On 07/08/2013, at 9:34 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:39:09 +0800, David Crayford wrote: >> >> I've always liked the nice abstraction with the z/OS C/C++ FILE I/O >> implementation. fopen() is a factory function which returns a >> semi-opaque structure with two function pointers to read/write routines >> (methods) which handle all >> the different access methods (QSAM, BSAM, VSAM, UNIX, Hiperspaces etc). >> It's a good design and an example of OO done well in C using pointers in >> structs ;). >> > In fact, in Assembler the DCB has much this character. OPEN updates > the DCB by adding pointers to the access method entry points. > Shame it doesn't support VSAM. Or maybe ACB should support QSAM, BSAM etc. > Alas, IBM developers abandoned this paradigm. One writes to the > operator's console not using QSAM, but WTO; one writes to the TSO > terminal not using QSAM to SYSTSPRT, but TPUT. And I believe I have > evidence that FTP given the DD: construct does not Do the Right Thing > of OPENing a DCB on that DDNAME, but chases control blocks to suss > out the underlying object and performs its own allocation, probably > thwarting any attempt of the caller to override attributes, etc. > I prefer the UNIX philosophy where everything is a file. Programming is difficult enough without inconsistent interfaces. > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:33:40 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >> >>> What went wrong? >> >> It started early: George Mealy is alleged to have called it "The rape >> of the design integrity of OS/360" and blamed it on a lack of >> standards enforcement. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
