Re: Are Banks Breaking Up With Mainframes? | Forbes

Good point about NUMAand it is still a differentiator and competitive advantage for IBM z. IBM bought Sequent 20+ years ago to get their excellent NUMA technology, and has since built some very clever cache topology and management algorithms. AMD has historically been crippled in real-world

Re: Are Banks Breaking Up With Mainframes? | Forbes

Sent again in plain text. Apple mail is too clever for it’s own good! > On 22 May 2023, at 12:46 pm, David Crayford wrote: > > > >> On 21 May 2023, at 12:52 pm, Howard Rifkind wrote: >> >> Hundreds of PC type servers still can’t handle the huge amount of data like >> a mainframe can. > >

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

> On 22 May 2023, at 8:15 am, Farley, Peter > <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means. I am not familiar with > that reference. Github co-pilot is an AI programming assistant. You can ask it to do things like write a

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

On Mon, 22 May 2023 00:15:52 +, Farley, Peter wrote: >Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means. I am not familiar with >that reference. > GIYF? ? -- gil --

Re: Are Banks Breaking Up With Mainframes? | Forbes

Thanks Tim. I suspected new customers were buying mainframes and I was waiting for confirmation from someone like you who knew. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, May 21, 2023, 9:29 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote: Yes, there are brand new customers buying their first mainframes. IBM

Re: Are Banks Breaking Up With Mainframes? | Forbes

Yes, there are brand new customers buying their first mainframes. IBM periodically discloses this basic fact. Sometimes I'm personally involved, sometimes when it's a "first in country" situation. (First in country?!? Yes, really.) And sometimes I have personal knowledge of other new mainframe

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

Eighth Edition (March 1993) | This edition replaces and makes obsolete the previous edition, | SC26-4047-06. Technical changes for this edition are summarized | under"Summary of Changes" in topic FRONT_3 and are indicated by a | vertical bar to the left of the change. | This edition applies

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means. I am not familiar with that reference. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 7:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

Has anybody developed a co-pilot plugin for ISPF yet? :) > On 21 May 2023, at 3:42 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available > in TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is in > general far better

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

What was the release date on that? From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Charles Mills Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 1:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question) VS COBOL II Release 4 -- change bars

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

Well, various folks have convinced me that I missed this back when I looked for it! I have a hazy memory of asking someone-not this list-about it and being told "No" but that might be wishful thinking. Hmm, it *had* been a while; I looked at the source, found this comment: *Given two

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

Dated March 12, 1993 On Sun, 21 May 2023 14:46:10 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: >VS COBOL II Release 4 -- change bars on the doc: > >x LENGTH OF Special Register >x The LENGTH OF special register contains the number of bytes used by an >x identifier. > >x LENGTH OF creates an

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

VS COBOL II Release 4 -- change bars on the doc: x LENGTH OF Special Register x The LENGTH OF special register contains the number of bytes used by an x identifier. x LENGTH OF creates an implicit special register whose content is equal x to the current byte length of the data

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

On Sun, 21 May 2023 18:56:39 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >The Initiator calls it with a 32-bit PLIST, so below the bar and if you invoke >it with CALL you must be aware that it is a main program and do likewise. > >WEe hates it, precious, we hates it. > It should have been easy enough for the

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

The Initiator calls it with a 32-bit PLIST, so below the bar and if you invoke it with CALL you must be aware that it is a main program and do likewise. WEe hates it, precious, we hates it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From:

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

32-bit PLIST, and the AMODE64 main program is responsible for clearing the VL bit before using the address. BAD. For anything else, the PLIST is 64 bits wide, there is no VL bit and the last pointer is followed by -1 (all fox Fox). Parameters from AMODE64 to AMODE64 may be above the bar. But

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

On Sun, 21 May 2023 16:51:18 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >That's not a CALL convention. The primary use case for the halfword length is >programs that can be invoked with EXEC PGM=. ... >I assume that you're talking AMODE24 or AMODE31; for AMODE64 things are >different. > If a program object

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

That's not a CALL convention. The primary use case for the halfword length is programs that can be invoked with EXEC PGM=. For most subroutines, the entries in the PLIST point directly at the parameter or point to a language-specifc control block of some kind, e.g., a locator/descriptor for PLI

Re: LENGTH OF in COBOL (was: ISPF HILITE Question)

On Sun, 21 May 2023 08:02:59 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: > >Curious how you used a subroutine. It only worked for fields in a structure >where you passed the address of the field and the next field and it subtracted >the addresses? > >Was there a way to make COBOL pass a dope vector with

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available in TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is in general far better than EXEC2 and CLIST, there are things that that it lacks. ISPF versus XEDIT is harder.ISPF has significant advantages as

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

() and () are just CLIST quoting mechanisms.you; REXX doesn't need them because of a fundamentally different syntax. The "apostrophe catastrophe;" got worse since OS/VS2 R3.6. What I miss about XEDIT is the combination of prefix macros and SET PENDING. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz