On 2/13/23 11:35:23, Jonathan Scott wrote:
Ze'ev Atlas wrote:
The real question is why, but really why, IBM had to introduce
this EBCDIC horror, where symbols like [,], ^ and some less
signifacant ones moved around dry leaves in the fall wind.
That's a bit off-topic, but the answer is "Compatibility".
It's ironic that the Babel of EBCDIC code pages was architectured in a
misguided quest for compatibility ...
Old physical printers and terminal had a limited number of
different characters which they could print. To make it
possible to print national characters, they simply provided an
alternative physical set of printable characters for the same
internal codes (for example print chain or train for a line
printer, or golf ball or daisy wheel for a typewriter-style
terminal).
... and persists in the name of compatibility with obsolete hardware devices.
This occurred both for EBCDIC and ASCII computer systems.
The past tense does not apply to EBCDIC. ASCII desktop systems and WWW
are greatly recovering with the benefit of UTF-8. I see no such boon to
EBCDIC: How practical is it to use ISPF Edit, HLASM, Rexx, JCL, ...
with any UNICODE?
--
gil
