-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:34:22 -0500, Chase, John wrote:
snip
To this day I have the impression that many COBOL shops actually
*fear* Assembler and/or anybody who professes even the slightest
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown
[ snip ]
. . .. Take a case in point. A programmer has two VSAM KSDS
files. He is reading one file sequentially and wants to see in the
second
file has as associated record in it (both files are keyed
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:15:15 -0500, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown
[ snip ]
. . .. Take a case in point. A programmer has two VSAM KSDS
files. He is reading one file sequentially and wants to see in
John McKown wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:15:15 -0500, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown
[ snip ]
. . .. Take a case in point. A programmer has two VSAM KSDS
files. He is reading one file sequentially
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:53:04 -0500, John McKown wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:32:30 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
IMO, most shops today fear any and all programmers who could
be considered
above average, regardless of the language that they use. Why?
Because their code will be harder to understand
On 24 Apr 2009 05:16:31 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown
[ snip ]
. . .. Take a case in point. A programmer has two VSAM KSDS
files. He is reading one file sequentially and wants to see in the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Kirk Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: METAL C: CodeGen defeciency?
Snipped
Interesting that they didn't use XC, isn't it? If you
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:58:18 -0400 Farley, Peter x23353
peter.far...@broadridge.com wrote:
: -Original Message-
: From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
: Behalf Of Kirk Wolf
: Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:44 PM
: To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
: Subject: Re:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Effective pipeline programming [was:RE: METAL C: CodeGen
defeciency?]
On Thu, 23 Apr
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 10:44 -0400, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
As there is no reason to code a BCR 15,0
Is that really true? We don't have the M91/195 (and their imprecise
interrupts) to kick around anymore, but is there any other legitimate
use for serializing the pipeline? Why would IBM carry
:)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Effective pipeline programming [was:RE: METAL C: CodeGen
defeciency?]
Obviously
Gibney, Dave wrote:
I'm not really an assembler programmer, but I've known this one since
my earliest days. I'm sure it was in the 370 Pop I used in my one and
only assembler programming class in 1979. Good class, I have a job today
because I took that class, did an internship the next
David Andrews wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 10:44 -0400, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
As there is no reason to code a BCR 15,0
Is that really true? We don't have the M91/195 (and their imprecise
interrupts) to kick around anymore, but is there any other legitimate
use for serializing the pipeline?
I have snipped all the content from this IBM-MAIN thread *and* have sent
this note to both IBM-MAIN and the Assembler list.
The question has been asked as to whether there is consolidated
information anywhere on IBM performance advice related to HLASM coding for
best pipeline performance.
The
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Gibney, Dave wrote:
I'm not really an assembler programmer, but I've known this one
since
my earliest days. I'm sure it was in the 370 Pop I used in my one
and
only assembler programming class
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:34:22 -0500, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com wrote:
snip
To this day I have the impression that many COBOL shops actually
*fear* Assembler and/or anybody who professes even the slightest
proficiency with it.
-jc-
IMO, most shops today fear any and all programmers who
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 14:57 -0400, Bob Rutledge wrote:
It's not [nonzero],0, it's 15,0.
Hey, you're absolutely RIGHT. (I wonder if it's always been like this?
Am I mis-remembering stuff from 35 years ago? Anyone got a *really* old
PrincOps?)
SRCHFOR 'BCR 15,0' in SYS1.SHASSRC for some
IMO, most shops today fear any and all programmers who could be considered
above average, regardless of the language that they use. Why? Because their
code will be harder to understand than the simple code written by less talented.
I TOTALLY disagree with that statement!
I've found that the most
On 23 Apr 2009 13:35:12 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote:
I find the weak programmers are the ones to use strange (and often
misunderstood) tricks, or as we used to call it 'spaghetti code'.
Writing hard to maintain code is produced by poor programmers, not strong ones.
I once
2009/4/23 David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com:
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 14:57 -0400, Bob Rutledge wrote:
It's not [nonzero],0, it's 15,0.
Hey, you're absolutely RIGHT. (I wonder if it's always been like this?
Am I mis-remembering stuff from 35 years ago?
Yup - it's always been like this. I think
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:32:30 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
IMO, most shops today fear any and all programmers who could be considered
above average, regardless of the language that they use. Why? Because
their code will be harder to understand than the simple code written by less
In order to do some necessary things, some smart programmers wrote some
hard-to-maintain code using tricks.
Would a weak programmer even know how to do it?
Once they got a CoBOL compiler, that wasn't needed anymore.
With that exception, I strongly agree with you that the best programmers
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 16:38 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
2009/4/23 David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com:
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 14:57 -0400, Bob Rutledge wrote:
It's not [nonzero],0, it's 15,0.
Hey, you're absolutely RIGHT. (I wonder if it's always been like this?
Am I mis-remembering stuff
David Andrews wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 14:57 -0400, Bob Rutledge wrote:
It's not [nonzero],0, it's 15,0.
Hey, you're absolutely RIGHT. (I wonder if it's always been like this?
Am I mis-remembering stuff from 35 years ago? Anyone got a *really* old
PrincOps?)
I seem to recall BCR 1,0
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Chase, John
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Effective pipeline programming [was:RE: METAL C: CodeGen
defeciency?]
-Original Message
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:32:30 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I find the weak programmers are the ones to use strange (and often
misunderstood) tricks, or as we used to call it 'spaghetti code'.
What's a trick? What's an idiom? In a recent discussion in
TSO-REXX, Phil Smith, among others, urged that
26 matches
Mail list logo
