Re: Solution OOP in HLASM

OOP is extremely easy to use. It's the unnecessary terminology that makes it difficult. I believe wholeheartedly that HLASM and MVS are OOP but simply never justified using the terminology C programmers so strongly need. There are several people in this group who believe the opposite. I would

Re: Solution OOP in HLASM

Ze'ev and Richard, These are certainly good examples of using OOP in HLASM but they are a little difficult to explain how they relate to the tenets of OOP. Remember that it's the language that supports OOP in a way it chooses to support it. E.g. methods in C++ are usually functions. As a

Re: Call by name

Seymour is talking about maintainable large amounts of code should have at least alphanumeric labels. Numeric labels can be confusing unless you have a really good numbering scheme. I suspect most programmers would not use numeric labels unless forced. Regards, Jon.  On Thursday, February

Re: Call by name

From: "Seymour J Metz" Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 3:58 AM Numeric labels are okay for write-only code. They are very bad in code that has to be maintained. Eh? Labels are labels. It doesn't matter whether they are alphabetic, alphanumeric, or numeric. --- This email

Re: Call by name

Numeric labels are okay for write-only code. They are very bad in code that has to be maintained. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List on behalf of Bernd Oppolzer

Solution OOP in HLASM - try#3

I'm a newbie - I didn't start in IT until 1961 and not using computers until 1964, but I have worked on an application (a session manager) which was OOP. 1) it was multi-tasking and worked by passing messages between tasks. When an RU was received from VTAM, a copy was made and the address of

Re: Solution OOP in HLASM

Well, I've been programming since 1960, have used everything from Assembler (D) to HLASM, write macros at the drop of a hat and have consistently defended the use of assemblers, but I have3 to disagree with you. While there is a good deal of theology in the OO camp about the one true

Re: Solution OOP in HLASM

> Seymour Metz wrote: > Well, I've been programming since 1960, have used everything > from Assembler > (D) to HLASM, write macros at the drop of a hat > and have consistently > defended the use of assemblers, but> I have to disagree with you. > While there is a good deal of theology in the

Re: Solution OOP in HLASM

-- reformatted message -- sorry I forgot to make it readable by this group. > Seymour Metz wrote: > Well, I've been programming since 1960, have used everything > from Assembler (D) to HLASM, write macros at the drop of a hat > and have consistently defended the use of assemblers, but > I have

Re: Solution OOP in HLASM

JonYou could create objects in HLASM, as the other gentleman demonstrated with a real life example of a session manager.  If we define objects as some entity that could be probed in runtime, then by all means you could do that in HLASM.   I am not a great fan of oo languges as they tend to stand