<snip> >> I wrote: Writing those in PL/X would have make MVS unmaintainable. > Peter Relson wrote: The second sentence is untrue, Peter, it would be interesting to see how PL/X has solved abstract coding techniques. I know DCB is not written in PL/X. Could you show us a short snippet of how you would implement this logic in PL/X? </snip>
I do not recall what the logic was. I was responding to "unmaintainable". The logic is not relevant. And there is a DCB macro available to PL/X users. But that is unimportant. PL/X provides the programmer access to assembler, and to machine constructs. If you can do it in assembler, you can do it in PL/X (even if "do it in PL/X" might be "tell PL/X exactly what assembler to use"). <snip> > Peter Relson wrote: Not that I'm a fan of C but I'm surprised > just about none of the comments have mentioned metal C For this topic, it doesn't matter whether it's C or Metal C. </snip> Sure it does. Because Metal C gives you access to assembler and to the IBM-provided assembler executable macros. And that is what is being talked about. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design