On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:44:14 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbah...@aol wrote:
I remember something which looked like an aluminum ladder being
put up in the ceiling so that all that cabling didn't fall on our
heads.
Cable trays -- standard practice now, once thought of as an extra
expense --
On 10 Dec 2009 09:39:46 -0800, hmerr...@jackhenry.com (Hal Merritt)
wrote:
Why only 100? Haven't you been following the advances in regeneration?
Some say that this will be commonplace in as little as a decade. My personal
plans don't include demise :-)
Does
EVERY INTENTION OF LIVING TO
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:52:39 -0500, Peter Flass
peter_fl...@yahoo.com wrote:
Probably are. We'll all be wireless before too long. I can see the
day coming when young'uns won't believe people were unable to access the
internet from the middle of the desert, or on top of a mountain.
They'll
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142007/IBM_s_newest_mainframe_is_all_Linux_
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search
On 8 Dec 2009 05:02:00 -0800, jch...@ussco.com (Chase, John) wrote:
How big were those, compared to an iPod?
Probably like battleship::kayak.
Physical size. How about capacity?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
On 7 Dec 2009 13:01:33 -0800, steve_thomp...@stercomm.com (Thompson,
Steve) wrote:
What do you mean Sun was the first?
The US Army used 360/30 and 360/40s in 18-wheel trailers back in the
early 1960s - 40 years before Sun thought of the idea. The Army even
had those in Vietnam for the division
On 3 Dec 2009 10:55:03 -0800, shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz
, Seymour J.) wrote:
This is kind of wishing we could work on our cars the same way as we
worked on the 1958 Chevy.
That's one kind of complaint. Another kind is to wish that they designed
cars to last as long as they used
On 1 Dec 2009 14:05:49 -0800, edja...@phoenixsoftware.com (Edward
Jaffe) wrote:
I wonder, is there some sort of dooms day coming? Are people doing DR
testing by setting their clocks ahead to 2012? :-)
If the doomsday is Y2K level, then it could be cost effective to IPL
a test machine with a
On 2 Dec 2009 09:45:14 -0800, st...@trainersfriend.com (Steve
Comstock) wrote:
Reminds me of one of the great pieces of wisdom (not sure where it
came from, lost in the mists of time): user friendly is programmer difficult
Too often programmers create user interfaces in a way that is easy
to
On 02 Dec 09 08:18:10 -0800, Charlie Gibbs cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid
wrote:
This is why I tell people that interactive is a synonym for manual.
It stops a lot of GUI enthusiasts dead in their tracks, at least for
a few seconds.
I'll have to remember that.
On 1 Dec 2009 13:59:08 -0800, shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz
, Seymour J.) wrote:
Who is we? I don't believe that I'm the only one one this list to write
that I would never want to go back to the good old days.
I don't know of anybody who wants everything that went with those
days.
On 2 Dec 2009 00:17:46 -0800, r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl (R.S.)
wrote:
Does anyone remember who Accenture was?
Arthur Andersen, IIRC.
No. Former name of Accenture was Andersen Consulting (www.ac.com), not
Arthur Andersen.
It was separate entity lng time before Enron bankrupcy.
If
On 30 Nov 2009 15:30:42 -0800, mw...@ssfcu.org (Ward, Mike S) wrote:
One thing lacking that exist for Java, Perl, Ruby, and other such
languages is a HUGE support library. CPAN has so much good stuff in it
that writing something like a browser in Perl is simple. Try it in
COBOL.
What COBOL
On 30 Nov 2009 14:28:26 -0800, ibm-m...@frozen.eclipse.co.uk (Roy
Hewitt) wrote:
But what gives the mainframe such a bad name is usually the pile of 40 year
apps
stuck together running on top of it and our resistance to change.. (oh, and
our morbid fascination
with 3270!!) And why did we
On 1 Dec 2009 01:44:52 -0800, r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl (R.S.)
wrote:
Q: Why do you think that new technology means non-mainframe?
I suppose because IBM hasn't done a very good job of marketing itself
to compete with Oracle/Sun/HP/Windows server farms.
On 1 Dec 2009 07:12:07 -0800, rex.pomm...@cnasurety.com (Pommier, Rex
R.) wrote:
Hardly nonsense. On Win or Mac, when Firefox tells me it
needs an update, I click on Update. A few minutes later,
it tells me to restart Firefox to activate the update.
I click Restart Firefox to warmstart. Two
On 1 Dec 2009 12:03:50 -0800, steve_thomp...@stercomm.com (Thompson,
Steve) wrote:
I am so glad you brought this up.
Does anyone remember who Accenture was?
And since this is a consulting company, telling people that they need
to... isn't this a bit self-serving? Something akin to Airline
On 30 Nov 2009 09:59:09 -0800, sc...@aitrus.org (Scott) wrote:
I'm not necessarily arguing for leaving the Mainframe, but cleaning up the
dungheap of COBOL is long overdue and now *is* the time for that.
Periodically, the business model needs to be re-analyzed, and the IS
model should be changed
On 30 Nov 2009 09:35:05 -0800, d...@bkassociates.net (Doug Fuerst)
wrote:
How does replacing one mainframe with loads of hot running servers save
money? This is nothing more than more Accenture bigotry against
mainframes. The regulatory environment is likely to dictate LESS brands
and services
On 30 Nov 2009 10:58:01 -0800, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
I agree that Enterprise COBOL has the potentiality for excellent code.
One thing lacking that exist for Java, Perl, Ruby, and other such languages
is a HUGE support library. CPAN has so much good stuff in it that
On 30 Nov 2009 10:46:19 -0800, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
They don't actually say it, but it sounds to me like their saying that big
banks should get off the mainframe. comments?
Having worked in the financial sector for most of my career, I would say it's
a very bad idea.
On 30 Nov 2009 12:06:56 -0800, veilleu...@aetna.com (Veilleux, Jon L)
wrote:
Well I have to pipe up and respond to this remark. There are a TON of COBOL
programs here that have been running for years and years with no problems
and reasonable performance. Once they get replaced by JAVA, etc, they
On 25 Nov 2009 12:28:01 -0800, rfocht...@ync.net (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
Sorry to see you leave, Brian. Going to catch up on the fishing, hunting
or golf? Or making some 'quality time' with the grandkids? Just
remember: it's a parent's duty to say NO, but it's a grandparent's
privilege to say
On 18 Nov 2009 18:32:07 -0800, shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel
Metz , Seymour J.) wrote:
Describing the 1410 as superior to current machines is bizarre, and citing
powers of 2 as an example
With his SPACE machine, Underwood remembers, you could
calculate the powers of 2 with a
On 19 Nov 2009 12:05:22 -0800, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin)
wrote:
Well, 99.999% reliability means that 1/1 of the time the thing is not
reliable = about 8 hours per year.
Well, 99.999% reliability means that 1/10 of the time the thing is not
reliable = about 0.1 hours per year.
On 17 Nov 2009 12:18:11 -0800, hmerr...@jackhenry.com (Hal Merritt)
wrote:
Technical folks don't buy hardware, sales/marketing/political folks do. Thus,
the observation that the
MF was 'unsuited' meant that the suits were not inclined to buy a MF for such.
It was a poor business case.
So
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:32:24 -0800 (PST), StevePratt
steve_pr...@isp.state.il.us wrote:
As an aside, what is a good abbreviation for mainframe than m_f?
And my response is that I call a mainframe a computer. Or sometimes I
call a mainframe a real computer. As opposed to PCs; where PC
On 18 Nov 2009 07:36:35 -0800, bvandergr...@dow.com (van der Grijn,
Bart , B) wrote:
I'm also intrigued by how those of you that have gone tapeless address
the traditional tape needs.
- How do you store backups and archives in your environment? Do they go
to virtual tape but never leave the
On 18 Nov 2009 08:00:13 -0800, r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl (R.S.)
wrote:
4. Price. Someone wrote that TCO of disk is cheaper than for tape. It is
ismply not true. Contrary opinion (tape is cheaper) is ...untrue as
well! What is true: IT DEPENDS. The more data the cheaper tape is. There
are
On 18 Nov 2009 07:26:26 -0800, r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl (R.S.)
wrote:
I heard about (poor in fact) tapeless mainframe shop. Everytime they had
to install something from tape it was a nightmare: someone had to visit
best colleague shop with tapes and download tape content. Last but not
On 17 Nov 2009 09:01:06 -0800, pgs4ibmm...@pacbell.net (Paul Schuster)
wrote:
These are two new buzzwords that have cropped up recently. How do these
play with z/os?
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder has a Cray...
On 12 Nov 2009 09:47:54 -0800, ds...@hotmail.com (Dave Salt) wrote:
I agree with Ed. I'd also recommend changing 70% of the world's business data
is processed by a mainframe to 70% of the world's business data is processed
by mainframes. In other words, let people know there's at least two or
On 11 Nov 2009 10:55:07 -0800, sc...@aitrus.org (Scott) wrote:
If I am answering specific questions, in order, then I respond in-line.
Mostly, however, I top post. I think the practice of writing a complete,
self-supporting response is better etiquette, as I don't need to scroll and
see what the
On 4 Nov 2009 09:02:35 -0800, cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca (Clark Morris)
wrote:
The danger of a PARMX in JCL that passes parms greater than 100 bytes
is two fold.
1. A specific JCL will have an EXEC statement that invokes the program
with PARMX= without someone having tested the program to verify
On 2 Nov 2009 14:55:21 -0800, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin)
wrote:
First, as Shmuel notes, most programs don't differentiate between
being CALLED and JCL LAUNCHED. They're oblivious, and it's pretty
hard to tell; parameters is parameters. If a second parameter is
present, it shall be
On 3 Nov 2009 08:29:39 -0800, m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant)
wrote:
To prevent possible errors, always use the count as a
length attribute in acquiring the information in the PARM field.
/quote
It does not mention the 100 byte limit.
No. But it does a CYA by telling us to program
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:14:53 -0500, des...@verizon.net wrote:
I find the whole issue of compatibility bogus.
Existing programs are compatible with existing parms.
Increasing the max is irrelevant to compatibility.
Longer parms are a total waste of time though.
They're too hard to code.
Real
On 3 Nov 2009 09:58:50 -0800, rfocht...@ync.net (Rick Fochtman) wrote:
Yes, compatability must be maintained, as ugly as it may be. Making a
major change now, after 45+ years, could cause major chaos and
discontent in MANY shops.
Maybe in this case, the benefit wouldn't be worth the cost in
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:24:55 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu wrote:
Unicode has a lot of inertia at this point, and 7-bit ASCII has more. I
can reasonably expect both of them to last long after my death, and docs
and conversion programs until civilization collapses to the point
On 31 Oct 2009 09:37:18 -0700, Patrick Scheible k...@zipcon.net
wrote:
All the characters from the several versions of EBCDIC are in Unicode.
It should be simple enough to map them from EBCDIC order to Unicode
order, and back, if necessary.
Sort order would be different - will that matter?
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:45:34 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer
pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu wrote:
Unicode has a lot of inertia at this point, and 7-bit ASCII has more. I
can reasonably expect both of them to last long after my death, and docs
and conversion programs until civilization collapses to the point
On 02 Nov 2009 09:08:18 -0800, Patrick Scheible k...@zipcon.net
wrote:
Sort order would be different - will that matter?
Yes, there are probably some programs for which it does. Those that
do will have to convert Unicode to EBCDIC and probably convert back
again to do their final output. Or
On 2 Nov 2009 09:19:45 -0800, thomas.b...@swedbank.se (Thomas Berg)
wrote:
As the problem is (old?) programs that cannot cope with
longer parms than 100 bytes, among them IBM module apparently,
that's the problem that needs to be solved.
So we cannot avoid a somewhat ugly change of the JCL
On 30 Oct 2009 08:15:16 -0700, shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel
Metz , Seymour J.) wrote:
This time the OP, who is certainly capable of mixed, not wholly serious
intentions, may well be enjoying the intemperate responses to his
proposal as much as Swift did the outrage that his provoked.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:45:04 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer
pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu wrote:
Unicode has a lot of inertia at this point, and 7-bit ASCII has more. I
can reasonably expect both of them to last long after my death, and docs
and conversion programs until civilization collapses to the point
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:41:23 -, Dave Wade g8...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I meant, all files marked with time, should have been marked with
UTC/Zulu/Grenwich.
Whilst you might set the zone to GMT if you sync the clock to the Internet
it will be set to UTC.
And yes there is a difference
It hasn't
On 27 Oct 2009 13:15:48 -0700, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin)
wrote:
Administrative Assistant: He's out to lunch. When can he call you back?
[What time zone is Benton Harbor? UP or LP? Do they
observe DST? ... Too much uncertainty. Simplify!]
gil: I'm about to go to lunch myself.
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:10:18 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbah...@aol wrote:
With 20-20 hindsight, all computers should have started off marking
files that way. It's not easy changing, but it would really be worth
it.
How? Count your bits. Oh, and think about IBM cards.
I meant, all files
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Eric Chomko
pne.cho...@comcast.net wrote:
For space applications, sure. A satellite that orbits in 101 minutes
had better use UTC, but why humans on Earth in the same place? You
think UTC tells you anything about where the Earth's terminator is?
When the
On 26 Oct 09 08:41:40 -0800, Charlie Gibbs cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid
wrote:
No, on the contrary. The internals keep representing the same point
in time, as utc, but you have it presented as a time in the format
of your choosing.
Exactly. UTC has been the standard in aviation for decades for
On 21 Oct 2009 16:35:23 -0700, eric-ibmm...@wi.rr.com (Eric Bielefeld)
wrote:
I never saw the point in standing in front of a machine, putting in my money,
pushing the button, and watching my money disappear. I think I was in a
casino twice.
Once to get a meal, and once because there was a
On 21 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0700, efinnel...@aol.com (Ed Finnell) wrote:
Can't speak for the rest of the industry but the two big ten schools Iowa
and Iowa State are
good places to learn. Then there's pork skins
Iowa State (My undergraduate alma mater) is Big-12 (was Big-8 then).
But
On 21 Oct 2009 07:47:14 -0700, efinnel...@aol.com (Ed Finnell) wrote:
Sorry, Hay fever makes me yuckee...One of my childhood neighbors is
associate Director at Ames. Haven't seen her in ages, but they showed up
for her grandmothers funeral a couple years back. They were doing Peoplesoft
On 19 Oct 2009 12:59:31 -0700, ps2...@yahoo.com (Ed Gould) wrote:
Congratulations!Sorry to hear about Dubuque placement.
I used to visit there once a year in Jan-Feb for a weekend
years ago skiing.On the positive side I heard that it is going
to get train service to Chicago soon (the ride is
On 20 Oct 2009 06:45:04 -0700, edja...@phoenixsoftware.com (Edward
Jaffe) wrote:
This capitalist society has anti-trust laws. Hopefully, they will be
applied fairly before it's too late.
What would you expect this enforcement to mandate?How will our
society benefit?
As I mentioned earlier
On 19 Oct 2009 13:47:18 -0700, steve_thomp...@stercomm.com (Thompson,
Steve) wrote:
Please tell me what you consider to be malicious actions.
Would suing a company and then buying them out to keep from losing the
case meet your definition?
Not mine.You can't buy a company that doesn't
I hardly ever use PREFIX anymore, preferring SELECT for its ephemeral
nature.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the
On 19 Oct 2009 10:09:02 -0700, tz...@attglobal.net (Tony Harminc)
wrote:
I finally am going back to work on Monday. I'll be working at the new IBM
call center in Dubuque, Iowa. I'm not sure if later today I'll even be able
to see my IBM-Main messages when I leave Milwaukee. I'll be living
On 19 Oct 2009 09:52:48 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
Fairly nice article. Rather nicely balanced about the pluses of either
environment. It's a slide show.
On 19 Oct 2009 09:07:57 -0700, cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca (Clark
Morris) wrote:
I would assume that the Unisys offerings that are descendants of the
Burroughs B5000 and Univac 2200 would be considered mainframes
although definitely NOT compatible with the z series.
When someone assumes mainframes
On 13 Oct 2009 14:00:46 -0700, et...@tulsagrammer.com (Eric Chevalier)
wrote:
Anyway in this day and age TI or HP calculators can do most of
the preflight calculations...
It's not quite that simple. Sure, your TI or HP probably could perform
the calculations, but they don't integrate very well
On 13 Oct 2009 14:20:58 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
I'd say that, to me, it seems that IBM likes AIX and Linux.
The iSeries people complain the same way that we do about IBM
not doing much to encourage people to adopt the i. I don't know
any AIX people, but it
On 13 Oct 2009 08:01:58 -0700, d...@higgins.net (Don Higgins) wrote:
If you and your IBM management really believe COBOL is the language of the
future, it seems to me that your development and support team, needs to
find a way to allocate some finite portion of your available resources to
On 5 Oct 2009 06:45:17 -0700, ma...@resa.net (Warner Mach) wrote:
It occurs to me that there is one aspect of the downsize mentality
that has not been discussed, and that is the 500
pound gorilla aspect ... When there is an economic crunch
and management looks around for where to cut they can
On 5 Oct 2009 09:22:03 -0700, nduf...@uottawa.ca (Neil Duffee) wrote:
These days, with our burgeoning squatty box farm, I like to challenge
tour folx (being shown the 'squatty boxen') to determine which
machine is the mainframe since we take the least amount of space in
the room. (ok, the
On 5 Oct 2009 09:49:08 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
I don't think so - as much as management would like to get rid of the
mainframe, they know that change is expensive.The budget to replace
everything is huge in the short term, and the short term is very important to
On 1 Oct 2009 16:39:34 -0700, l...@garlic.com (Anne Lynn Wheeler)
wrote:
sounds like hardware bug in specific machine ... since it would have
been very evident on in lots of applications.
I came across a hardware bug on a Univac machine, where a CoBOL
program worked fine with debugging
On 1 Oct 2009 21:40:56 -0700, gerh...@valley.net (Gerhard Postpischil)
wrote:
I came close to that, once. The 1403 printer had an interlock to
prevent it from running when the cover was open, and ours
developed a defective microswitch just when a big customer
needed a rush print job. I used a
On 2 Oct 2009 11:53:39 -0700, mark.jac...@custserv.com (Mark Jacobs)
wrote:
As you correctly surmised the default to delay duplicate jobnames is due
to the way it's always worked. I assume that it was used as a very
simple job scheduling mechanism.
I worked at a place that used CLISTs to submit
On 2 Oct 2009 11:55:07 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
This one at a time has persisted to this day as a primitive way to try to
ensure that jobs run in a specific sequence. Programmers especially think
that if n jobs are submitted in the same job class, then they
On 30 Sep 2009 13:15:14 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
Exactly.
The true reason for good writing is not to ensure you're understood.
Rather, it's to ensure you're NOT mis-understood.
If we have to speculate on what this writer truly means, he's failed his job.
These two
On 30 Sep 2009 09:49:48 -0700, m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant)
wrote:
Or perhaps, Continuing decline.
And a politician won't say growing abyss unless he was ascribing
blame.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
On 29 Sep 2009 06:23:05 -0700, mkkha...@hotmail.com (Mohammad Khan)
wrote:
That's Linux on z HARDWARE which is about as useful to a z/OS sysprog or
COBOL coder as a mp3 player running Linux. I guess everyone needs to learn
Linux and switch.
Mohammad
I expect so. I don't see anything anywhere
On 29 Sep 2009 06:41:09 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
I already am familar with Linux. It is my main OS at home (I have a Mac as
well).
I'm curious - do you use BASH shell features of your Unix based Mac
such as scripts?Or do you use GUI for your Linux machine?
On 29 Sep 2009 11:03:53 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
MVS has hardly stood still. If there are really those who haven't learned
anything in 30 years, how are they surviving in a world of WLM, SMS, the
logger, etc. etc.?
D*mn good points!
I was going to respond, but I
Some of our choices don't matter as much anymore. It is easy to see
the advantage of a date in the format of MMDD if all we're doing
is comparing to see which date is older.
But if we are doing anything more complicated - just send the date to
a function library to do the processing. When
I believe that a significant factor in what companies choose for their
future IS needs is their perception on what skills the job market will
have in the future.
Some skills appear to be self-taught. If the tools are cheap, such
as HTML, BASH, and Java, kids in school are perceived as being
On 24 Sep 2009 14:49:13 -0700, pinnc...@rochester.rr.com (Pinnacle)
wrote:
If IBM keeps driving down bill rates and salaries, their newly minted
graduates will be the only ones available to fill the jobs. But why would
they when Web design and Java are paying more? The only reason that there
On 24 Sep 2009 06:33:24 -0700, scott.r...@joann.com (Scott Rowe)
wrote:
[rant]
This whole thread really irks me. Simply the idea that a program might move a
variable length string without first checking for limits is just appalling. I
would be pretty ashamed if I found I had done that in any
On 22 Sep 2009 12:59:30 -0700, steve_thomp...@stercomm.com (Thompson,
Steve) wrote:
Whatever technique used to pass a long parm is not going to be
safely handled byt the old, standard parm passing scheme because
a long parm passed that way will break old, standard programs.
Some new technique
On 20 Sep 2009 07:24:11 -0700, jcew...@acm.org (Joel C. Ewing) wrote:
I can conceive of a case where you might want to distinguish between
97 and 00, but don't know of any programs in our shop doing that.
It might make sense if the failure was because of a known ABEND of a
re-runnable batch
On 20 Sep 2009 13:00:33 -0700, patrick.oke...@wamu.net (Patrick
O'Keefe) wrote:
I've decided I'll drop off the list in a week or 2 rather than hear more
about all the neat new features of software and hardware that I will
never see.
Of course, in many shops, one could be at the start of one's
On 18 Sep 2009 04:50:16 -0700, jan.moeyers...@adelior.be (Jan
MOEYERSONS) wrote:
LOL Never in my life I have seen code that is soo much low-level
tinkering as when I look at the Java code that is floating around here...
Vivan COBOL/CICS! At least there I do not have to worry about getting a
I think a harder conceptual difference isn't between programming
languages, but it is between having most everything in one place and
most everything spread out and used by everyone.
Tracing down anomalies, changing testing standards, changing
reliability standards, etc. can be harder than
On 16 Sep 2009 14:27:57 -0700, gerh...@valley.net (Gerhard
Postpischil) wrote:
Ian wrote:
Take a moment and participate in the poll: http://www.cicsworld.com/
Like many a poll, it's missing some alternatives, making the
results questionable. Just some quick additions: I'm
semi-retired, doing
On 17 Sep 2009 00:12:01 -0700, denisgaeb...@netscape.net (Denis
Gäbler) wrote:
I don't understand.The scheduling software and the operations
people look at the return code and respond. But instead of poring
through a dump, the displays tell them exactly what happened, making
it easier and
On 16 Sep 2009 12:59:43 -0700, rfocht...@ync.net (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
That's not mostly because of their salaries.
--unsnip-
When they spend too much of our money, who cares how they spend it?
To quote Ray Stevens: If 10% was good
On 15 Sep 2009 13:36:47 -0700, aguto...@ford.com (Arthur Gutowski)
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:57:40 -0500, Tom Moulder
tom_moul...@1scom.net wrote:
You laugh ...
I am working with a company that literally did this. They shipped a
very large disk array to the central computing center and
On 16 Sep 2009 05:10:32 -0700, d...@higgins.net (Don Higgins) wrote:
Actually you just must be willing to learn. After 35+ years of mainframe
assembler and COBOL work for Florida Power and then Micro Focus, I started
my own company and decided to learn Java on my own just using the
Interent,
On 15 Sep 2009 14:08:33 -0700, step...@hawaii.edu (Stephen Y Odo)
wrote:
COBOL programmers CAN learn Java ... if management is willing to invest
in training them AND they are willing to learn! Note that BOTH
conditions must be true!
I'm not sure management has to be willing to invest in
On 15 Sep 2009 19:16:58 -0700, don.le...@leacom.ca (Don Leahy) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:34:23 -0400, Don Leahy wrote:
Nearly all of the Cobol programs that I have worked with in the past
20 years have had some
On 16 Sep 2009 07:22:35 -0700, don.le...@leacom.ca (Don Leahy) wrote:
Rollback is an option, but what do you do after that? Fail silently?
Use the Return Code that has been established for the condition.
--
For IBM-MAIN
On 16 Sep 2009 07:41:27 -0700, don.le...@leacom.ca (Don Leahy) wrote:
Rollback is an option, but what do you do after that? Fail silently?
Use the Return Code that has been established for the condition.
Sure, but that works only in those cases where the failure doesn't matter.
I don't
On 16 Sep 2009 08:02:52 -0700, rob.schr...@siriuscom.com (Rob Schramm)
wrote:
This is just poor man's control of processing. I fail to see why
savepoint, rollback and commit are less effective than abending and
forcing a rollback. I am sure that the shop has access to some sort of
On 16 Sep 2009 08:10:52 -0700, frank.swarbr...@efirstbank.com (Frank
Swarbrick) wrote:
I believe I have seen something like the following:
//FJSTEST JOB NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP01 EXEC PGM=MYPGM
//DUMMME DD DUMMY,DSN='THIS.IS.A.TEST'
What does MYPGM need to do in order
On 14 Sep 2009 15:06:20 -0700, shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel
Metz , Seymour J.) wrote:
So how do you use it? What do you do differently when you get a 97 than
when you get a 00?
Depending on the application, I might put out a message saying to
reconstruct from logs.
Reconstruct what?
On 15 Sep 2009 06:59:56 -0700, dennis.ro...@lmco.com (Roach, Dennis ,
N-GHG) wrote:
Reconstruct what?I thought 97 meant the open statement was
successful and file integrity was verified. So the file is OK, the
open is OK.
What am I missing?
That depends on how important data
On 15 Sep 2009 07:01:02 -0700, st...@trainersfriend.com (Steve
Comstock) wrote:
No, most of the Java programmers developed programs for application servers
before, respectively they're still doing.
Ah. I ask because Jonathan Sayles, and some others, insist
that long time COBOL programmers
On 15 Sep 2009 07:55:25 -0700, rob.schr...@siriuscom.com (Rob Schramm)
wrote:
I always thought that abending a cobol program was a lame duck method.
Bringing that practice into JAVA seems equally lame duck. Handle the dang
issue or put the offending records off into an exception file and get
On 14 Sep 2009 08:25:19 -0700, st...@trainersfriend.com (Steve
Comstock) wrote:
Marketing, probably. The current COBOL developers have been
pushing the edge of modernity constantly.
Which current CoBOL developers? The compiler writers at IBM? The
majority of people who develop CoBOL
201 - 300 of 1286 matches
Mail list logo
