Absolutely.
If the M&C doesn't do anything than restate the message then NO.
Every time after installation of a new COBOL compiler (and for 6
months thereafter) we would get calls (10-30) from programmers asking
what this or that message *MEANS*.
90+ percent of the time I couldn't guess either.
I would have to open a PMR with IBM for a further explanation as I
can't mind meld the compiler writers ideas.
One of the most evil messages (its been 15+ years so I do NOT
remember the message) was a vanilla catch all message (E level if
memory serves).
Level 1 had no idea level 2 asked to ship the source to them their
explanation finally after 2 or 3 weeks was something like too many FD's.
That was nice and all but a clear understandable message would have
been nice.
The so called self documenting messages are anything but self
documenting.
Its like I put out a message in the program "GHJ123E too many cards"
that is supposed to mean anything except too many cards?
Context is *EVERYTHING" and sorry to say programmers aren't the
brightest people in the department, but hell if I can't understand it
I must be dumb as well.
Since COBOL is the language of the future as Tom like to say it must
be a very dim future as IBM putting out messages and no one is there
to understand it.
Another classic case in the M&C (not COBOL) is call your local sysprog.
Hey idiots I am the sysprog who do I call?
Ed
On Mar 21, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Bill Woodger wrote:
Ed,
You're either pulling my leg, or accidentally conflating two
things, I think.
"As the result of a SHARE requirement, we were able to
apply resources to getting the COBOL Performance
Tuning Paper updated for COBOL V4R2
• The last time it was updated was for COBOL V3R1, 2001"
That's from a Tom Ross presentation at SHARE in Anaheim in 2011.
With V5.1 the Performance Tuning document appeared 14 months after
the product.
With V6.1 the Performance Tuning document appeared at GA.
I don't think anyone will ever seriously ask for the documentation
of the COBOL compiler messages. OK, individuals will, even
individual organisations, but the wider response will be "you want
IBM to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something which
does no more than restate the text of the messages"?
It's like the people who "comment" lines like the following in a
COBOL program:
MOVE some-descriptive-data-name TO some-other-descriptive-data-name
COBOL runtime messages are documented, in the Language Environment
Runtime Messages, and they always have been, in various places.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been any documentation of the
compiler diagnostic messages for any IBM Mainframe compiler, going
back to Full American Naitonal Standard COBOL at least.
If there are individual messages that someone thinks are unclear
(and it should actually be so, to have any point in the process),
then let IBM know and they will look into it. I reported one, and
my source says Tom Ross himself fixed it (a V4 message referred to
a V3 document).
Now, if anyone does want to commission the documentation of the
Enterprise COBOL diagnostic messages, I'm available.
On Sunday, 20 March 2016 00:21:07 UTC, Ed Gould wrote:
It figures. They probably dropped it (again) figuring no one would
notice.
Time for a SHARE req. Anyone?
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
