Gary
When I was learning C some years ago, I was fascinated to notice some
encouragement in, I expect, the relevant "Programming Guide" to write what
would otherwise be Assembler exits in C.
I tried to check in presumably today's equivalent manual on the C/C++ shelf,
z/OS V1R8.0 XL C/C++ Programming Guide, and found section 6.1.4, "Creating
system exit routines". So it would appear the possibility still exists.
Rather strangely the sample provided is for a different exit than the one I
remember - although still one of the TSO exits.
I was tempted to try rewriting my VTAM exits in C but, sadly, never got
around to it. I did have a slight worry over whether or not this would have
been a sensible idea for a production environment given the possibility of
an unacceptable overhead.[1]
Chris Mason
[1] The issue of "overhead" with high-level languages always reminds me of a
call I had, back in the days when PL/I was being promoted, from a salesman
who wanted to know what the overhead with Assembler was!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory, Gary G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language?
I didn't know that we had all standardized on "C" - guess I missed that
one.
Gary Garland Gregory, MS
CA
Senior Software Engineer
Tel: +1-214-473-1863
Fax: +1-214-473-1050
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<< snip >>
Okay, that part I get. The part that interests me is since "C" was not
available, 'mainframe users could have been in a position of having to
write code in a "non-standard" language...' A language like what...?
Cobol per chance... Maybe assembler?
As I started this, am I missing something here?
Inquiring minds want to know.
<< end >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
