On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:05:02 +0000, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >>At its glacial pace, IBM is accommodating twentieth century technology. > >Can you do something other than complain? > Didn't I say it was improving?
>IBM is trying the 'revolution in an evolutionary manner'. > And in the text you snipped, I pointed out to John M. that the newest facilities are significantly better; even very close to what John experssed a wish for. >I, for one, would not want to have to re-compile everything whenever a new >version/release comes along! > And I, for one, don't want even to change JCL whenever a new storage device comes along. SDB is a step in the right direction. But it's resisted by the stickshift mentality: the driver who can choose his shift points better than any automatic transmission and the programmer who can choose a block size more optimal than any automated system. Phil Payne and Darren Gavin likely are (or at least consider themselves) respective examples. I can't do either, or at least my time isn't worth it. Automatic transmissions and SDB remove distractions and let the driver and the programmer concentrate on the genuine task. But SDB came too late: if it had been present in rudimentary form, supplying a valid but nonoptimal BLKSIZE, in OS/360 release 1, coding BLKSIZE could always have been optional, and much of the rough transition to present techniques could have been avoided. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
