I would like to make a comment or two. There are always two camps.
Camp 1: Why does it not do what I want Camp 2: How do I fix it. I would like to say having worked for IBM and as a customer, the various groups in IBM care very much for their products and how we use them. And they would want to make all the changes we ask for. Trouble is - Time and Money. How long will it take, how much will it cost? Oh, and the ever present PRIORITY. Doing more with Less is a motto inside most companies, including IBM. IBM cannot do all of our requests, but a RFE is a way for us to say what we would like to see and how many of us want it to happen. The Old code is difficult to update. And by difficult, I mean, stable code that is not broken. Logic rooted in the beginning of the universe (SVS or MFT or MVT). So it becomes a challenge to see how to make that happen. But, those in the second camp (how do I fix it), take the challenge and run with it. Maybe IEBGENER cannot handle comments, but clever programmers can create a front end to IEBGENER to accept comments, then LINK/XCTL/LOAD the IEBGENER program and pass the remainder parms the way IEBGENER likes it. We can always say - why not fix it. However, it may not happen in our lifetime, or IBM might choose a different route. But just beating up IBM, in my opinion, is not beneficial. It is better to look to other companies, like CA, that might have the utility you do like. If I like only Red Roses, but my garden has Red, Yellow, or White roses, I have some options. Cut out all the roses that are not RED. Paint all roses that are not RED to be RED. Kill the plants that created non-RED roses so it does not happen again. Or take joy in the complexity and amazing process it took to create other colors. If anyone takes offense, I did not mean to offend. This is just my opinion. Lizette > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Edward Gould > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 8:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Fwd: IEBGENER SYSIN Comments? > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: IEBGENER SYSIN Comments? > > Date: December 19, 2016 at 8:14:21 PM CST > > To: [email protected] > > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> > > > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 18:45:58 -0600, Edward Gould wrote > >> > >> Sorry every utilitty has its own rules, just like languages (e.g. (no > >> GOTO in ALC but COBOL has one) ALC has a syntax a * in column 1 with a > blank tells the assembler its a comment. I "think" in COBOL a comment is a C > in column 6) (don't remember its been years since I have looked at a COBOL > program. > >> Get over it there are rules all over the place. > >>> > > There are good rules and there are harmful rules. It matters little > > *how* one codes a comment. It matters much that there is no way to > > code a comment. You cited a couple languages that have different > > comment conventions. Add JCL, Rexx, POSIX Shell script, ... for other > > comment conventions. All would be worse off if, like utility control > > files, they had no way to code comments. > > > > IBM doesn't care. > > Let say they are indifferent. There are stated rules for all utilities. You > must obey them. > The utilities you speak of probably haven't been enhanced in many years. > Unless you find a real bug (or they break because of some new restrictions) > IBM won't touch them. > One utility that comes to mind is IEHMOVE. It essentially is of no use in the > current environment and can/should be deleted. > > Ed > > > > -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
