On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:38:07 -0400 Scott Ford <scott_j_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>John, :> :>In am far from a Luddite , but I think you have to have need, i.e. project or task to want to change code. My need is a rather large exit we use for RACF. I inherited the exit , so I am trying to :>Incorporate modern methods and functionality in our code. When your making money off your code , like we do as a vendor , you look at things differently and IMHO you have a responsibility to your customers, yes we are very customer sensitive. Very well put. You cannot force customers to upgrade, and you must enhance if you want the maintenance revenue stream. Academics are free to postulate otherwise. :>On Jun 3, 2012, at 8:52 AM, John Gilmore <johnwgilmore0...@gmail.com> wrote: :> :>> Tony Thigpen wrote: :>> :>> <begin extract> :>> We have several customers running our software that are on pre-MP3000 :>> machines that don't even support relative instructions. They still pay :>> us for support and that includes software upgrades. :>> :>> Other vendors may not care about existing customers, but we do. :>> </end extract> :>> :>> Gerhard Postpischil wrote: :>> :>> <begin extract> :>> As they say, all generalities are false. Some of us write dual mode :>> code, to be used both on modern systems and on traditional ones. The :>> Hercules groups for DOS, MVT, and MVS have hundreds of users, and :>> legacy systems and software are alive and well. :>> Running old programs as a hobby is considerably less expensive than :>> many others, and may even help delay the onset of Alzheimer's. :>> </end extrract> :>> :>> Binyamin Dissen wrote: :>> :>> <begin extract> :>> The eternal separation between practical business programming and :>> pie-in-the-sky elitism. :>> </end extract> :>> :>> Let me deal with them in reverse order. :>> :>> Binyamin's argument is ad hominem, name-calling; and that is enough to :>> say about it. For the record, I will, however, note that, while I :>> like 'pie in the sky', resonant as it is of Joe Hill and the IWW, it :>> combines badly with 'élitist'. :>> :>> Gerhard's point is not so easily dismissed; but 1) it is :>> self-defeating for the technology if pushed very far: it freezes :>> software in a posture that is now more than fifteen years behind the :>> state of the art; and 2) the market for even moderately-priced :>> software among MVT-using hobbyists is very small. Still, seriously :>> pursued dual-path software is is certainly viable. :>> :>> Tony's argument surprised me a little in two ways. I was surprised by :>> the apparent size of the market he describes and by his vehemence, :>> both of which may reflect special characteristics of VSE users, about :>> whom I know too little. In his circumstances dual paths would also :>> seem to be appropriate. :>> :>> As a now certified élitist, I am nevertheless unrepentent. Urgings :>> about compatibility requirements and the like usually hide Luddite :>> impulses, reluctance to accommodate the (not very) new, which account :>> for a good many of the troubles that the mainframe community is :>> experiencing. :>> :>> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.
