> I meant in theory. I meant had they done this "back when." I meant as
> opposed to 100 things that Chris might wish for and that other OSes do
> routinely, just these two things would be (would have been) a huge
> improvement.
Chris has done rather more than just wish for "it". In a recent former
life, I built "it" and it's fair to say I'm missing "it". But I digress.
I'm not sure I would ask for stack support in hardware - that tends to
be more expensive than you really want. However, it is entirely fair to
expect the operating system to materialize a fully-functional runtime
for each unit of work. Even (OS) kernel code runs on a runtime in those
other OS'.
In z/OS you would need to materialize a runtime for each key the unit of
work runs under, but in most cases that would just be the moral
equivalent of TCB key and key zero. You take the cost of making it on
demand and then amortize that cost over the life of the unit of work by
reusing the same one over and over.
One thing I can tell you from personal experience is that having such an
environment that you can count on completely changes the scope of what
you can accomplish. Things you would never attempt ("because its hard")
become simple.
Really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
