Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
In one sense as someone who is sem-retired, I have no vested interest other than as someone who believes that COBOL still MAY have a future. My belief is that in order for that future to exist, COBOL programs or routines have to be able to exist in a 64 bit Websphere address space, communicate with 64 bit Java and take advantage of 64 bit DB2. If C/C++ can be mixed mode 31/64, then COBOL needs to be 31/64. If an In fact, you cannot mix AMODE(31) C/C++ with AMODE(64) C/C++ without providing some type of connection to switch enclave, stack, etc. They use different LE run-time libraries. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:49:24 -0800, Tom Ross tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com wrote: In one sense as someone who is sem-retired, I have no vested interest other than as someone who believes that COBOL still MAY have a future. My belief is that in order for that future to exist, COBOL programs or routines have to be able to exist in a 64 bit Websphere address space, communicate with 64 bit Java and take advantage of 64 bit DB2. If C/C++ can be mixed mode 31/64, then COBOL needs to be 31/64. If an In fact, you cannot mix AMODE(31) C/C++ with AMODE(64) C/C++ without providing some type of connection to switch enclave, stack, etc. They use different LE run-time libraries. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! A similar problem exists in Linux. There is the 31 bit Linux on z (32 bit on all other platforms) and 64 bit Linux. A 64 bit Linux application cannot run on a 31/32 bit kernel. It is sometimes possible to run 31/32 bit Linux applications on a 64 bit Linux kernel, but that requires a 32 bit compat run time which I think does the necessary thunking to invoke the 64 bit kernel routines. And I don't think that there is any way to dynamically invoke a 31(32) bit subroutine from a 64 bit caller and vice versa. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On the other hand, we know that we need to do AMODE 64 COBOL someday, but not one customer has asked IBM COBOL development to do it yet. I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps the validity of your assertion depends on one's definition of the word asked. True! My definitions... Customers= people who use COBOL on z/OS to run their companies Asked= submitting formal requirements to SHARE (or IBM directly) Bill Klein is right, there is a SHARE req that refers to 64 bit and to COBOL, but it asks for the ability for COBOL to interoperate with 64-bit C/C++, which could be taken as provide a way for AMODE(31) COBOL to call and be called by 64 bit C/C++ executables: 1. IBM should provide compiler and run-time enhancements that allow COBOL to interoperate with the 64 bit - AMODE(64) - LE run-time and C/C++ 64 bit executabls that will be available with zOS 1.6 and subsequent releases. This can be done by making available tools and appropriate information to other compiler vendors if IBM does not see a market for doing so We will soon have a requirement submitted asking for AMODE(64) COBOL, so we can scratch that off the list of things in the way :-) Of course, we at IBM have been discussing this very thing for years, as someone else posted, we don't have to wait for customers to ask. On the other hand, if people ask for things they get more attention. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On 23 Jan 2009 17:43:53 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Tom Ross wrote: XML features of COBOL have been the most quickly adopted new features of COBOL in my 25 years of IBM COBOL development. We shipped AMODE 31 in 1984, Intrinsic Functions in 1991, OO in 1995, but many users are still running below the line, don't use built-in functions, never tried OO, and are not even using EVALUATE or END-IF. On the other hand, just a few weeks after we shipped XML PARSE support (yes, XML parsing done directly by the COBOL object program) we had customers telling us This is great, when can I do a validating parse against a DTD?. The month after we shipped XML GENERATE, we had similar requests for more function. There are thousands of z/OS COBOL programs producing and processing XML documents today! We can't keep up with demand. I too was surprised to hear the Why XML for COBOL question. I'm glad your support has been so well accepted. XML adoption is important to the future of our platform. On the other hand, we know that we need to do AMODE 64 COBOL someday, but not one customer has asked IBM COBOL development to do it yet. I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps the validity of your assertion depends on one's definition of the word asked. As the person who started this, unfortunately I can believe it. 64 bit is a techie thing and thus in the background. XML is something management is told they need to have in order to communicate with their customers or suppliers. What I find interesting is that calls to existing packages and functions were not adequate to do all of the things that are being built into IBM COBOL. It shows what I don't know about XML (everything). In one sense as someone who is sem-retired, I have no vested interest other than as someone who believes that COBOL still MAY have a future. My belief is that in order for that future to exist, COBOL programs or routines have to be able to exist in a 64 bit Websphere address space, communicate with 64 bit Java and take advantage of 64 bit DB2. If C/C++ can be mixed mode 31/64, then COBOL needs to be 31/64. If an address space must be either all 31 or all 64, then mixed mode doesn't become valuable until there is need for mode mixing within the run unit. Basically COBOL programs need to be able to live nicely in the newer environments and be able to integrate day zero. In one sense, IBM by not having invested in 64 bit were stating that Websphere and other new environments were going to be used by packages written for 64 bit in C/C++, Java or proprietary languages and COBOL was going to fade away. This is certainly the view of at least one poster on comp.lang.cobol who has found C# far superior to COBOL for the things he needs to do. He is predicting COBOL will be virtually dead by 2015 and I tend to agree with him. I see most new development being done in other languages and much of the current inventory being replaced by packages, most of which are not in COBOL. Incidentally, I also believe that COBOL needed to support a BIT data type and that the 2002 standard is only finally recognizing that business applications do have files with bit switches. I had to deal with bit switches (and wrote assembler pack and unpack byte routines) for use with customer, product and open account files over 40 years ago. Thus I find it frustrating that IBM has not implemented USAGE BIT and the related logical operations. I also consider the work around for dealing with floating point from Java frustrating. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 64-bit COBOL
Let's just posit that there is a somewhat different (and larger) set of AMODE 64 technical issues relating to COBOL and PL/I. (This should be pretty clear now.) All the good intentions -- and there are many -- are still always bounded by the technical possibilities. There are also different pressures and different relative urgencies. Pop quiz: which language is more memory-greedy in accomplishing the same business tasks, ceteris paribus: Java or COBOL? :-) My list of questions -- one of them, in particular -- alluded to the possibility that your management might have (misguided) perceptions. If that's the case, feed that information to IBM, too. We got z/Architecture in 2000 (and in the way we did) in part because of (misguided?) market and/or customer management perceptions. There's a good article published by IBM Research that alludes to this, and why true 64-bit architecture had to be the design goal, not, say, 48-bit or 62-bit or whatever. This could get very silly very quickly, though. Let me give you an example. z/TPF is 64-bit and GA'ed in September, 2005. z/TPF does many things, including allowing you to run 64-bit transaction programs. WebSphere Application Server for z/OS started supporting 64-bit servants beginning with Version 6.1.0.4 which GA'ed in January, 2007. WAS does many things, including allowing you to run 64-bit transaction programs. So does this mean z/TPF transaction programs are more or less important/strategic/critical/whatever than WAS z/OS transaction programs? No, silly! (May I call that hypothetical unnamed misguided manager that?) It simply means that z/TPF got there first because it was technically doable, sooner, in the way(s) customers wanted and/or because they needed it (or expected to need it) sooner. There's no grand, nefarious, and/or sinister IBM plan for z/TPF to replace WAS z/OS or vice versa. Well, except for this plan: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/secretplans/ztpf-will-takeover-the-world.html (Watch the wrap.) Anyway, could y'all keep getting those COBOL and PL/I compiler requirements into IBM -- along the lines of the questions I listed? Many thanks. Speaking only for myself. Occasionally with humor and wit (of varying quality). - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 64-bit COBOL
Must really be secret. The page cannot be found... John P. Baker -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 5:08 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: 64-bit COBOL ... There's no grand, nefarious, and/or sinister IBM plan for z/TPF to replace WAS z/OS or vice versa. Well, except for this plan: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/secretplans/ztpf-will-takeover-the-world.html (Watch the wrap.) ... - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 64-bit COBOL
John P. Baker wrote: Must really be secret. The page cannot be found... My English is poor, but I understood the joke. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA wynosi 118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
And may I ask how many customers actually asked for 64 bit C/C++ or Java ? Mohammad On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:10:33 -0800, Tom Ross tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com wrote: snip documents today! We can't keep up with demand. On the other hand, we know that we need to do AMODE 64 COBOL someday, but not one customer has asked IBM COBOL development to do it yet. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
I still can't get user to fully use AMODE 31 COBOL. However, we are getting closer. I vote for giving the COBOL development time to do it right and work out the complexities. It is a lot easier to say it than to do it. Regards Otto Schumacher Technical Support, CICS EDS, an HP Company Ahold Account 2000 Wade Hampton Blvd. LC1-302 Greenville, South Carolina, 29615 Tel: 864 987-1417 Fax: 864 987-4500 E-mail: otto.schumac...@eds.com We deliver on our commitments so you can deliver on yours. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mohammad Khan Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:08 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... And may I ask how many customers actually asked for 64 bit C/C++ or Java ? Mohammad On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:10:33 -0800, Tom Ross tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com wrote: snip documents today! We can't keep up with demand. On the other hand, we know that we need to do AMODE 64 COBOL someday, but not one customer has asked IBM COBOL development to do it yet. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 64-bit COBOL
On 1/23/2009 at 6:24 AM, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: -snip- My English is poor Hardly. From what I've seen your English skills are quite good. but I understood the joke. Probably related to having a sense of humor. :) Mark Post -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 64-bit COBOL
http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/secretplans/ztpf-will-takeover-the-world.html They're Pinky, Pinky and the Brain! (PS: I get page not found) - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 64-bit COBOL
Good one, Timothy. I bit - then realized it was a joke. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:08 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: 64-bit COBOL No, silly! (May I call that hypothetical unnamed misguided manager that?) It simply means that z/TPF got there first because it was technically doable, sooner, in the way(s) customers wanted and/or because they needed it (or expected to need it) sooner. There's no grand, nefarious, and/or sinister IBM plan for z/TPF to replace WAS z/OS or vice versa. Well, except for this plan: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/secretplans/ztpf-will-takeover-the-world.ht ml (Watch the wrap.) Anyway, could y'all keep getting those COBOL and PL/I compiler requirements into IBM -- along the lines of the questions I listed? Many thanks. Speaking only for myself. Occasionally with humor and wit (of varying quality). - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
R.S. wrote: Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list... Perhaps not in a homogeneous programming world in which COBOL is your only programming language. But, don't you need 64-bit support to be able to share data with other programs, written in other languages, that leverage 64-bit support? I'm thinking about parameter lists, addresses of in-storage tables, etc. Also, doesn't the run-time (LE) have some all-or-nothing restrictions on the addressing mode of the programs it supports within an address space? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Tom Ross wrote: XML features of COBOL have been the most quickly adopted new features of COBOL in my 25 years of IBM COBOL development. We shipped AMODE 31 in 1984, Intrinsic Functions in 1991, OO in 1995, but many users are still running below the line, don't use built-in functions, never tried OO, and are not even using EVALUATE or END-IF. On the other hand, just a few weeks after we shipped XML PARSE support (yes, XML parsing done directly by the COBOL object program) we had customers telling us This is great, when can I do a validating parse against a DTD?. The month after we shipped XML GENERATE, we had similar requests for more function. There are thousands of z/OS COBOL programs producing and processing XML documents today! We can't keep up with demand. I too was surprised to hear the Why XML for COBOL question. I'm glad your support has been so well accepted. XML adoption is important to the future of our platform. On the other hand, we know that we need to do AMODE 64 COBOL someday, but not one customer has asked IBM COBOL development to do it yet. I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps the validity of your assertion depends on one's definition of the word asked. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Mohammad Khan wrote: And may I ask how many customers actually asked for 64 bit C/C++ or Java ? Mohammad Vendors... Of course, 64 bit C/C++ was a high priority because a lot of middleware is written in those languages, WAS, MQ etc. And 64 bit Java is a no brainer considering the memory footprint of most Java applications. Not to mention that 64 bit Java depends on 64 bit C/C++. On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:10:33 -0800, Tom Ross tmr...@stlvm20.vnet.ibm.com wrote: snip documents today! We can't keep up with demand. On the other hand, we know that we need to do AMODE 64 COBOL someday, but not one customer has asked IBM COBOL development to do it yet. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Clark Morris writes: Why does COBOL need XML handling? Because many customers wanted it and filed excellent requirements details with IBM, through SHARE and other avenues. (Which now means we've come full circle, again, in this discussion thread. :-)) Question back to you: why does COBOL need AMODE 64? No, don't answer here. :-) And there are better questions anyway (not to answer here either) like: Would AMODE 64 COBOL still be useful to you if it could not call 31-bit, and vice versa? How useful? (More or less useful than X, Y, and Z proposed enhancements?) If it could not call 31-bit, would you instantly recompile all your code to 64-bit?? Going forward, would you expect new language features to be available in both 31-bit and 64-bit, or is only 64-bit acceptable? (Answer carefully. Think about 24-bit as you answer. :-)) Would it be OK if you had to change your code (perhaps with the aid of a conversion tool) before recompiling it in 64-bit? How much change? How critical is it that recompiled code behave exactly the same way (at runtime) as previously compiled code? What are your performance expectations for 64-bit compiled code? How much CPU increase, if any, is acceptable? (Bear in mind that 64-bit code, ceteris paribus, will consume a little more CPU. So if the expectation is equality or better, that means additional effort is likely needed in compiler optimization. Knocking something else out of the queue, perhaps.) What business problems are you unable to solve (or soon expect to be unable to solve) without AMODE 64 COBOL?? What sort of time horizons do you have for these questions? Any financial issues (threats? :-)) that IBM should know about that might be relevant? And so on. But the list of SHARE requirements previously posted capture these sorts of questions pretty well, don't they? So the answer is still the same as before, isn't it? :-) Which is, tell IBM what you want (and in what priority) so that IBM can do the best and right thing(s). SHARE is a really good vehicle to do that. Speaking only for myself. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
I'll throw in the thought that the experiences with similar things from the past - like Data Windowing Services - may be relevant... What did customers like or dislike about them? My suspicion is they were too difficult to use for most people and didn't necessarily provide that much benefit. Martin Martin Packer Performance Consultant IBM United Kingdom Ltd +44-20-8832-5167 +44-7802-245-584 email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com Twitter ID: MartinPacker They're figuring out that collaboration isn't a productivity hit, it makes them smarter. Sam Palmisano on BlogCentral, 26 November 2008 Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
64-bit COBOL
(New but follow-on thread), There are now and have been ever since the question was first raised at least three different issues (IMHO). 1) The one that Clark and others have TRIED to communicate to IBM, but which seems hard to convey - or at least difficult to hear that IBM understands is the MESSAGE conveyed to upper management by the fact that there are 64-bit C/C++, Java, and Assembler but not COBOL. What MANAGEMENT hears is that COBOL IS NOT STRATEGIC (to IBM) and now is the time to try and limit new development and move to NEW paradigms. It reminds me a lot of what happened when IBM first introduced the CCCA product and did as a program offering rather than a program product. This sent a message to customers (or those in management that make buying decisions) and a good product was avoided by many shops. So tell, me how much will customers pay to not hear words but to SEE that COBOL is AS strategic as C/C++ and Java? I don't know, but I do know that IBM is (intentionally or not) sending a message to their customers that COBOL just doesn't rank as highly as other languages. 2) The second question has always been, give us a real world example of a business application that canNOT be done in 31-bit COBOL, but could be in 64-bit COBOL. With XML, GLOBs, BLOBs, etc this is starting to because more of a real world issue. However, again what I have heard from customers is that *IF* we wait to show you such examples and you THEN start developing a 64-bit COBOL, it will be WAY too late before you can deliver it. Again, we will simply have to move from COBOL to other languages (and won't ever return) while your are doing that development. 3) The final issue and this is certainly MY personal big issue is the one of mixed AMODE(31) and AMODE(64) applications. This is available today for Assembler (sort-of) but not for any LE application (at least in any supported way). I am not an AIX user, but it sounds as if the 64-bit COBOL for AIX is an all or nothing environment. If that is the case (at any time in the future) for COBOL on z/OS, then I agree, don't bother. *** Primarily, this note was intended to get that first message across (again) about the ranking of COBOL as perceived by customers given the delivery of 64-bit languages but not COBOL. I do (again personally) understand about resources (in IBM), priorities, and business cases. I just wish that I heard (or heard more often) from IBM that they understand what message they are sending out with their current PUBLIC responses to the 64-bit issue. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Meanwhile, COBOL customers are beating us up about XML validation, XMLSS, Unicode, useability features and many other things besides AMODE 64 COBOL. We have to do it all right? Why does COBOL need XML handling? Is it generating in line code as opposed to setting up calls as is the case for CICS and SQL? I would agree that getting Unicode, the usages in the 2002 standard (with the floating point being IEEE leaving COMP-1 and COMP-2 for hex floating point) and other things useful for inter-operability is more important. If you knew IBM COBOL users today, you would not be asking this question. My first reaction was Are you kidding me? but then I realized that you probably have not been to SHARE COBOL sessions or have direct access to COBOL customer feedback like I do, so here you go. Users need to process XML documents in COBOL because they process all of their data with COBOL, that is the language of most z/OS installations. XML features of COBOL have been the most quickly adopted new features of COBOL in my 25 years of IBM COBOL development. We shipped AMODE 31 in 1984, Intrinsic Functions in 1991, OO in 1995, but many users are still running below the line, don't use built-in functions, never tried OO, and are not even using EVALUATE or END-IF. On the other hand, just a few weeks after we shipped XML PARSE support (yes, XML parsing done directly by the COBOL object program) we had customers telling us This is great, when can I do a validating parse against a DTD?. The month after we shipped XML GENERATE, we had similar requests for more function. There are thousands of z/OS COBOL programs producing and processing XML documents today! We can't keep up with demand. On the other hand, we know that we need to do AMODE 64 COBOL someday, but not one customer has asked IBM COBOL development to do it yet. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
IBM intends to keep extending z/SO COBOL for many years to come! We have been exploring what it would take to get AMODE 64 COBOL on z/OS for years. Coordination between all of the products is in progress. We could ship a compiler that could produce AMODE 64 object code in just a few years (it would require almost a complete compiler rewrite) but we would then need a run-time library, and some way to interoperate with other languages, etc. How about a transaction environment for AMODE 64 programs? Anybody want QSAM, VSAM, SORT? I think so. Please be patient with IBM COBOL development :-) Meanwhile, COBOL customers are beating us up about XML validation, XMLSS, Unicode, useability features and many other things besides AMODE 64 COBOL. We have to do it all right? Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! That plan may be to have CoBOL profitable for some time to come - or it may be to have it die out - or maybe it will be used as part of IBM's overall strategy of marketing IBM, differentiating it from competitors that also produce Java and XML, or whatever word catches customers' eyes. Marketing is important. Positioning IBM so that customers in the future will think IBM first is important. How IBM decides to do this a question I don't know the answer to - but it is entirely conceivable that its strategy will include having many compatible tools - such as 64 bit CoBOL that can run on Z/OS and AIX. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On 21 Jan 2009 15:10:26 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: IBM intends to keep extending z/SO COBOL for many years to come! We have been exploring what it would take to get AMODE 64 COBOL on z/OS for years. Coordination between all of the products is in progress. We could ship a compiler that could produce AMODE 64 object code in just a few years (it would require almost a complete compiler rewrite) but we would then need a run-time library, and some way to interoperate with other languages, etc. How about a transaction environment for AMODE 64 programs? Anybody want QSAM, VSAM, SORT? I think so. Please be patient with IBM COBOL development :-) Since the C/C++ people and Java people have a 64 bit environment and LE was supposed to be common to all, I'm puzzled as to how much of a separate run time library is needed. I don't believe your customers want 64 bit COBOL per se. However if key things like Websphere, DB2 and Java all have 64 bit variants and these offer significant advantages, there may well be a need for COBOL to easily interoperate with that environment cleanly and with minimal overhead. By the way in long range terms, I want to see QSAM functionally stabilized and with all future work for sequential files being done in zFS and VSAM ESDS. I realize that this in Access Methods and COBOL is just a user. Also I would hope that 7+ years after 64 bit was delivered, VSAM could handle it. Meanwhile, COBOL customers are beating us up about XML validation, XMLSS, Unicode, useability features and many other things besides AMODE 64 COBOL. We have to do it all right? Why does COBOL need XML handling? Is it generating in line code as opposed to setting up calls as is the case for CICS and SQL? I would agree that getting Unicode, the usages in the 2002 standard (with the floating point being IEEE leaving COMP-1 and COMP-2 for hex floating point) and other things useful for inter-operability is more important. Cheers, TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future! That plan may be to have CoBOL profitable for some time to come - or it may be to have it die out - or maybe it will be used as part of IBM's overall strategy of marketing IBM, differentiating it from competitors that also produce Java and XML, or whatever word catches customers' eyes. Marketing is important. Positioning IBM so that customers in the future will think IBM first is important. How IBM decides to do this a question I don't know the answer to - but it is entirely conceivable that its strategy will include having many compatible tools - such as 64 bit CoBOL that can run on Z/OS and AIX. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Howard Brazee writes: What I don't get is why this is an issue for IBM I don't know how much I can say about this issue, but what the heck, I speak only for myself. I think a lot of people are over-analyzing this, thinking there's something political, religious, or whatever. Like a C/C++ fan club wielding some secret veto power? Uh, no. Bill Klein has some solid information here, though. There are multiple technical requirements that almost certainly apply to delivering a 64-bit COBOL that meets most or all customers' requirements. Not all of those technical requirements necessarily apply to the COBOL (and PL/I) compiler itself. Bill has provided a good core list. In addition, there are some core principles that almost certainly apply most strongly to COBOL and PL/I. Like not breaking stuff. Most of you would probably agree that's important, and that core principle influences certain decisions. And then there is always the question of how to prioritize each of those technical requirements in the development process. There are never unlimited development resources in any project (cf. Fred Brooks, Microsoft, etc.), so there are trade-offs. If X gets done, Y doesn't, basically. That's why it's important that customers keep IBM informed on this, to help guide these decisions and prioritize requirements. Again, as Bill suggests, and he's right. There are many different ways to deliver 64-bit COBOL and PL/I -- many different technical paths to get there. (Well, at least a few.) I have my own opinions, some of them even strong ones. But you (customers) get to drive these decisions, not me. So speak up, through the appropriate paths. SHARE is a very good one, for example. Sure, revenue (and profit) has to be a consideration. (It is in your businesses too, right?) However, it's not just about increasing COBOL and PL/I license revenue next quarter. It's also about maintaining revenue, long-term revenue time horizons, impacts to other products, and both direct and indirect effects, for example. In particular, customers who are more highly satisfied tend to remain customers (or even become bigger customers), so customer satisfaction is terribly important. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On 15 Jan 2009 01:03:50 -0800, e99...@jp.ibm.com (Timothy Sipples) wrote: That's why it's important that customers keep IBM informed on this, to help guide these decisions and prioritize requirements. Ideally (for us), IBM would be in the business of helping its existing customers. But getting new customers and positioning itself for the long term are important too. Technical requirements should also be prioritized to fit in with the strategies IBM has for its future. I'm not privy to IBM's strategic directions, but it seems likely that IBM will want to leverage its current strengths as it builds a structure which contains future customer wants. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:32:00 +0900, Timothy Sipples e99...@jp.ibm.com wrote: Ed Gould writes: Yes there is. Just last month the *OLD* table problem popped up. User needs LARGE in storage table (10G). Her only option was to. write the file to a VSAM data set and do inquiries on it with I/O. The run time (even with CI's in memory) was about 4 hours.. She did a rough quicky assembler and it was less that 10 minutes (elapsed on both numbers). If you've got CICS, how about using a 64-bit container? This feature is available starting in CICS Transaction Server Version 3.2 (in 2007), when containers were moved above the bar. They should be quite transparent to your 31-bit application. (Just call CICS and let it do the lifting.) It's hard to say what CPU time you'd see, but my guess is it'd be closer to the 10 minute number for a comparable run. Sorry, but CICS can't help in this case. The container still needs to be constructed below the bar, so the size is restricted to what can be fitted into EDSA storage. Tom Grieve CICS Development IBM Hursley Park -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote: Dave Rivers wrote: Just to add a quick note to that, a popular option for our users is to write a quick-n-dirty C function to handle the 64-bit data (directly callable from 31-bit COBOL). Since there is NOTHING in the 1985 COBOL standard, let alone the 2002 standard that would prohibit having a 10 gigabyte table, why should someone have to program a work around in 2009? How long has the z series had 64 bit addressing? When did C/C++ get it? When did DB2 get it? If 64 bit is good and useful for Websphere and if Websphere is strategic, then why can't COBOL routines run in the 64 bit Websphere? Very good points I was just saying that, given realities - here's a work-around some people have found helpful. Of course, if we want to rail against realities - that's a different beastie all together :-) And, I can completely understand it :-) - Dave Rivers - -- riv...@dignus.comWork: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
I understand your desire for 64-bit COBOL. I would suggest that if you WANT 64-bit COBOL, that you have your company submit a marketing requirement and reference SHARE requirement: SSLNGC0413607 Support 64 bit and web-oriented development in COBOL Unless you want a 64-bit COBOL that can't communicate with 31-bit COBOL, you might also want to submit marketing requirements that reference all of the following 3 SHARE requirements - SSLNGC0513631 LE - Phase 1 - Mixed 64/31-bit AMODE Toleration - SSLNGC0513632 LE - Phase 2 - Mixed 64/31-bit AMODE Cooperation - SSLNGC0513633 LE - Phase 3 - Full Mixed 64/31-bit Amode Support All 4 of these requirements are currently in the recognized response area. *** However, because you mentioned 1985 COBOL standard, you should know/understand that just as the '85 Standard would ALLOW for 2G+ tables, it would also consider a COBOL compiler that only supported 32K tables (as OS/VS COBOL did) to be conforming. It simply does not get into maximum/minimum issues for things like this. (Neither does the 2002 COBOL which is the only currently official COBOL Standard, now that the '85 Standard has been superseded) Thomas David Rivers riv...@dignus.com wrote in message news:200901141813.n0eidnyi008...@dave.dignus.com... Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote: Dave Rivers wrote: Just to add a quick note to that, a popular option for our users is to write a quick-n-dirty C function to handle the 64-bit data (directly callable from 31-bit COBOL). Since there is NOTHING in the 1985 COBOL standard, let alone the 2002 standard that would prohibit having a 10 gigabyte table, why should someone have to program a work around in 2009? How long has the z series had 64 bit addressing? When did C/C++ get it? When did DB2 get it? If 64 bit is good and useful for Websphere and if Websphere is strategic, then why can't COBOL routines run in the 64 bit Websphere? Very good points I was just saying that, given realities - here's a work-around some people have found helpful. Of course, if we want to rail against realities - that's a different beastie all together :-) And, I can completely understand it :-) - Dave Rivers - -- riv...@dignus.comWork: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On 14 Jan 2009 10:50:31 -0800, wmkl...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Klein) wrote: I understand your desire for 64-bit COBOL. I would suggest that if you WANT 64-bit COBOL, that you have your company submit a marketing requirement and reference SHARE requirement: What I don't get is why this is an issue for IBM - sure it would like to get customers to pay for enhancements that those specific customers want.But it also wants to position itself strategically for the future. Its marketing strength is not to disregard the past, but show how the past and the future are integrated under one compatible umbrella. When various tools are no more compatible than those of multiple vendor tools that are available for competitors - customers and prospective customers are more likely to look elsewhere. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
--- On Fri, 1/9/09, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: From: R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 7:56 AM Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list... -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland Radoslaw: Yes there is. Just last month the *OLD* table problem popped up. User needs LARGE in storage table (10G). Her only option was to write the file to a VSAM data set and do inquiries on it with I/O. The run time (even with CI's in memory) was about 4 hours. She did a rough quicky assembler and it was less that 10 minutes (elapsed on both numbers). Now, you tell me it isn't needed. This issue has rose time and time again. The answer is always to write an assembler program to do it. The *OLD* write it to VSAM option is really inexcusable, IMO. Assembler is dead (or at least almost extinct). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... SNIPPAGE Assembler is dead (or at least almost extinct). SNIP So's COBOL, FORTRAN, and the Mainframe. Regards, Steve Thompson Still programming in ALC after all these years. -- Opinions expressed by this poster may not be the opinions of poster's employer. -- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:02:03 -0800, Ed Gould ps2...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes there is. Just last month the *OLD* table problem popped up. User needs LARGE in storage table (10G). Her only option was to write the file to a VSAM data set and do inquiries on it with I/O. The run time (even with CI's in memory) was about 4 hours. She did a rough quicky assembler and it was less that 10 minutes (elapsed on both numbers). Now, you tell me it isn't needed. This issue has rose time and time again. The answer is always to write an assembler program to do it. The *OLD* write it to VSAM option is really inexcusable, IMO. Assembler is dead (or at least almost extinct). Ed, Finally! Somebody has actually posted a real case where AMODE(64) would have solved a problem in a good way. I was also questioning the real need for this, at least at present. I assume that this table was READ-ONLY and accessed with a binary search. I have done this for data in AMODE(31) in assembler (well, I didn't design it, I just inherited from something written by another programmer long ago, in a galaxy far, far way - but who programs in a Ford anyway?). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Assembler is *NOT* dead! [was: RE: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL ...]
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... Snipped Assembler is dead (or at least almost extinct). Hey Ed, watch who you're calling extinct! There are still a few Assembler dinos out here who are still very much alive and very much kicking! And we're *not* all system programmers, either. :) Peter This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Assembler is *NOT* dead! [was: RE: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL ...]
I resemble being called Extinct, under any title. There's still a place for usDinos who prize nice tight code that accomplishes the required purpose. :-) Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... Snipped Assembler is dead (or at least almost extinct). Hey Ed, watch who you're calling extinct! There are still a few Assembler dinos out here who are still very much alive and very much kicking! And we're *not* all system programmers, either. :) Peter This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html . -- Rick -- Remember that if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Assembler is *NOT* dead! [was: RE: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL ...]
SNIP-- I resemble being called Extinct, under any title. There's still a place for usDinos who prize nice tight code that accomplishes the required purpose. :-) Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: ---SNIP- OK I mis-spoke the idea I was trying to get across was that fewer and fewer people know assembler and that its a shame that you need to know it to get pass the cobol issue. I do not know if C++ would do it or for that matter any other language that is callable with COBOL. It is just a shame that you have to know any other language just to do simple table lookups. COBOL was meant to be a reasonably simple language (for the masses if you must). COBOL if it remains static like it has for many years will need to be replaced if it cannot do simple large table lookups. Now if there was some way a service was designed for say LE to create large tables and then look items up that would be acceptable (I would think). But as one other mentioned there are other items that need large amounts of tables as well. Why not just offer it. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Assembler is *NOT* dead! [was: RE: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL ...]
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:53:28 -0600, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net wrote: I resemble being called Extinct, under any title. There's still a place for usDinos who prize nice tight code that accomplishes the required purpose. :-) Which is better, nice tight code which accomplishes the required purpose or adequate code which is more easily maintained? Too bad that neither choice is available (except maybe on the z and i). Our choice (here) seems to be code which doesn't take the server down too often and reboots quickly. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Ed Gould wrote: --- On Fri, 1/9/09, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: From: R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 7:56 AM Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list... -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland Radoslaw: The answer is always to write an assembler program to do it. Just to add a quick note to that, a popular option for our users is to write a quick-n-dirty C function to handle the 64-bit data (directly callable from 31-bit COBOL). I'm just suggesting an alternative to an assembly program that our users have found helpful. - Dave Rivers - -- riv...@dignus.comWork: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:52:07 -0500, Thomas David Rivers riv...@dignus.com wrote: Ed Gould wrote: --- On Fri, 1/9/09, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: From: R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 7:56 AM Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list... -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland Radoslaw: The answer is always to write an assembler program to do it. But there are fewer and fewer HLASM programmers. And I'd bet most companies want to discontinue it entirely because COBOL is more maintainable by the normal programming staff (no questions about the abnormal programming staff, please!). Just to add a quick note to that, a popular option for our users is to write a quick-n-dirty C function to handle the 64-bit data (directly callable from 31-bit COBOL). Requires a C compiler. And that costs more money. Not cost effective if the only use is to access 64 bit memory from COBOL. I'm just suggesting an alternative to an assembly program that our users have found helpful. - Dave Rivers - -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Yes thanks bit as others have mentions C isn't licensed at the installation and the number of COBOL programmers who do know c is less than the number of Assembler types out there. I have found that the senior COBOL types have over the years have picked up assembler (little bits) as it is needed for real debugging at times. Ed --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Thomas David Rivers riv...@dignus.com wrote: --SNIP-- Just to add a quick note to that, a popular option for our users is to write a quick-n-dirty C function to handle the 64-bit data (directly callable from 31-bit COBOL). I'm just suggesting an alternative to an assembly program that our users have found helpful. - Dave Rivers - -- riv...@dignus.com --SNIP -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Ed Gould writes: Yes there is. Just last month the *OLD* table problem popped up. User needs LARGE in storage table (10G). Her only option was to. write the file to a VSAM data set and do inquiries on it with I/O. The run time (even with CI's in memory) was about 4 hours.. She did a rough quicky assembler and it was less that 10 minutes (elapsed on both numbers). If you've got CICS, how about using a 64-bit container? This feature is available starting in CICS Transaction Server Version 3.2 (in 2007), when containers were moved above the bar. They should be quite transparent to your 31-bit application. (Just call CICS and let it do the lifting.) It's hard to say what CPU time you'd see, but my guess is it'd be closer to the 10 minute number for a comparable run. 64-bit C (or C++) is another option, as pointed out. No, it's not that expensive. There are at least 3 commercial compilers available.), 64-bit Java is a possible option. Java is a standard z/OS feature (no additional license charge) and zAAP eligible. (Can Enterprise COBOL's INVOKE statement call 64-bit Java? I'll have to check that.) 64-bit Assembler is still an option. That's a standard z/OS feature, too. Certain other middleware products (besides CICS) may be relevant. WebSphere Transformation Extender comes to mind as a possibility, for example. There are undoubtedly ways to do this (handle 10G) using multiple address spaces (~6+) that collaborate. Might even be some workload advantages to that, actually, depending on the situation. All that said, please get your requirements for 64-bit COBOL into IBM. (And PL/I, for that matter.) IBM is listening. The more information you can provide about your situation, both technical and non-technical, the better. Yes, as alluded to previously in this thread, LE is very much a technical factor here. Any path (how, and thus partly when) to 64-bit is customer-driven, not religious or political. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On 9 Jan 2009 19:06:48 -0800, cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca (Clark Morris) wrote: If COBOL is still considered strategic and going forward rather than something to be maintained until you can migrate to the brave new world of Java, C#, New Vision, etc., then 64 bit is needed to support IBM strategy. COBOL is supposed to communicate with Java and COBOL routines are supposed to be usable in Websphere applications. Guess what? Both of those environments can be either 31 bit or 64 bit. Someone else pointed out that things can get tight in a heavily used CICS region and that the 2 gig limit can impact the number of concurrent transactions. If COBOL is other than a cash cow, then serious upgrading is needed It doesn't matter whether CoBOL is a cash cow now or not. What matters is where it fits into IBM's plans for the future. That plan may be to have CoBOL profitable for some time to come - or it may be to have it die out - or maybe it will be used as part of IBM's overall strategy of marketing IBM, differentiating it from competitors that also produce Java and XML, or whatever word catches customers' eyes. Marketing is important. Positioning IBM so that customers in the future will think IBM first is important. How IBM decides to do this a question I don't know the answer to - but it is entirely conceivable that its strategy will include having many compatible tools - such as 64 bit CoBOL that can run on Z/OS and AIX. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
The situation is even more ironic with Java architects / designers (with active endorsement from IBM) - they WON'T USE database features at all because it conflicts with OOP design principles. From what I have seen they reduce DB2 to an index file server with transactions and logging. I guess all those enhancements are meant only for bragging rights vis a vis Oracle. Mohammad On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:51:59 +0100, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: snip Do you have a choice i.e. in DB2 case? New version costs more beacuse of numerous enhancements, blah, blah. I DON'T USE ANY OF THEM, but I have to pay more. No, staying with DB2 V4 is not an option, because it is unsupported. Which means you still have to pay, but you won't get any support. So I use current version - with unneeded enhancements and higher price. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
John McKown pisze: On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:11:36 -0500, David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 14:11 -0600, John McKown wrote: OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? What I already pay today, for a current COBOL compiler backed by developers and support staff. -- David Andrews Unless I totally misunderstand you, you want enhancements to COBOL for the price of the current COBOL. I have a question. Are you paying the same for Enterprise COBOL that you paid for OS/VS COBOL 2.4 (in adjusted dollars, of course)? (what about ANS COBOL? - the freebie) No? You're paying more? Then you did pay more for a better COBOL compiler. And, hopefully, you got more use from it. But, then, you didn't pay up front (as I may have implied) and you didn't really have a choice, unless you don't mind being unsupported. Until recently, we actually still used the OS/VS COBOL 2.4 compiler and library for one application. It was so weirdly coded that conversion to Enterprise COBOL was delayed (they first tried when VS COBOL II was installed). Wish I knew more, but I successfully avoided getting in the middle of that mess. John, Is COBOL compiler profitable for IBM? How much profits it provides? YOU DON'T KNOW! We don't know. ...and maybe even IBM don't know *exactly*. Do you know what part of COBOL incomes are spent for development, bug fixing, support, documentation, marketing, etc? YOU DON'T KNOW! So we don't know how much we pay for enhancements. I pay for COBOL what IBM told me to pay. The price is not of my choice. I cannot judge what enhancements I would like to see, and what are not needed. I am not even asked for my opinion! Do you have a choice i.e. in DB2 case? New version costs more beacuse of numerous enhancements, blah, blah. I DON'T USE ANY OF THEM, but I have to pay more. No, staying with DB2 V4 is not an option, because it is unsupported. Which means you still have to pay, but you won't get any support. So I use current version - with unneeded enhancements and higher price. The same could apply to COBOL - some day we could see new version, with numerous enhancements (without AMODE(64)!) ...and higher price. How much will you pay for the enhancements you don't need? -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA wynosi 118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, R.S. wrote: snip How much will you pay for the enhancements you don't need? A very good point! In our case, we could still run effectively using VS COBOL II, CICS/TS 1.3, and z/OS 1.6. We are basically stabilized at that level. If the costs today were what they were back then, we might even stay on the z. But IBM decides, based on who-knows-what, that new functionality is needed and will be paid for regardless of __our__ needs and wants. I think it is like the arms race. IBM ups the ante on software, so their competitors must respond, and then IBM must see their raise and raise you $... more or fold. (to mix a metaphor). Is it any wonder that I like Linux and FOSS software? In that, __I__ do have greater influence (Don't talk to me about SHARE). How? Simply by joining the development group (or the testing group) and feeding back to the developers. Who are, generally, not run by profit. Well, at least, that's my take on it. FWIW (not much). -- Q: What do theoretical physicists drink beer from? A: Ein Stein. Maranatha! John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list... -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2008 r. kapitał zakładowy BRE Banku SA wynosi 118.642.672 złote i został w całości wpłacony. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:56:51 +0100, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list... -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of more than 1 Gib of data for an application. What __user written__ application would use more than this? I understand 64 bit addressing for system type functions. I guess. But even that is overkill because you cannot configure any z/OS system such that you could actually acquire that much addressable storage. Now, using 64 bit address space to memory map VSAM LDSes starts to make sense to me. 64 bit is, for now, more marketing hype as far as I can see. But I've been wrong before, if somebody has a good, actual (not theoretical) use for 64 bit addressing in an application program. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Parsing or generating _really_ _big_ XML data streams? In a CICS Web Services provider scenario, one could posit a very large 01 level, only some of which gets filled in for any one request... 01 Work-Areas. 05 Some-Table-NbPIC 9(008) COMP-5. 05 Some-Other-Table-Nb PIC 9(008) COMP-5. 05 Marks-Nb PIC 9(008) COMP-5. 01 Response. 05 Personal-Info. 10 Given-Name PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL. 10 Family-Name PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL. 05 Some-Table Occurs 0 To 200 Depending Some-Table-Nb. 10 Photo-Base-64-JPEG PIC X(20480). 10 Fingerprint-base-64-JPEG PIC X(40960). 10 Scars-Marks-Tattoos Occurs 0 To 100 Depending Marks-Nb PIC X(20480). 05 Some-Other-Table Occurs 0 To 10 Depending Some-Other-Table-Nb. 10 MPEG4-encoded-somehowPIC X(1024000). 05 [more big-ish data here] But I'm just making this up, AFAIK we don't have anything like this. One could also posit a video rental business that keeps the videos in DB2 BLOBs and serves them via CICS Web Services COBOL applications. But I don't know of any such business. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
There are some cases that do need it. If a program is processing XML or Large OBjects ( LOBs - document images, video, audio ) the memory use baloons up pretty fast. If these are being used under CICS multiply by the number of concurrent transactions. There is only so much that you can fit below the bar so more data there means less of code. Channels and containers in CICS are already above the bar and have to be shuffled around the bar because COBOL can't address them where they are. In my opinion this enhancement is more useful than the object oriented entensions they added I- don't-know-when-because-I-have-yet-to-see-them-being-used. Mohammad On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:09:12 -0600, John McKown joa...@swbell.net wrote: On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:56:51 +0100, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote: Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list... -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of more than 1 Gib of data for an application. What __user written__ application would use more than this? I understand 64 bit addressing for system type functions. I guess. But even that is overkill because you cannot configure any z/OS system such that you could actually acquire that much addressable storage. Now, using 64 bit address space to memory map VSAM LDSes starts to make sense to me. 64 bit is, for now, more marketing hype as far as I can see. But I've been wrong before, if somebody has a good, actual (not theoretical) use for 64 bit addressing in an application program. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of more than 1 Gib of data for an application. What __user written__ application would use more than this? All you'll ever need is 640K! 16M is more than enough memory. Close the patent office. Everything that can be invented has been invented. Haven't you learned, yet? - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
In a message dated 1/9/2009 9:08:10 A.M. Central Standard Time, craig.schneiderw...@dot.state.wi.us writes: videos in DB2 BLOBs and serves them via CICS Web Services COBOL applications. But I don't know of any such business. CNBC was reporting the Porn industry is asking for several billion in bailout funds due to declining revenue in DVD sales/rentals? **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215047751x1200957972/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:58:23 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of more than 1 Gib of data for an application. What __user written__ application would use more than this? All you'll ever need is 640K! 16M is more than enough memory. Close the patent office. Everything that can be invented has been invented. Haven't you learned, yet? - Why not go whole hog? Skip 64 bit addressing entirely. Go to 128 bit. Why not? After all the i series machines are already using 128 bit addressing. And all their languages support it. IBM claims that the i has the largest number of 64-bit mode programs in existence. Someone did point out one future use for 64 bit addressing in COBOL. That would be when CICS supports COMMAREAs, and other data areas, above the bar. CICS is storage constrained even in with 31 bit addressing. However, CICS does not yet support above the bar memory areas for applications. BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
In 496757a3.4080...@bremultibank.com.pl, on 01/09/2009 at 02:56 PM, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl said: Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Yes. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics. Call it histrionics if you like. But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we won't need it tomorrow. This field already suffers from short-sightedness. Please don't add more. My point was think ahead. Don't get stuck because you can't think of a need, today. When XA came out, nobody could understand the need for 2GB. Think DB2. Where do you think the buffers and special pools are in V8+. Don't be the mud for the stick! - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
For video on demand databases are too slow. You would use a streaming server, for which I don't know any available for System z OS except VM Stairs. In addition, a streaming server would serve a stream, so you need a small buffer (e.g. 128MB) and fast DASD for 1000 Users. For the 64Bit discussion, as long as LE cannot mix 64Bit and 31Bit modules, what is the benefit? -Original Message- From: Schneiderwent, Craig - DOT craig.schneiderw...@dot.state.wi.us To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 3:36 pm Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ... Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ? Parsing or generating _really_ _big_ XML data streams? In a CICS Web Services provider scenario, one could posit a very large 01 level, only some of which gets filled in for any one request... 01 Work-Areas. 05 Some-Table-NbPIC 9(008) COMP-5. 05 Some-Other-Table-Nb PIC 9(008) COMP-5. 05 Marks-Nb PIC 9(008) COMP-5. 01 Response. 05 Personal-Info. 10 Given-Name PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL. 10 Family-Name PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL. 05 Some-Table Occurs 0 To 200 Depending Some-Table-Nb. 10 Photo-Base-64-JPEG PIC X(20480). 10 Fingerprint-base-64-JPEG PIC X(40960). 10 Scars-Marks-Tattoos Occurs 0 To 100 Depending Marks-Nb PIC X(20480). 05 Some-Other-Table Occurs 0 To 10 Depending Some-Other-Table-Nb. 10 MPEG4-encoded-somehowPIC X(1024000). 05 [more big-ish data here] But I'm just making this up, AFAIK we don't have anything like this. One could also posit a video rental business that keeps the videos in DB2 BLOBs and serves them via CICS Web Services COBOL applications. But I don't know of any such business. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:50:07 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics. Call it histrionics if you like. But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we won't need it tomorrow. This field already suffers from short-sightedness. Please don't add more. My point was think ahead. Don't get stuck because you can't think of a need, today. When XA came out, nobody could understand the need for 2GB. Think DB2. Where do you think the buffers and special pools are in V8+. Don't be the mud for the stick! OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? If you can get people to tell IBM something like: We are willing to pay $200 a month extra plus $2000 extra one time for a compiler which can create AMODE(64) programs., then you're likely to get IBM's attention. But if people say: We want AMODE(64) COBOL but at the current cost of AMODE(31) COBOL, then IBM is likely to not pay much attention. TANSTAAFL. Also, somebody needs to prioritize AMODE(64) COBOL versus other desired enhancements. There is only so much money and so many qualified developers. For example. COBOL now uses System XML for XML processing. Should IBM have forgone that (with the associated benefit of XML processing in COBOL now being able to run on a zAAP) for 64 bit addressing? If I implied that 64 bit addressing in COBOL is a unwanted / unneeded enhancement, I gave the wrong impression and I hope that I have corrected it. I just wonder about the relative importance of 64 bit addressing versus other COBOL enhancements. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
If I implied that 64 bit addressing in COBOL is a unwanted / unneeded enhancement, I gave the wrong impression and I hope that I have corrected it. I just wonder about the relative importance of 64 bit addressing versus other COBOL enhancements. That's a different issue. I thought you didn't see the need rather than the cost. Sorry to have teed off at you. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Denis Gäbler denisgaeb...@netscape.net wrote in message news:8cb40acc0589804-abc-...@webmail-dx19.sysops.aol.com... For video on demand databases are too slow. You would use a streaming server, for which I don't know any available for System z OS except VM Stairs. In addition, a streaming server would serve a stream, so you need a small buffer (e.g. 128MB) and fast DASD for 1000 Users. For the 64Bit discussion, as long as LE cannot mix 64Bit and 31Bit modules, what is the benefit? There are existing SHARE requirements for a 3 phased approach to mixed 31-/64-bit LE support 1) Document what actually works today (as Assembler can shift something needs to document what happens when both sides activate LE applications 2) SUPPORT fixed 31-/-64 but with separately owned LE resources on both sides 3) Full mixed mode application support *** As we haven't even seen phase 1 implemented yet, I don't know how soon I will expect phases 2 or 3. I am, however with you that providing 64-bit COBOL support for applications that are TOTALLY 64-bit and can't communicate easily/transparently with 31-bit code is a non-starter for real world use in z/OS COBOL shops. I suppose, I wouldn't object to seeing it, but if IBM used lack of interest/use of it to delay providing MIXED 31-/64-bit support, then I would definitely NOT be happy. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On 9 Jan 2009 09:01:19 -0800, joa...@swbell.net (John McKown) wrote: Why not go whole hog? Skip 64 bit addressing entirely. Go to 128 bit. Why not? After all the i series machines are already using 128 bit addressing. And all their languages support it. IBM claims that the i has the largest number of 64-bit mode programs in existence. ... BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics. If there is a need to change to 64 bit, examine the costs and alternatives of going beyond this need. Don't spend money twice when once will do. There are sites that will benefit significantly from this change. And it's a change that could make IBM better market its product (which indirectly helps us). Of course, maybe IBM sees its future in AIX instead of ZOS. I don't know that it would be wrong in doing so. But if it sees both coexisting, it should develop them together. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 14:11 -0600, John McKown wrote: OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? What I already pay today, for a current COBOL compiler backed by developers and support staff. -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. david.andr...@duda.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:11:36 -0500, David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com wrote: On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 14:11 -0600, John McKown wrote: OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? What I already pay today, for a current COBOL compiler backed by developers and support staff. -- David Andrews Unless I totally misunderstand you, you want enhancements to COBOL for the price of the current COBOL. I have a question. Are you paying the same for Enterprise COBOL that you paid for OS/VS COBOL 2.4 (in adjusted dollars, of course)? (what about ANS COBOL? - the freebie) No? You're paying more? Then you did pay more for a better COBOL compiler. And, hopefully, you got more use from it. But, then, you didn't pay up front (as I may have implied) and you didn't really have a choice, unless you don't mind being unsupported. Until recently, we actually still used the OS/VS COBOL 2.4 compiler and library for one application. It was so weirdly coded that conversion to Enterprise COBOL was delayed (they first tried when VS COBOL II was installed). Wish I knew more, but I successfully avoided getting in the middle of that mess. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:08:29 -0700, Howard Brazee howard.bra...@cusys.edu wrote: snip There are sites that will benefit significantly from this change. And it's a change that could make IBM better market its product (which indirectly helps us). Of course, maybe IBM sees its future in AIX instead of ZOS. I don't know that it would be wrong in doing so. But if it sees both coexisting, it should develop them together. The people over on Midrange-L (the iSeries equivalent of this forum) have the same complaint that we do on this point. IBM seems, in some ways, to want to get out of the OS and hardware business. This may not be the case, but is an easy conclusion to draw when IBM keeps increasing prices and doesn't seem to push the platform like it used to. Good thing that I'm a Linux bigot. It runs on just about anything and is fairly consistent whether it is on an Atom (Intel netbook processor) or a pSeries or a zSeries. -- John -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
On 9 Jan 2009 12:13:51 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:50:07 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics. Call it histrionics if you like. But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we won't need it tomorrow. This field already suffers from short-sightedness. Please don't add more. My point was think ahead. Don't get stuck because you can't think of a need, today. When XA came out, nobody could understand the need for 2GB. Think DB2. Where do you think the buffers and special pools are in V8+. Don't be the mud for the stick! OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? If you can get people to tell IBM something like: We are willing to pay $200 a month extra plus $2000 extra one time for a compiler which can create AMODE(64) programs., then you're likely to get IBM's attention. But if people say: We want AMODE(64) COBOL but at the current cost of AMODE(31) COBOL, then IBM is likely to not pay much attention. TANSTAAFL. Also, somebody needs to prioritize AMODE(64) COBOL versus other desired enhancements. There is only so much money and so many qualified developers. For example. COBOL now uses System XML for XML processing. Should IBM have forgone that (with the associated benefit of XML processing in COBOL now being able to run on a zAAP) for 64 bit addressing? If I implied that 64 bit addressing in COBOL is a unwanted / unneeded enhancement, I gave the wrong impression and I hope that I have corrected it. I just wonder about the relative importance of 64 bit addressing versus other COBOL enhancements. If COBOL is still considered strategic and going forward rather than something to be maintained until you can migrate to the brave new world of Java, C#, New Vision, etc., then 64 bit is needed to support IBM strategy. COBOL is supposed to communicate with Java and COBOL routines are supposed to be usable in Websphere applications. Guess what? Both of those environments can be either 31 bit or 64 bit. Someone else pointed out that things can get tight in a heavily used CICS region and that the 2 gig limit can impact the number of concurrent transactions. If COBOL is other than a cash cow, then serious upgrading is needed. The fact that there is an interface routine to enable floating point to be passed between COBOL and Java so that hex floating point can be converted to IEEE and vice versa still enrages me. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...
Who says COBOL doesn't get tweaks? Track this topic Print story Post comment IBM Power/AIX machines get 64-bit support - finally By Timothy Prickett Morgan • Get more from this author Posted in Enterprise, 7th January 2009 20:23 GMT Business whitepaper - Virtualization: the four key cost savings Some software development projects take a long time to complete, and others seem to take an eternity. So it is, it seems, for 64-bit support for IBM's COBOL compiler for its own AIX Unix variant running on Power-based servers. IBM has been shipping 64-bit Power-based servers since 1995 (starting with its proprietary AS/400 line and eventually including its AIX-based RS/6000 Unix line), and has had been delivering a 64-bit variant of AIX since 2001. (While AIX 4.3, launched in 1997, could run on 64-bit Power iron, it could do so because IBM's PowerPC processors had a 32-bit compatibility mode, implemented in hardware, to run legacy code, such as AIX and its applications.) More than seven years ago, when IBM went 64-bits with AIX, the company was equally significantly reading its Power4 dual-core processors and the related Regatta server line that not only put IBM on the map in Unix, but paved the way for Big Blue to become the revenue leader in Unix servers that it is today. (Hard to believe, but it did happen, and Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems now play second fiddles in revenue market share.) Through all of this time, though, IBM's COBOL for AIX compiler has been relegated to 32-bit memory addressing. Crazy, right? This week, IBM delivered COBOL for AIX V3.1, which sports 64-bit application development alongside the older 32-bit mode that was still the way to code COBOL apps on AIX back in 2004, when COBOL for AIX V2 was launched. (Back then, with V2, IBM added a Java-like, object-oriented syntax to COBOL and support for XML and its own DB2 8 database, which were in their own ways a big deal.) The V3.1 release of COBOL for AIX now supports VSAM and STL files (these are flatfile formats that predate relational databases that are still commonly used for COBOL applications), but also includes a V2 compatibility mode for smaller STL and VSAM file so customers don't have to recompile legacy COBOL applications even if they do want to use larger files with new - yes, new - COBOL applications. COBOL for AIX V3.1 runs on Power Systems machines that have AIX 5.3 or 6.1 running on them. What will the COBOL compiler team think of next? And how long will it take to deliver? ® -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
(fwd) RE: 64-bit COBOL was(fwd) Re: Is there any XML parser available on z/OS ?
On 27 Sep 2005 20:49:36 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wayne Driscoll) wrote: Dataspaces and Hiperspaces came out in the 1988-1989 timeframe. COBOL has never supported them, yet COBOL has been able to interface successfully with DB2 for that entire time, despite the fact that DB2 has exploited dataspaces and hiperspaces for years. I will admit that it is quite likely that a need for 64 bit support in COBOL is coming down the road, but I don't have a clue how far down the road. Be aware that IF IBM every does support 64 bit COBOL, it will be under the LE umbrella, which, for 64 bit C, C++ or LE conforming assembler means: The only means of communication between AMODE 64 and AMODE 24 or AMODE 31 applications is through mechanisms that can communicate across processes or address spaces. However, Language Environment applications that use AMODE 64 can run with existing applications that use AMODE 24 or AMODE 31 on the same physical zSeries system. Basically, your entire application will need to be recompiled, retested, etc. to support 64bit support, or else they will need to use some sort of IPC model to communicate from a 31 bit application to a 64 bit application (such as sockets). Going to 64bit will NOT be a panacea that some seem to believe. I agree on the testing and the idea that it is not going to be a panacea. However one of the advantages of a higher level language like COBOL as opposed to Assembler is that when the bugs are worked out of the compiler, support routines, compile scripts, etc., the change should be basically a recompile for the new environment. Warning, do not read the next sentence while drinking anything. COBOL for example doesn't have anything in it that if used strictly ties the source to a given addressing mode. The problem will be all of the programs that have redefined pointer fields as S9(8) BINARY. My concern is that if CICS goes 64 bit in that it expects the transaction code to be compiled and linked 64 bit with the appropriate support routines, I want the COBOL transactions to be compilable and work after fixing any pointer problems. Substitute subsystem of choice or affliction. Wayne Driscoll Product Developer Western Metal Supply NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Of Clark Morris Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: 64-bit COBOL was(fwd) Re: Is there any XML parser available on z/OS ? On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 04:37:23 GMT, in bit.listserv.ibm-main William M. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course, no current customers have demonstrated any current (or expected in the near future) need for AMODE(64) COBOL. -- Bill Klein wmklein at ix.netcom.com Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sep 26, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: --SNIP--- And be aware that IBMs' cobol still doesn't support 64 bits. Ed I recall submitting a requirement that IBM provide 64 bit support in COBOL concurrent with CICS, DB2 and Websphere support or words to that effect. We will need 64 bit support in COBOL on day one of the time that it could be used. Then is NOT the time to decide whether there is a need for it. COBOL needs to be able to play efficiently with things like XML and the above listed subsystems. If they don't use 64 bit, then COBOL doesn't need it. If they do and interface with 64 bit application code, COBOL needs 64 bit capability. In this sense, if IBM internal communications are adequate, IBM has a better idea of the need and the time frame for the need than the customer base. We as customers should be almost yelling at IBM that we don't want to have to rewrite code just so that we can use it efficiently with JAVA, Websphere or any other offering. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 64-bit COBOL was(fwd) Re: Is there any XML parser available on z/OS ?
There is a MVS callable service to allow any HLL language (Cobol, PL1 and so) to work with large tempory data. It's called Window Services and deals with dataspaces or hiperspaces (not sure) and is documented in the MVS Callable Service for HLL. This way Cobol can handle large data but only using a window of the large object Roland -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Driscoll Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: 64-bit COBOL was(fwd) Re: Is there any XML parser available on z/OS ? Dataspaces and Hiperspaces came out in the 1988-1989 timeframe. COBOL has never supported them, yet COBOL has been able to interface successfully with DB2 for that entire time, despite the fact that DB2 has exploited dataspaces and hiperspaces for years. I will admit that it is quite likely that a need for 64 bit support in COBOL is coming down the road, but I don't have a clue how far down the road. Be aware that IF IBM every does support 64 bit COBOL, it will be under the LE umbrella, which, for 64 bit C, C++ or LE conforming assembler means: The only means of communication between AMODE 64 and AMODE 24 or AMODE 31 applications is through mechanisms that can communicate across processes or address spaces. However, Language Environment applications that use AMODE 64 can run with existing applications that use AMODE 24 or AMODE 31 on the same physical zSeries system. Basically, your entire application will need to be recompiled, retested, etc. to support 64bit support, or else they will need to use some sort of IPC model to communicate from a 31 bit application to a 64 bit application (such as sockets). Going to 64bit will NOT be a panacea that some seem to believe. Wayne Driscoll Product Developer Western Metal Supply NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
64-bit COBOL was(fwd) Re: Is there any XML parser available on z/OS ?
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 04:37:23 GMT, in bit.listserv.ibm-main William M. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course, no current customers have demonstrated any current (or expected in the near future) need for AMODE(64) COBOL. -- Bill Klein wmklein at ix.netcom.com Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sep 26, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Steve Comstock wrote: --SNIP--- And be aware that IBMs' cobol still doesn't support 64 bits. Ed I recall submitting a requirement that IBM provide 64 bit support in COBOL concurrent with CICS, DB2 and Websphere support or words to that effect. We will need 64 bit support in COBOL on day one of the time that it could be used. Then is NOT the time to decide whether there is a need for it. COBOL needs to be able to play efficiently with things like XML and the above listed subsystems. If they don't use 64 bit, then COBOL doesn't need it. If they do and interface with 64 bit application code, COBOL needs 64 bit capability. In this sense, if IBM internal communications are adequate, IBM has a better idea of the need and the time frame for the need than the customer base. We as customers should be almost yelling at IBM that we don't want to have to rewrite code just so that we can use it efficiently with JAVA, Websphere or any other offering. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
