>So this half-a$$ed masking was put in there by DESIGN? WOW! Incredibly >brain dead. They violated Lionel Dyck's "principle of least astonishment". >It should have been designed to work like standard dataset masking in SMS. >Designer: "Should we use DFDSS rules? Nahhh! (and now for something >COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, cue the Liberty Bell march). At least they're not >making us submit SHARE requirements to fix it.
This is the future of z/OS, in my opinion: 1. Think about a feature (preferably one that customers had submitted lots of requirements for) 2. Design it 3. Realise that this design cannot be programmed/tested with the budget 4. Shorten the design to make it brain-dead. The only goal is to get a short code path so it fits the 3$-budget allotted for it 5. Wait for customers to scream after GA 6. Maybe fix it via apar (probably because parts of the 'real' design were already in, just not tested yet to make them GA-eligible) 7. Ask customers to open a requirement for the BAD design which will then go through 1 to 6. And you ask why the platform is dying? I feel better now, too. Barbara ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
