In
<93891f43642f3c419a7d75acc2b1db6f3c04e1e...@exchangemb2.dhs.state.ia.us>,
on 11/01/2011
at 09:59 AM, "Roberts, John J" <[email protected]> said:
>Fundamentally, the problem has its root in the design decisions made
>by the original developers of OS JCL.
Were procs in the original design? I know that symbolic parameters
weren't.
>It would have made a lot more sense to treat PROC's as a special
>kind of MACRO call and then "PUNCH" out basic JCL statements.
I don't see how that would be useful.
>And I have a lot of appreciation for what they achieved on machines
>with as little as 384K of core memory.
384KiB? We ran PCP on 128 and MFT II on 256. I know of places that ran
on 64.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
