareness by one group of people, the supporters of one belief system, of the other group who support the other belief system.
[3sh Those of us who care about others' beliefs can only convince these people before they die, and we must insist that they not indoctrinate children because that is unfair to the children and to us, making it harder for us to convince them all.]
[3lds We respect the right of these people to believe as they wish. After they die, they will understand that their belief system was incorrect, and we will continue to minister to them until they accept the Savior, which, ultimately, each one will.]
The difference here is quite large, due to an inherent asymmetry**** having to do with whether or not the belief system includes a belief in life after death.
Finally, let's consider how each belief system determines truth.
[3sh Science is a relatively recent invention which allows us to learn what is true about the world around us. We develop theories and test them with observations made of the real world. We depend upon peer review to ensure that we have a coherent story to tell others. We believe peer-reviewed research in areas we have not studied personally. We are very proud of what we have been able to accomplish in such a short time. There are some questions to which our method does not apply.]
[3lds Everything which is true, including observations of science, is a part of our belief system. Direct revelation from God is the most sure and certain way to know what is true. Each of us knows by direct revelation to us that God has selected certain men to speak for all of us, we believe that they receive revelation from God, and we believe what they say. We believe all that God has revealed and we expect continuing revelation. Not all subjects have been addressed yet by them, so we must be patient.]
If I have correctly characterized the two belief systems, though they use quite different methods to get at the truth, both require faith, in the sense of needing to believe authorities.
This is hardly a conclusion, for there is still much exploration to do. The blog format allows me to try out different ideas and different presentation methods, and hopefully benefit from feedback.
All feedback is welcome. Please be aware that each supporter of either of these belief systems is a flesh-and-blood human being with feelings, who, however odd it may seem to those on the other side of the controversy, does sincerely hold these beliefs to be true and perhaps even self-evident. Please avoid all ad hominem attacks in public comments.
I am particularly soliciting feedback concerning errors in the speeches that I have put into the mouths** of the two belief systems. These are only valuable to the extent that they are accurate. If you are a believer in one of these systems and feel that I have misrepresented or over-simplified your belief, please let me know, either by comment, Google+ post, private message, or email. Thank you in advance.
In conclusion, in this post, I have done my best to produce, at an overview level of detail, an accurate and fair comparison and contrast without contempt.
* For an explanation of worlds one, two, and three, please see a previous post in this blog, "Context without content."
** Strictly speaking, world three entities do not speak, but world two entities (i.e. people) speak on their behalf. Each speech is in my own voice, representing the world three entity as I understand it.
*** The official doctrines of the LDS church can be found by searching on lds.org. SH does not have an organization per se, at least so far as I am aware.
**** In the linked post, LDS is denoted M, and SH is denoted S. The other abbreviations are C for mainstream christianity, and R for groups that believe in reincarnation.
]]
Or, to put it a different way, "I will stop calling you a sinner, if you will stop calling me stupid." Is it possible for people whose beliefs differ to understand one another without expressing some kind of contempt?
Here is an attempt at comparing and contrasting secular humanism (SH) with the church to which I belong, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). I trust that these acronyms will not be too invasive in the prose, and I will use a lower-case version so that it looks less like shouting. I did resist the temptation to use a longer acronym with "belief system" after each of the names. Nevertheless, it is indeed the respective belief systems that I am comparing and contrasting.
A belief system is an entity in World Three*, so alternating paragraphs will be enclosed in special brackets to indicate the world, and which belief system is speaking**. The speeches are entirely of my making and do not necessarily represent the official doctrine*** of either belief system. This is personal, as indicated formally by the bracketing of the entire post as such.
[3sh This life is an accident. The species homo sapiens is the product of a long evolutionary process. Our mind is an illusion, a story we each tell ourselves. No superior beings care what happens to the human race and we must take care of the world ourselves. Many years ago, we invented gods and religions as explanations for the world around us.]
[3lds This life is a test. We are beings with a dual nature. Our spirits are literally children of our Heavenly Father. He created our bodies, starting with Adam and Eve. Our mind awakens as our body's brain matures, but memories of pre-mortal life are veiled from us. We are co-eternal with God, who created the world for us and cares about it and us.]
The tension is already very thick. These are very different belief systems. Continuing, looking for commonality.
[3sh Our body will eventually die. Since our mind is nothing separate from our brain which also dies, we will each cease to exist, and the elements of our body will eventually return to the earth. We will continue to live on in the minds of those who cared about us until they also cease to exist. Some very famous people will be remembered longer.]
[3lds Our body will eventually die. Our spirit will carry our memories into another world, and the elements of our body will eventually return to the earth. We will continue to live on in the minds of those who cared about us. Some very famous people will be remembered longer. Eventually every person will be remembered and resurrected.]
There is quite a lot in common, with regards to death, but an enormous difference in what it means to the individual.
[3sh We are aware that there are misguided people who believe in [3lds]. It is sad that they are so deluded, and we need to present the concepts of [3sh] to them to free them from their slavery to false ideas about how the world really is.]
[3lds We are aware that there are people who believe in [3sh]. If they are willing to listen, we should teach them about [3lds] and testify to them of its truth, so that they can rejoice with us in the knowledge of how the world really is.]
I am hoping to avoid contempt. Some supporters of [3sh] do exhibit a great deal of contempt for believers in religion, so I have included a bit of that bias (with the concept of "delusion"). In fairness, there are also supporters of [3lds] who feel contempt for supporters of [3sh] but I do not, and this is personal.
The next point is really a sideline, exploring one step further this awareness by one group of people, the supporters of one belief system, of the other group who support the other belief system.
[3sh Those of us who care about others' beliefs can only convince these people before they die, and we must insist that they not indoctrinate children because that is unfair to the children and to us, making it harder for us to convince them all.]
[3lds We respect the right of these people to believe as they wish. After they die, they will understand that their belief system was incorrect, and we will continue to minister to them until they accept the Savior, which, ultimately, each one will.]
The difference here is quite large, due to an inherent asymmetry**** having to do with whether or not the belief system includes a belief in life after death.
Finally, let's consider how each belief system determines truth.
[3sh Science is a relatively recent invention which allows us to learn what is true about the world around us. We develop theories and test them with observations made of the real world. We depend upon peer review to ensure that we have a coherent story to tell others. We believe peer-reviewed research in areas we have not studied personally. We are very proud of what we have been able to accomplish in such a short time. There are some questions to which our method does not apply.]
[3lds Everything which is true, including observations of science, is a part of our belief system. Direct revelation from God is the most sure and certain way to know what is true. Each of us knows by direct revelation to us that God has selected certain men to speak for all of us, we believe that they receive revelation from God, and we believe what they say. We believe all that God has revealed and we expect continuing revelation. Not all subjects have been addressed yet by them, so we must be patient.]
If I have correctly characterized the two belief systems, though they use quite different methods to get at the truth, both require faith, in the sense of needing to believe authorities.
This is hardly a conclusion, for there is still much exploration to do. The blog format allows me to try out different ideas and different presentation methods, and hopefully benefit from feedback.
All feedback is welcome. Please be aware that each supporter of either of these belief systems is a flesh-and-blood human being with feelings, who, however odd it may seem to those on the other side of the controversy, does sincerely hold these beliefs to be true and perhaps even self-evident. Please avoid all ad hominem attacks in public comments.
I am particularly soliciting feedback concerning errors in the speeches that I have put into the mouths** of the two belief systems. These are only valuable to the extent that they are accurate. If you are a believer in one of these systems and feel that I have misrepresented or over-simplified your belief, please let me know, either by comment, Google+ post, private message, or email. Thank you in advance.
In conclusion, in this post, I have done my best to produce, at an overview level of detail, an accurate and fair comparison and contrast without contempt.
* For an explanation of worlds one, two, and three, please see a previous post in this blog, "Context without content."
** Strictly speaking, world three entities do not speak, but world two entities (i.e. people) speak on their behalf. Each speech is in my own voice, representing the world three entity as I understand it.
*** The official doctrines of the LDS church can be found by searching on lds.org. SH does not have an organization per se, at least so far as I am aware.
**** In the linked post, LDS is denoted M, and SH is denoted S. The other abbreviations are C for mainstream christianity, and R for groups that believe in reincarnation.
]]
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Contrast without confusion
[1[2author
After quite a long hiatus, for those who are following this blog in real-time, here is the next post in the series for which I created this particular blog. Intervening posts have been off-topic.
A previous post introduced Popper's three worlds, as a technique for describing things which exist, by making distinctions between things which exist in the real world, things which exist as an individual mind, and things which have an existence of their own as it were. I will repeat here, for convenience, the paragraph of that post which gives the prescription for these distinctions.
After quite a long hiatus, for those who are following this blog in real-time, here is the next post in the series for which I created this particular blog. Intervening posts have been off-topic.
A previous post introduced Popper's three worlds, as a technique for describing things which exist, by making distinctions between things which exist in the real world, things which exist as an individual mind, and things which have an existence of their own as it were. I will repeat here, for convenience, the paragraph of that post which gives the prescription for these distinctions.
I invite you to consider using Popper's three worlds as a way to organize your thoughts about things. Is it a real, tangible object? World one. Is it [a person, or] an idea flitting through your head? World two. Is it something that, while not tangible, has a life of its own, that people talk about or to which people pledge allegiance? World three.Now, let's use this technique for making a few simple contrasts, hopefully without confusion.
An atheist is willing to admit that God exists as something which is not tangible, but which people talk about and to which many pledge allegiance. I have heard proponents of atheism claim that God exists only as a fictional character, or in the same way that an imaginary friend exists.
Let me introduce a notation to describe this:
[3atheism [1 [3God]]]
In that line, I am expressing my conception that atheism exists as an entity in world 3, and that one of its tenets is that, in world 1, there exists an entity in world 3, commonly referred to as "God."
A theist, on the other hand, contends that God exists in world 1 as a being. In the notation:
[3theism [1 [2God]]]
The difference between the two notations is quite subtle, but captures the contrast well, and, hopefully, without confusion.
The difference between the two notations is quite subtle, but captures the contrast well, and, hopefully, without confusion.
For another example, I will turn to an experience that I had while a university professor in the 1980's. One of my students, during an office visit, allowed a brief discussion about Jesus Christ, in order to refute my claim that, as a Mormon*, I was a Christian. To conclude the discussion, he indicated that the Jesus Christ that I believe in is not the same Jesus Christ that he believes in. We agreed to disagree. I have often thought of this experience, and now attempt to diagram his position.
[3christianity [1 [2Trinity (including Jesus Christ)]]]
As a main-stream Christian, he believed that Jesus Christ was a manifestation of the Trinity while in the flesh during his lifetime as a mortal being, who after his ascension became again a part of the one God which is the consubstantial unity of three parts, comprising the incomprehensible Trinity. It is easy to understand the claim that "Mormons are not Christian" because we do not believe in this conception of Jesus Christ.
[3lds [1 [2God the Father] [2Jesus Christ] [2Holy Ghost]]]
This expresses the first of the thirteen articles of faith. As a Latter-day Saint*, I believe that Jesus Christ is one member of the Godhead, who exists as a being with a glorified body of flesh and bone. The Godhead is made up of three distinct beings who are one in purpose. It is based on our belief in the existence of Jesus Christ, as a real being, that Mormons claim** to be Christian.
As a final example, let's consider the first vision of Joseph Smith, from two different points of view.
[3atheism [1 [2Joseph Smith claimed to have seen [3God the Father] [3Jesus Christ]]]]
Atheists would not deny the existence of Joseph Smith as an individual who lived in the real world, and would likely agree that he claimed to have had a vision of two (imaginary***) beings.
[3lds [1 [2Joseph Smith] saw [2God the Father] and [2Jesus Christ]]]
As a Latter-day Saint* I testify not only that Joseph Smith existed as an individual in the real world, but that in 1820 he actually saw and talked with both God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, who are individuals who exist in the real world.
This is one way we can contrast without confusion at least portions of different belief systems using a notation based on the distinctions drawn by Popper's three worlds. Confusion is removed, because each claim that something exists clearly states in which world existence is claimed.
* In other words, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
** However, we do not claim to be an offshoot of any pre-existing (that is, established before 1820) Christian faith, neither Catholic nor Protestant, but rather a restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ Himself during his lifetime as a mortal and during the brief period (of at least forty days--see Acts 1:3) during which he taught his disciples after his resurrection.
*** The notation is quite subtle here. Notice the closing bracket for Joseph Smith is at the far right, which puts the two beings he saw into his own head (i.e. still in world 2), rather than claiming they exist separately in world 1.
** However, we do not claim to be an offshoot of any pre-existing (that is, established before 1820) Christian faith, neither Catholic nor Protestant, but rather a restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ Himself during his lifetime as a mortal and during the brief period (of at least forty days--see Acts 1:3) during which he taught his disciples after his resurrection.
*** The notation is quite subtle here. Notice the closing bracket for Joseph Smith is at the far right, which puts the two beings he saw into his own head (i.e. still in world 2), rather than claiming they exist separately in world 1.
]]
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Contagion without containment
Normally, I do not participate in things like chain letters and email chains. But this chain seems interesting. Myrna invited me to respond to a writing interview.
I followed the chain back a bit to try to determine the rules, and possibly the origin, but didn't get very far. It appears that one answers four questions and then suggests ("tags") someone else to participate. This produces a potentially unbounded chain, actually a branching structure, because many people seem to invite more than one other person to continue the chain. Of course some branches end, either without invitation, or with non-responsive invitees.
This type of post spreads across the internet of bloggers, in a way similar to the way a contagious disease spreads. Not saying it's a bad thing, though. My participation will be difficult to find because the usual blog title of "Writing Interview" does not fit my self-imposed constraint on blog titles. So, if you've stumbled upon this, welcome to my writing interview.
What am I working on?
I am working on a "contrast without contempt" between two belief systems which I know fairly well. Proponents of each of these belief systems tend to express contempt for those of the other, so this is a bit of a touchy subject. I have not yet worked up the courage to publish the initial post for that work, but have one in draft.
Otherwise, I am enjoying writing up little experiences from my past, mostly from my professional career. I have done some things which are, as far as I can tell, unique. Other things which I describe were innovative and/or ahead of their time.
How does my work differ from others of its genre?
I don't know of anything else in this genre. Self-conscious, flow of consciousness, stories of an ordinary lifetime. There probably are many public diaries, and there may be one out there just like mine.
Why do I write what I do?
Like many who have answered, it is because I feel compelled by inner forces to write. To my knowledge, I don't have a large audience, as only a handful of dear friends have ever commented.
As to the little personal stories, I write so that they will not be lost when I leave the planet. I do so mainly for the benefit of my posterity.
As to the professional experiences, I think it is important that these be documented.
How does my writing process work?
I think about things for days (and nights) on end, trying to find a pair of con- words to fit as a post title. Finally it all comes together and out of me into the blogger editor, gets a brief polish and publication.
Who would I like to interview?
Elizabeth and/or her husband Cody, and Ashlyn. As both blogs are content without constraint as to titles, I hope each post will be entitled "Writing Interview" to restore the pattern.
If either or both respond, this will be my contribution to a contagion without containment.
I followed the chain back a bit to try to determine the rules, and possibly the origin, but didn't get very far. It appears that one answers four questions and then suggests ("tags") someone else to participate. This produces a potentially unbounded chain, actually a branching structure, because many people seem to invite more than one other person to continue the chain. Of course some branches end, either without invitation, or with non-responsive invitees.
This type of post spreads across the internet of bloggers, in a way similar to the way a contagious disease spreads. Not saying it's a bad thing, though. My participation will be difficult to find because the usual blog title of "Writing Interview" does not fit my self-imposed constraint on blog titles. So, if you've stumbled upon this, welcome to my writing interview.
What am I working on?
I am working on a "contrast without contempt" between two belief systems which I know fairly well. Proponents of each of these belief systems tend to express contempt for those of the other, so this is a bit of a touchy subject. I have not yet worked up the courage to publish the initial post for that work, but have one in draft.
Otherwise, I am enjoying writing up little experiences from my past, mostly from my professional career. I have done some things which are, as far as I can tell, unique. Other things which I describe were innovative and/or ahead of their time.
How does my work differ from others of its genre?
I don't know of anything else in this genre. Self-conscious, flow of consciousness, stories of an ordinary lifetime. There probably are many public diaries, and there may be one out there just like mine.
Why do I write what I do?
Like many who have answered, it is because I feel compelled by inner forces to write. To my knowledge, I don't have a large audience, as only a handful of dear friends have ever commented.
As to the little personal stories, I write so that they will not be lost when I leave the planet. I do so mainly for the benefit of my posterity.
As to the professional experiences, I think it is important that these be documented.
How does my writing process work?
I think about things for days (and nights) on end, trying to find a pair of con- words to fit as a post title. Finally it all comes together and out of me into the blogger editor, gets a brief polish and publication.
Who would I like to interview?
Elizabeth and/or her husband Cody, and Ashlyn. As both blogs are content without constraint as to titles, I hope each post will be entitled "Writing Interview" to restore the pattern.
If either or both respond, this will be my contribution to a contagion without containment.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Construction without commuting
This is a story about a distant past. Not so many years, really, but the software construction world was quite different forty years ago. What was innovative then is now merely commonplace. In a word, telecommuting.
In the mid 1970's, I was working in France on a project for the French statistics bureau, INSEE. One aspect of this work is described in a previous post. The project involved the creation of a system to capture all of the data collected in the French census of 1975, and was part of a larger project, with "Colibri" as its code name*. Those with an interest in the history of census taking, and a reading knowledge of French may find it fascinating to read about this time in the history of INSEE.
The system we built was very ambitious for the time, and definitely on the cutting edge. It involved a central computer, located in Lille, attached to about 50 terminals** distributed throughout France, in 17 different locations. At these terminals, over 100 employees, mostly women, worked one of two shifts a day. Their work was to type in the information collected on the millions of individual census forms.
Our work was to develop the software system to support this. The hardware was an IBM 370 mainframe computer with telecommunication channels connected to all of the terminal locations. This was managed using IBM's SNA protocol as implemented in VTAM. On top of all this, we ran the teleprocessing monitoring system which our company*** sold, MULTIFASTER. Besides necessary bits and pieces to connect everything together, our main task was to create small programs, each one of which would handle a single transaction. A transaction was basically one screenful of information coming from one of the terminals. The small program would then validate the information and store it in a database, and that was all it did. Each such small program was called, also, a transaction. Confusing, I know.
The system we developed consisted of a collection of transactions. Each transaction was initiated from one of the terminals connected to the system. There were transactions to paint input screens onto the 3270 terminal. After the operator had filled in the blank fields, she would press the transmit key. There were transactions to accept the transmissions from the terminals, validate the information and store it in the database.
We were three software engineers writing the transactions: Marcel Sellem, Raymond Hédin, and myself. We all commuted from the Paris area to Lille to do the work at the site of the central computer. The programs were prepared on punched cards (80 column cards) and given to the operators to compile.
Once the entire system was built, it went into operation, and the data entry personnel went to work. Their work lasted for several years.
We all shifted our attention to other projects, but it remained my job to maintain the system. Every software system has bugs, and these needed to be addressed. We also had contractual limits on how much time the computer spent working on each transaction, so there was some tuning to be done as well.
At first, I did the necessary maintenance work by commuting to Lille. But then, suddenly, this innovative thought hit me: I could create a transaction which would let me edit the programs of the system. The system was a collection of loosely-coupled transactions. All that I had to do was add a new one. I did this.
The editor, due to the characteristics of the 3270 terminal had to be extremely simple. Each screen showed me three lines at a time from the program file on which I was working. The middle line could be edited. Above and below it were two lines of context: the line before and the line after the one that I could change.
Due to a limitation**** of the editing software behind the scenes, I had to work through the file in order from top to bottom. Each time that I deleted a line, edited a line, or inserted a line, I would press the transmit key, and the information would be sent to the central computer where the actual editing of the file was performed.
Once I had made all of the changes to the file, I used the same system to create a new file, written in job control language (JCL), which would direct the compilation of the modified program. I would then phone an operator in Lille, tell them where the file of JCL was located, and have them run it. Running it would compile the modified program file. If all of that was successful, I could cause the modified program to go into service.
I built all of this while at Lille doing the maintenance work that had taken me there. Once it was built, I no longer needed to commute! Instead, I would go to the INSEE head office, nearby in Paris, log in to the system from a terminal they had there, and make the needed changes.
Since the new editing transactions were part of the system, I could also modify them remotely! Of course, this would have to be done very carefully, because if I were to break the editing transactions, I would have to go all the way to Lille to fix them.
This is how I was able to do software construction without commuting, back in the 1970's.
* COLIBRI is an acronym from the French COdification en LIgne des Bulletins du Recensement Individuels roughly translated as "encoding on-line of the individual forms of the census."
** These were IBM 3270 terminals, sometimes called "green screens" because they were monochromatic black and green screens.
*** The company for which I worked was named CAP Sogeti Logiciel, and at the time, I thought it was a small company. Turns out it was a branch of one of the largest software organizations in Europe.
**** The editing software was not intended for interactive use. So calling this one of its limitations is really unfair. It was actually a feature of the editing software to allow user-supplied code to be executed as each line was considered. I took advantage of that feature to paint a new screen onto the 3270 terminal, and the editor waited until the user responded to that with a command to do some edits before continuing on to the next line.
In the mid 1970's, I was working in France on a project for the French statistics bureau, INSEE. One aspect of this work is described in a previous post. The project involved the creation of a system to capture all of the data collected in the French census of 1975, and was part of a larger project, with "Colibri" as its code name*. Those with an interest in the history of census taking, and a reading knowledge of French may find it fascinating to read about this time in the history of INSEE.
The system we built was very ambitious for the time, and definitely on the cutting edge. It involved a central computer, located in Lille, attached to about 50 terminals** distributed throughout France, in 17 different locations. At these terminals, over 100 employees, mostly women, worked one of two shifts a day. Their work was to type in the information collected on the millions of individual census forms.
Our work was to develop the software system to support this. The hardware was an IBM 370 mainframe computer with telecommunication channels connected to all of the terminal locations. This was managed using IBM's SNA protocol as implemented in VTAM. On top of all this, we ran the teleprocessing monitoring system which our company*** sold, MULTIFASTER. Besides necessary bits and pieces to connect everything together, our main task was to create small programs, each one of which would handle a single transaction. A transaction was basically one screenful of information coming from one of the terminals. The small program would then validate the information and store it in a database, and that was all it did. Each such small program was called, also, a transaction. Confusing, I know.
The system we developed consisted of a collection of transactions. Each transaction was initiated from one of the terminals connected to the system. There were transactions to paint input screens onto the 3270 terminal. After the operator had filled in the blank fields, she would press the transmit key. There were transactions to accept the transmissions from the terminals, validate the information and store it in the database.
We were three software engineers writing the transactions: Marcel Sellem, Raymond Hédin, and myself. We all commuted from the Paris area to Lille to do the work at the site of the central computer. The programs were prepared on punched cards (80 column cards) and given to the operators to compile.
Once the entire system was built, it went into operation, and the data entry personnel went to work. Their work lasted for several years.
We all shifted our attention to other projects, but it remained my job to maintain the system. Every software system has bugs, and these needed to be addressed. We also had contractual limits on how much time the computer spent working on each transaction, so there was some tuning to be done as well.
At first, I did the necessary maintenance work by commuting to Lille. But then, suddenly, this innovative thought hit me: I could create a transaction which would let me edit the programs of the system. The system was a collection of loosely-coupled transactions. All that I had to do was add a new one. I did this.
The editor, due to the characteristics of the 3270 terminal had to be extremely simple. Each screen showed me three lines at a time from the program file on which I was working. The middle line could be edited. Above and below it were two lines of context: the line before and the line after the one that I could change.
Due to a limitation**** of the editing software behind the scenes, I had to work through the file in order from top to bottom. Each time that I deleted a line, edited a line, or inserted a line, I would press the transmit key, and the information would be sent to the central computer where the actual editing of the file was performed.
Once I had made all of the changes to the file, I used the same system to create a new file, written in job control language (JCL), which would direct the compilation of the modified program. I would then phone an operator in Lille, tell them where the file of JCL was located, and have them run it. Running it would compile the modified program file. If all of that was successful, I could cause the modified program to go into service.
I built all of this while at Lille doing the maintenance work that had taken me there. Once it was built, I no longer needed to commute! Instead, I would go to the INSEE head office, nearby in Paris, log in to the system from a terminal they had there, and make the needed changes.
Since the new editing transactions were part of the system, I could also modify them remotely! Of course, this would have to be done very carefully, because if I were to break the editing transactions, I would have to go all the way to Lille to fix them.
This is how I was able to do software construction without commuting, back in the 1970's.
* COLIBRI is an acronym from the French COdification en LIgne des Bulletins du Recensement Individuels roughly translated as "encoding on-line of the individual forms of the census."
** These were IBM 3270 terminals, sometimes called "green screens" because they were monochromatic black and green screens.
*** The company for which I worked was named CAP Sogeti Logiciel, and at the time, I thought it was a small company. Turns out it was a branch of one of the largest software organizations in Europe.
**** The editing software was not intended for interactive use. So calling this one of its limitations is really unfair. It was actually a feature of the editing software to allow user-supplied code to be executed as each line was considered. I took advantage of that feature to paint a new screen onto the 3270 terminal, and the editor waited until the user responded to that with a command to do some edits before continuing on to the next line.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Con without content
or, what this blog will be if I don't continue writing...
Anyone who was following my previous blogging attempt, which lasted for several years, will have given a passing thought to what may have happened. It ended rather abruptly, with a post which included, "...surgery... This is considered routine." Which could lead one to wonder just how routine the outcome had been.
Everything was fine, in that eye, at least, and the right eye (this time) was similarly treated in January 2014, with very good results.
Just had to write a little today, lest this blog be a con, without content.
Anyone who was following my previous blogging attempt, which lasted for several years, will have given a passing thought to what may have happened. It ended rather abruptly, with a post which included, "...surgery... This is considered routine." Which could lead one to wonder just how routine the outcome had been.
Everything was fine, in that eye, at least, and the right eye (this time) was similarly treated in January 2014, with very good results.
Just had to write a little today, lest this blog be a con, without content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)