>> I wrote: Writing those in PL/X would have make MVS unmaintainable. > Peter Relson wrote: The second sentence is untrue, Peter, it would be interesting to see how PL/X has solved abstract coding techniques. I know DCB is not written in PL/X. Could you show us a short snippet of how you would implement this logic in PL/X? Just enough for us to understand how PL/X solved this would be great. Alternatively, you could show us how TSO commands such as ALTER implemented it's command parsing.
In C, the solutions was a runtime string that was parsed. It does not implement the full functionality of DCB (e.g. 'recfm=fb lrecl=100 blksize=6100'). > Peter Relson wrote: Not that I'm a fan of C but I'm surprised > just about none of the comments have mentioned metal C For this topic, it doesn't matter whether it's C or Metal C. They are the same language implementation different standard functions. I've only taken a quick look at Metal C many years ago. I'm sure it's changed but it was C that eliminated many of the standard library functions without providing robust hardware facility access. Things like PC routines, subpools, switching auth, and more simply were not complete enough to justify it's use. It really seemed to be for basic programming. Thanks, Jon.
