On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:46:59 +0100, R.S. wrote: >Tom Schmidt wrote: >> We can't standardize the symbol processing in MAS sites today -- that's >> the core issue (which was discussed on ibm-main, what, 6-9 years >> ago??). But each site also has systems programmers being paid, >> presumably, to program something. > >Not necessarily. The companies I know pay for keeping information system >running. They don't care how I do it, how I name myself (administrator >or programmer or guru or "IEHGOD"). Some of them pay for programming to >*application* programmers. They don't want to pay for system >programming, because they prefer to buy ready-to-use operating system. >Particular needs mentioned below can be addressed using *customization*. >It doesn't mean any assembler coding. I could mean PARMLIB or some CDS >changes. It's much quicker, more reliable, less error-prone. Look at >VMS, Unix, Netware, Windows. No assembler coding. >System programmers should work in company which produce systems.
Well, we just are not going to agree on that, are we? (I'm not about to change my view that someone with a title that includes "programmer" should be 'one who programs'. Several jurisdictions in this hemisphere are just as stubborn about the term 'engineer' -- you either need to be a licensed engineer (civil, electrical, mechanical, nuclear, etc.) or else you need to be standing at the front end of a train. Software writers need not apply... unless you want to drive the train & wear the cool hat.) >> Each site has its own particular needs, and small sites (who >> want to stay small) can decide for themselves how they want to "fix" the >> problem... then go ahead and fix it now. (No more complaining to IBM or >> ibm-main.) > >Last but not least: some unusual, weird needs can be addressed using >exit coding. Usual, common needs should be addressed using "normal" >customization. That's my point: these "needs" aren't all that usual or common. We are hearing from a minority of sites and those are small sites at that. IBM seems to be carefully avoiding implementing something that will make small sites "happy" (FSVO 'happy') but then cause them difficulty when the day comes that they need to grow beyong a single system image. It is CLEARLY not in IBM's best interests to throw something into the mix that causes grief down the road (or worse, prevents a company from expanding or, worse yet, prevents IBM from making a big sale). What you are asking IBM to do would, in all likelihood, cause just that. And, oddly enough, IBM is reluctant to do that "for" (to) you. Imagine that! That said, you _can_ roll your own and learn all about the pitfalls for yourself. If I had the inclination to write something close to Type I code I might submit it to cbttape.org or SHARE (or both?). Maybe someday. -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
