Another consideration might be IBM doesn't need to worry about backward compatability or "unreasonable" user concerns and requirements. On Apr 14, 2012 12:57 PM, "Paul Gilmartin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:15:19 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > > >Mind you, I wouldn't want to be the one supporting three different > languages for all those DSECTS ... > > > >But it *would* be awfully helpful if IBM did it for us... :) > > > I wonder again why, nowadays, IBM doesn't make a product of PL/X. > I can imagine two reasons: > > o It would provide a relative advantage to competitors > > What competitors, anymore? And couldn't IBM control the > distribution of PL/X by licensing, even as IBM controls the > distribution of z/OS? > > o Anticipated revenues don't match anticipated cost to support. > > But IBM devoted considerable resource, instead, to METAL-C. > > Is METAL-C displacing any use of PL/X within IBM? > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
