rvmart...@ntlworld.com wrote on Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:28:29 + (GMT)
I had nearly 40 years of mainframe development (OS/360 through MVS and
VM/SP) and it is not a comfortable environment for developing code.
My productivity went up about 200% when I got a PC as a host terminal.
I coded using
steve smithers wrote:
rvmart...@ntlworld.com wrote on Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:28:29 + (GMT)
..
Write once, compile anywhere isn't that the motto? I'm not trying to suggest
anything to break this model, but when I compile my code on the mainframe, I
would expect stuff like if ch in['A'..'Z'] to
If you try to achieve a port by modifying all code that deals with
characters you will fail. The amount of work becomes then far too big for
a single person, and the modifications become too huge and wide-spread
that you will raise objections for merging it with the SVN trunk.
That's a good
steve smithers ste...@collector.org wrote the following on 02/02/12 14:38:08:
You can do a build on a PC up to a point. Certainly the assembler output
could be generated, in whatever format. It may be possible to lob this
through the assembler and generate object files, I don't know what
steve smithers wrote:
If you try to achieve a port by modifying all code that deals with
characters you will fail. The amount of work becomes then far too big for
a single person, and the modifications become too huge and wide-spread
that you will raise objections for merging it with the SVN
On Thu, February 2, 2012 18:27, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
steve smithers wrote:
If you try to achieve a port by modifying all code that deals with
characters you will fail. The amount of work becomes then far too big
for
a single person, and the modifications become too huge and wide-spread
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Sven Barth schrieb:
On 30.01.2012 20:31, steve smithers wrote:
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:40:27 +0100
Existing source code frequently assumes ASCII encoding. The obvious are
upper/lowercase conversions, by and/or or add/sub constant values to
steve smithers wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:46:28 +
Although Linux/390 is closer to what the bulk of us are used to, so
please humour us.
I am a Linux user so I am sympathetic. It's just that I really don't do
development on Linux and am therefore unaware of
Mark Morgan Lloyd schrieb:
Sorry, you've missed my point. I've come across systems where compilers
have to be blessed by the local security administrator before they can
mark code as executable, and there's a progressively stronger chain up
to the point where nobody except that manufacturer
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd schrieb:
Sorry, you've missed my point. I've come across systems where
compilers have to be blessed by the local security administrator
before they can mark code as executable, and there's a progressively
stronger chain up to the point where
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:40:27 +0100
Existing source code frequently assumes ASCII encoding. The obvious are
upper/lowercase conversions, by and/or or add/sub constant values to the
characters. It will be hell to find and fix all such code in the
compiler and RTL,
On 30.01.2012 20:31, steve smithers wrote:
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:40:27 +0100
Existing source code frequently assumes ASCII encoding. The obvious are
upper/lowercase conversions, by and/or or add/sub constant values to the
characters. It will be hell to find and fix
Op Mon, 30 Jan 2012, schreef steve smithers:
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:40:27 +0100
Existing source code frequently assumes ASCII encoding. The obvious are
upper/lowercase conversions, by and/or or add/sub constant values to the
characters. It will be hell to find and
I seem to have messed up the subject lines on some of these posts. Sorry.
It's not any problem to move the binary itself, but there is more required
than the binary itself in order to produce an executable load module on any
OS version. (I can't comment on VM or DOS cause they are a mystery
steve smithers wrote:
I seem to have messed up the subject lines on some of these posts. Sorry.
Don't worry about it.
It's not any problem to move the binary itself, but there is more required
than the binary itself in order to produce an executable load module on any
OS version. (I can't
On 30 Jan 12, at 20:38, Sven Barth wrote:
On 30.01.2012 20:31, steve smithers wrote:
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:40:27 +0100
Existing source code frequently assumes ASCII encoding. The obvious are
upper/lowercase conversions, by and/or or add/sub constant values to the
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote on Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:46:28 +
Although Linux/390 is closer to what the bulk of us are used to, so
please humour us.
I am a Linux user so I am sympathetic. It's just that I really don't do
development on Linux and am therefore unaware of it's requirements.
17 matches
Mail list logo
