> IBM, on the other hand, had teams of 100's of programmers writing the > clunky, innefficient OS that their machines were saddled with. IBM's > OS/mainframe combinations didn't catch up to the processing efficiency
> of the 1950's vintage Bourroughs until the 4300 series in the early > 1980's -- but even then the IBM's were still crippled by that DAMNED, > IMPENETRABLE, EXCREBLE OS JCL (Job Control Language)!!!! I do appreciate what you're saying, Chet, but there are some points to be made: 1. IBM planned the OS so well that it has been used and extended for generations now. Even assembler code written for the very first 360 ported forward. MVC was MVC from the beginning, is now, and will always will be MVC. Yes, SVC's and access methods (e.g. VSAM, VTAM) were added, but that's fine - as it was designed to be. It is burdened by a large amount of old code kept there for compatibility, but it's manageable. 2. JCL may be a PITA to learn, but it's a fundamental building block for the whole OS. Everything started in OS390 begins with JCL or it's internal equivalent, including CICS, TSO users, etc. Because work is structured this way (or perhaps I should say structured at all), not only can batch and on-line systems peacefully coexist, but the whole thing can be - and is - orchestrated. The OS can also be tightly or loosely coupled with other machines, so there is no upper limit on "machine" size. The whole thing really is amazing from the system programmer's point of view. Bill > Just a little history for you youngsters... > > C _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
