I used SuperWylbur, but even in the free version you had associative ranges, which greatly simplified many editing tasks.
________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Steve Thompson <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is the IBM Assembler List still alive - Dumps - Early days You ever work with WYLBUR? Single address space, keeping users from crossing boundaries (RACF, ACF2, Top Secret and WACF). Could edit a library with RECFM=U. So one could keep source there if they wanted. Would, on close compress the PDS to a single extent if it could. Used very low level interfaces for allocation, such that SMS would not even see the file get opened or closed. So I had to finish fixing that so that in an SMS environment, that interface could be turned off (in testing we found we could cause MVS to have to be re-ipled), and then we used SVC99 for all allocations after that (SVC99 takes a lot of resources as I recall). Had its own scripting language, so applications were written to run inside of Wylbur. With the SRB mode, we could read JES2 spool directly (this was a problem, that I was going to fix when I got to implementing SAF.... sigh.) I have forgotten all the stuff that Wylbur did with stack processing, and all so it could handle 250 simultaneous users in one address space. That was another thing I needed to fix. I needed to change Wylbur Paging to use a larger number of pages to accommodate more users. (yes, it did its own paging, and interestingly enough, CICS was following along with what we did so that CICS/TS was doing what we had just done with task management). I absolutely loved working on Wylbur, best job I ever had after Amdahl MDF. Steve Thompson On 9/7/2023 9:15 PM, Leonard D Woren wrote: > Bill Johnson wrote on 9/7/2023 1:05 PM: >> We used to use ROSCOE at a small shop in the 80’s because it >> used less resources. I hated it. > > ROSCOE was one of a collection of TSO alternatives, which were > all junk. TONE, ACEP, Wylbur, maybe more that I don't > remember. They all had 1 two-pronged design goal: except for > Wylbur, a PITA in its own category, allow TSO-like online use > without the perceived overhead of TSO, and also, they would run > on systems other than MVS. > > The reason the resource utilization of all of those was lower > than TSO is that it took longer for programmers to get their > work done, so the resource utilization was spread out over more > elapsed time, lowering the apparent resources used in a given > elapsed time period, but also lowering productivity. Something > beancounters generally don't factor because they don't > understand it. They liked the fact that a given set of > hardware could support 50 (choose your poison from above) > online users while TSO could support only 25. > > Fortunately, we're way past hardware costing more than people. > > > /Leonard > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
