I am curious as to why you don't raise an APAR against these flaws in the C compiler? Lennie
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Jon Perryman Sent: 23 August 2025 18:41 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: RMODE 64 - Why? On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:26:19 +0100, Colin Paice <colinpai...@gmail.com> wrote: >benefit. They found it was best to structure their code and let the PLS >compiler optimise it - which was generally better than they could. Until IBM makes PLS available outside IBM, we must live with the compilers we are given. Those compilers have major flaws. For instance, I think the alternative to PLS is HLASM. C has major flaws like memcpy(a, b, 7) calling a generic program instead understanding the "7" should use MVC instruction. As an FYI, Cobol recognizes the 7 and handles it appropriately. GO is only 15 years old but only fixed a few C flaws in it's implementation. As far as I know, Java also has generic routines. For application programmers, these languages are acceptable despite their flaws. It's time to develop a modern programming language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
