On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 9:41 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:
> EJ's points are well taken as usual. > > An inference from his position, one that he politely omits to draw > himself, is clear. > > There is little excuse for the continuing existence and use of > RMODE(24) applications. They should long since have been converted to > RMODE(31) [and, where necessary, AMODE(31)]. > > This statement does not make economic sense. There are many programs which run important business application just fine with rmode 24. As Ed mentioned, there are costs associated with converting code to rmode 31 as well as risks. It has been my experience that inhouse developed software will not be converted for technology only reasons. There must be a good solid business case to justify this type of project. > There is, of course, an obvious, if not perhaps finally very > important, exception to this stricture: RMODE(24) applications that > are 1) very small and 2) do no I/O at all may remain so. > > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA >
