On 2017-12-19, at 20:51:23, Jon Perryman wrote:
>> I wrote: TSO has the alloc command which can easily be > used in clists. It
>> exists because of MVS UNIX.
> MVS UNIX has nothing to do with TSO ALLOC. When I moved the C FOPEN text, I
> forgot to delete the MVS UNIX senstence. It's FOPEN dynamic alloc only exists
> because of MVS Unix
>
Wasn't C available on MVS before MVS UNIX, and didn't its fopen()
then support dynamic allocation?
> ... and is considered a production MVS security exposure.
>
Please explain that security exposure.
> Most production languages do not support dynalloc for this reason.
>
Which "production languages do not support dynalloc"? HLASM, certainly
a production language in the z world, has SVC 99. Can't both COBOL and
PL/I call BPXWDYN?
> Can anyone give me any example that would justify C programmers belief that C
> is significantly better than HLASM?
>
Consider portability. On how many different hardware architectures
and operating systems can a given HLASM program run? How many for C?
Consider ease of coding. What's the HLASM equivalent of:
#include <stdio.h>
int main( void ) {
printf( "Hello world!\n" );
return( 0 ); }
(You might shortcut this with WTO. If you do, let's change both
our examples to write to a file.)
-- gil
