🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:09:19 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 7:09:04 PM UTC-4, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> Wang VS was a great system.
>> The OS was nothing like anything from IBM.
>> I was working on it for a while before I stumbled onto one of the
>> Wang's IBM-isms.  Even then, a little of IBM, a lot of great Wang stuff.
>> 
>> So, I'm editing a COBOL program and the editor allows me to run
>> a test.  I think I've submitted a job and that's it, but a message
>> comes back to my screen telling me I have a S0C7 (IBM speak for invalid
>> data).  Unlike anything from IBM,
>> it shows me the send and receive fields and their contents.
>> Also, it lets me type new data into either or both fields.  Or it offers
>> to take me to the offending line in the COBOL program.
>> 
>> Of course all you get from IBM, is watch the job until it ends, then
>> read a huge dump.
>> Using Wang VS made it so clear how bad IBM software was.
>
>The latest IBM mainframe COBOL has improved somewhat on debugging
>aids in case of an abend.
>
>
>> The Wang hardware was a bit different too.
>> Their systems spanned a huge range of power.
>> The VS 5 was a $12,000 system.  Way lower priced
>> than anything in the IBM mainframe lineup.
>> When I connected from home using a Wang terminal the OS
>> loaded a micro-program into my terminal.  I think it did that
>> with all it's peripherals.  Seemed like a good idea to me.
>> The host really did control it's devices.
>
>What happened to the Wang Company?

The short version is An Wang put his kid in charge, the kid screwed
up, then An Wang died.