But isn't it the point? We would all prefer to live in a world where bad coding doesn't happen. I would venture a guess that most have been in a situation that called for a bad temporary solution until a fix could be found. In which case the expertise of the system programmer comes into play and says "while I wouldn't recommend running in this configuration for long, we can do X to keep things going in production.". Even with some of the functions that seem outlandish (highly dependent on your point of view), there is at least one person on IBM-Main that has had to use it either because of inherent design constraints or to get thru a bad situation. One more " trick " to add to the sysprogs bag-of-tricks.
As for the name.. They should have called it a z131z and made a palindrome. Agreed that z13ses is just bad. But we should agree to something... since it is here to stay. Rob Schramm On Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 11:30 PM Ed Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 19, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Clark Morris wrote: > >> --------------------- > >> SNIP----------------------------------------------------------------- > >> - > > > > Ed, they did fix the bug but it took several weeks to do it. With > > memory they were able to stay afloat while the repair was being done. > > > > Clark Morris > > Its great that they did however selling a machine based a code bug > (as Timothy seems to try to do all to often on here) is bad for IBM > and bad for us. > > Ed > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Rob Schramm The Art of Mainframe, Inc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
