Disquieting comment in a Wall Street Journal article.

An opinion piece by Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a contributor to the Wall Street Journal's CIO Journal has the following paragraph. "The shake-up of banking should be great for customers, according to the Economist. “The benefits of technological change are likely to be vast. Costs should tumble as b

Re: Windows 10 Pro automatic update

[Default] On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:47:36 -0500, Norbert Friemel wrote: >On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:40:47 -0300, Clark Morris wrote: > >>I don't recall if I updated to the Creator's edition but I have kept >>fairly up to date on all my computers. Windows 10 itself has not >>caused me the problems other

950K IO max on Z15 LPAR was Re: AWS is down.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 02:21:28 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Going from 5 milliseconds to one tenth of that is certainly quite significant, >and I have no doubt that one day we will get to the performance that BJ >claimed, but we're not there yet. When it is claimed a Z15 LPA maxes out at 950K I-

Bill Klein, COBOL standards person has died

The following is from comp.lang.cobol Bill Klein was involved with COBOL requirements and other things at SHARE. He is being missed. Clark Morris On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 02:07:39 -0600, in comp.lang.cobol Louis Krupp wrote: >On 9/16/2020 9:42 PM, Arnold Trembley wrote: >> >> Brian Tiffin reports t

(fwd) Extra ZAPs generated by COBOL after packed arithmetic function

This posting about the sign forcing Zero Add Packed instruction generated under some circumstances by COBOL compilers at least prior to the complete rewrite appeared on the comp.lang.cobol newsgroup. I remember being annoyed by the ZAP since I saw no harm in negative zero. Since a request for a co

Users of CSP and its successor migrating to COBOL 5.1

If your shop uses an IBM z series computer and it is looking to upgrade to version 5.1 of Enterprise COBOL and it is using Cross System Product (CSP) or its Visual Gen successor, migration may be a problem. CSP and possibly its successor forced an F zone on all signed fields with positive values l

Re: COBOL optimization was Re: a couple of strange standards

, 2013 7:56:42 PM UTC-4, Clark F Morris wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:39:20 -0700 (PDT), Rick Smith >> wrote: >> >> >Apparently, the same is true of IBM COBOL, though not for their >> >C/C++ and PL/1 compilers. >> >> Are you sure about Enterp

Re: Character Table to Match ISPF - COBOL or DFSORT?

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:42:52 + (UTC), docdw...@panix.com () wrote: The following was posted on comp.lang.cobol and is copied to ibm-main listserv for further comment. ibm-main is mirrored to the newsgroup bit.listserv.ibm-main. > >My current client is a utility. Which utility is not relevant;