In a recent note, john gilmore said: > Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:44:04 +0000 > > >You should, then, consider the alternative big jump: HFS instead of PDSE. > > > > This is good advice iff the C or C++ programs (functions) involved are to be > executed under > USS. It is very bad advice if they arre instead to be executed undrer MVS > (which I suspect to be the case here since the PDS-PDSE incompatibility > problem is most unlikely to have arisen in a USS environment). > Thanks for the wise caution; I should have made that explicit. I would, however, have qualified it to "... executed under _Classic_ MVS", since Unix Services (quiet, Shmuel!) is also "under MVS".
> More interesting here is of course the implicit notion that UNIX is better > than MVS. My own retrograde view is of course that it is not. I use it > when I must, but it and its dialects are still radically immature, > labor-intensive, and unreliable. > It depends. I find "make" far less labor intensive than writing JCL. Of course, there's the added environmental concern: much portable software comes packaged with the UNIX "make" trappings. I suppose the latter was among IBM's initial motivations to provide Unix Services. The one apect of maturity that allows "make" to work at all is that the OS maintains timestamps for all files. MVS is haphazard and immature in this respect. However, SMP/E's process of tracking dependencies outside of file attributes is more mature than "make"s. I see more similarities between SMP/E and "make" than most observers. Each has its advantages. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
