/* ¬ */
- Reg Harbeck, M.A.
+1.403.605.7986
> On Nov 3, 2022, at 17:23, Reg Harbeck wrote:
>
> #!
>
> - Reg Harbeck, M.A.
> +1.403.605.7986
>
>> On Nov 3, 2022, at 15:17, zMan wrote:
>>
>> !
>>
>> Srsly, what do you mean?
>>
#!
- Reg Harbeck, M.A.
+1.403.605.7986
> On Nov 3, 2022, at 15:17, zMan wrote:
>
> !
>
> Srsly, what do you mean?
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 4:33 PM Willie Favero wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
“Dynamically persistent”?
- Reg Harbeck
+1.403.605.7986
Upcoming IBM Systems Magazine webinar, Wed, October 21, 2020 2:00 PM CDT: “If
It Ain’t Broke, Why Recompile COBOL?” | More info.
> On Sep 20, 2020, at 20:18, Gibney, Dave wrote:
>
> I suppose dynamic would work. Today,
://ibmsystemsmag.com/Trends/11/2019/michelle-yeager-hayley-owens-cobol
https://ibmsystemsmag.com/Trends/10/2019/ray-mullins
https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/destination
-z1/2019/12/23/genealogy-of-cobol-and-hlasm
Reg Harbeck
403-605-7986
Hopefully it is a capacity issue and not programming, given Brooks’ law...
- Reg Harbeck
+1.403.605.7986
> On Apr 5, 2020, at 12:15, Martin Packer wrote:
>
> I came to the opposite conclusion: I couldn't see why coding was required
> unless new function was DESPERATELY need
Good news: the article has been updated based on input from Gabe and IBM-MAIN.
See http://destinationz.org/Mainframe-Solution/Trends/elephants-and-mainframes
for the revised version.
Thanks, all!
Reg Harbeck
+1.403.605.7986
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
;much of this stuff" instead.
(And to those who have made other suggestions on IBM-MAIN that I should have
caught, but missed, in the past, my apologies: still getting into good habits
of keeping up with this important part of the mainframe ecosystem.)
Reg Harbeck
+1.403.605.7986
P.S. Looking forward
