On 15/08/2018 6:34 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
I would like to reiterate David Crawford's question: why use Metal C instead of the complete C?
That would be Crayford :)
Metal C is intended for writing exits and small routines where full functionality isn't needed. It is a crippled C environment, and while you may enjoy pushing it to its limits and beyond, you should at least be able to articulate your reason for doing so.
The interesting thing about Metal/C is the ability to do AR mode programming using __far pointers which makes it suitable for low level cross-memory applications. I would suggest most of the heavy users of Metal/C are vendors who develop systems software. We still use assembler for that stuff because we have lots of excellent assembler programmers who are not inclined to learn a new language. They all acknowledge that the Metal/C optimizer generates
more efficient code then the can.
For full disclosure, I have plenty of experience with Metal C being used... just because somebody wanted to.
I agree. I get the impression that some people use Metal/C just for the sake of it or because they think it's cool. I stumbled across an SMF formatting routine [1] from IBM that uses Metal/C and I see no reason why it wasn't written in LE C. Why bother inlining assembly to use QSAM macros when you can just use stdio fopen() etc and not
have to worry about DCBs and getting storage below the line? [1] https://github.com/IBM/IBM-Z-zOS/tree/master/SMF-Tools/SMF84Formatter
Something tells me that if IBM had called it C-lite, or Basic C, it would have stayed in its place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
