Peter:
Your mention of CMS on MVS brings back memories. Karl Finkemeyer and I
were picked as the technical team leaders for the two teams that were to
actually develop it. We had begun staffing our teams when the project
was killed (that was about 1982, as I recall). We had been two of the
programmers that had implemented the prototype proving it would work. My
part in the prototype was putting the CMS file system in MVS, which was
done using VSAM linear data sets and control interval access.
Those of you who are big VM fans should be happy the project was killed,
as our intention was to make VM unnecessary. We saw the advantages of VM
to be the CMS development environment and the ability to run multiple
systems side-by-side in the same machine. If you could run CMS in all
its glory in MVS and run multiple systems in the same machine with PR/SM
(Karl's prototype when he was at the Heidelberg Scientific Center - I
believe it was called the Multi-System Mapper - demonstrated the
feasibility of LPARs and PR/SM, although we had not named it that yet).
Had we been successful, VM might not be an IBM product today (although
Gene Amdahl swore he would take and develop it if IBM gave it up).
Mike Myers
Mentor Services Corporation
On 01/01/2014 02:23 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
PMFJI here, but IMHO the pipeline paradigm, though obviously powerful and
useful, is not the major advantage of VM and CMS over z/OS and TSO for
developers, Rexx or otherwise.
Rather, I would argue that it is the even more the powerful concept of DVM's,
Disconnected Virtual Machines, and the resulting ability for even ordinary
application developers, not just sysprogs, to very simply arrange to pass data
between them via VMCF and/or IUCV. Then add the power of VM Rexx and pipeline
support and XEDIT and the other CMS tools as the only code needed to actually
run in and interact with those DVM's and many extremely useful and powerful
applications can be coded with nary a compiler or assembler in sight, never
mind in use. No authorized coding or cross-memory complexity required. Add
DB2 and networking support for Rexx and many full-function business
applications are added to the possibilities.
I bemoan the failure decades ago of the CMS on MVS project. That would,
indeed, have changed the history and practice of our computing lives.
And a Happy New Year to all.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of David Crayford
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Learning Rexx
On 29/12/2013 1:07 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On 2013-12-28, at 09:47, Charles Mills wrote:
Actually CMS on VM better for rexx than z/OS.
Why? (Risking an advocacy thread.)
For me, one reason is the CMS HELP facility. In fact,
sometimes coding Rexx for z/OS I'll log on to CMS merely
to use HELP REXX <instruction>.
Other reasons?
Most VMers claim that Rexx is superior on VM because of CMS pipes.
That's a pretty strong argument.
--
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
