In a recent note, Ted MacNEIL said: > Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:23:47 +0000 > > >That tipping point happened about TSO/E Rel 2, when Rexx came to MVS. > > ESA/3.1.3oE. > On, or about, 1990. > Feels about right. I stayed with CMS from inertia for many years after that. I seldom look back, other than when Shmuel raises a point of nostalgia.
> I was told by my manager to stick with CLIST because REXX was 'too' expensive. > I thought it was bundled with TSO/E. Or was he thinking performance? or the cost of technolgy transition? I had a colleague who clung to EXEC2 on CMS because he thought it outperformed Rexx. The residual technical advantage of CMS EXEC (not EXEC2) and CLIST alike is they can enter modal dialogs with their respective editors, where Rexx can not. Opportunity for enhancement. > But, as I still believe, productivity is more important. > Never could understand CLIST, either. Couldn't wrap my mind around "&STR". Rexx was easier. > Also, the only LRECL allowed was 80, under EXECIO, back then. > Must have been way early; I never knew that. It got better quickly In fact, I remember an early transitional TSO Rexx GIM/Guide/whatever that recommended coding Rexx using mixed case for legibility (sorry, Ted and Shane), and making SYSEXEC RECFM=VB to minimize the need for statement continuation. Feels like the influence of MFC. I can no longer find any evidence of that manual. IBM distributes Rexx EXECs generally Fixed 80. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
