On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:52:01 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote: > >The German Telefunken mainframe TR440's operating system BS3 also >had keyed file access services (different types) and a common run time >environment > Like LE is supposed to be?
>for all languages (ALGOL, FORTRAN, PASCAL, PL/1, COBOL, BCPL, ...). >And it had (in the 1970s) a common method of storing >diagnose information at compile time, helping the runtime environment >to write helpful dump information in the case of an abend. The variables >were all shown in source language syntax; there was no need to look >at hex storage dumps. This whole technique was part of the operating >system, too. (Even interactive symbolic debugging ... using teletypes and >very basic display terminals ... was possible). > Amen. It's wonderful in languages where it exists; it would be even better if it were language-independent. But it depends somewhat on the target environment. An intermittent and timing-sensitive failure in kernel code may not be so easily reproducible for debugging. >As you can see, I am no advocat of Windows etc.; the support for >programmers there is non-existent ... if you need it, you have to buy >expensive compiler suites from M$ ... Linux and Unix is different, of >course. > Cygwin? Would Cygwin using open-source development tools be a useful development platform for Windows? >It is a big problem in Windows (and DOS etc. in previous times), that the >compilers all had different call sequences and parameter passing mechanisms, >so that it was not possible to mix languages and/or compilers. Such things >as common linkage conventions are very helpful (although there are some >problems at the z/Arch, too). > z/OS engenders enormous obstacles to migrating to an all 64-bit LE enabled universe. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
