Never meant to suggest that going backwards was the direction I desired. Simply stating that having a few weird features can be a good thing when struck with a production issue, service level agreements and (insert "other institution specific intractable" here).
Ideally, it would be great to have programmers never introduce a problem that isn't easy to fix. It would also be nice if IBM didn't "toss a grenade into the water" on occasion. Rob Schramm On Sat, Feb 20, 2016, 5:11 PM Ed Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Rob Schramm wrote: > > > But isn't it the point? We would all prefer to live in a world > > where bad > > coding doesn't happen. I would venture a guess that most have been > > in a > > situation that called for a bad temporary solution until a fix > > could be > > found. In which case the expertise of the system programmer comes > > into > > play and says "while I wouldn't recommend running in this > > configuration for > > long, we can do X to keep things going in production.". Even with > > some of > > the functions that seem outlandish (highly dependent on your point of > > view), there is at least one person on IBM-Main that has had to use it > > either because of inherent design constraints or to get thru a bad > > situation. One more " trick " to add to the sysprogs bag-of-tricks. > > > > As for the name.. They should have called it a z131z and made a > > palindrome. Agreed that z13ses is just bad. But we should agree to > > something... since it is here to stay. > > > > Rob Schramm > > Rob: > I think that we pay IBM the big bucks to produce code that is > reliable (IBM blew it with DFP in the early stages) so the mega ptf > tapes more or less disappeared because the customers were complaining > at both GUIDE and SHARE about it and IBM finally started to put their > act together . There was *NEVER* talk about upgrading the processor > just so IBM could do it correctly. *IF* IBM would have taken that > position I think some other vendor would have finally got their toe > hold in the ground. IBM got their act together and the mega PTF tapes > disappeared. So you want to go back to the "good" old days and with > mega PTF's ? I for one don't want to. > > BTW I am still pissed at IBM treatment of JAVA and their total > replacement of the product instead of just putting out fixes for one > or two (or even) three csects. > > Ed > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Rob Schramm The Art of Mainframe, Inc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
