On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:55:27 -0500, John Gilmore wrote: > >... Now, however, I often see macros that just >do not assemble correctly; and I have been led, reluctantly but >inexorably, to the conclusion that they have not been tested >adequately or that they were not retested at all after being altered >in a notionally trivial way. > (somewhat echoing and expanding on John M.)
It's the predictable consequence of requiring end users to use a different language, including OS interfaces, from that used internally. IBM's posture that withholding PL/S provided a competitive advantage should have been vitiated; mooted by the advent of unbuldling, priced OS software, and OCO. It flouts the maxim attributed to Linus, "With enough testers all bugs are shallow." Imagine where UNIX would be nowadays if C had been sequestered for vendor internal use only, and customers left to program in assembler with second-rate OS interface declarations. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
