On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:50:07 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <[email protected]> wrote:
>>BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics. > >Call it histrionics if you like. >But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we won't need it tomorrow. >This field already suffers from short-sightedness. >Please don't add more. > >My point was think ahead. >Don't get stuck because you can't think of a need, today. > >When XA came out, nobody could understand the need for 2GB. >Think DB2. >Where do you think the buffers and special pools are in V8+. > >Don't be the mud for the stick! OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? If you can get people to tell IBM something like: "We are willing to pay $200 a month extra plus $2000 extra one time for a compiler which can create AMODE(64) programs.", then you're likely to get IBM's attention. But if people say: "We want AMODE(64) COBOL but at the current cost of AMODE(31) COBOL", then IBM is likely to not pay much attention. TANSTAAFL. Also, somebody needs to prioritize AMODE(64) COBOL versus other desired enhancements. There is only so much money and so many qualified developers. For example. COBOL now uses System XML for XML processing. Should IBM have forgone that (with the associated benefit of XML processing in COBOL now being able to run on a zAAP) for 64 bit addressing? If I implied that 64 bit addressing in COBOL is a unwanted / unneeded enhancement, I gave the wrong impression and I hope that I have corrected it. I just wonder about the relative importance of 64 bit addressing versus other COBOL enhancements. -- John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
