Thanks Gerhard, I feel the same way, especially when you work for a small company and your the only one writing Assembler, with customers asking for changes
Scott ford www.identityforge.com On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Gerhard Postpischil <gerh...@valley.net> wrote: > On 6/3/2012 8:52 AM, John Gilmore wrote: >> 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. > > Supporting obsolete systems is a labor of love; I see no reason > to impute financial objectives to their support. For example, > Dave Cole has offered the MVS version of XDC for free, except no > copy of this version of it has been found. > >> 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. > > If I were responsible for a Fortune 500 company, I would be > leery of making changes solely to avoid consideration as a > Luddite. And for a mission critical business application, I > certainly would prefer a machine optimized compiler over > assembler (programmers should provide global optimization). > > My approach is pragmatic - use the appropriate tools best suited > for the task at hand. If that means consciously deciding on old > code reuse rather than new development, that may prove faster > and cheaper in the long run. But I agree that old code should > not be used simply because a programmer is not up to speed on > new features. > > Gerhard Postpischil > Bradford, VT
