Yeah, I've been just as confused as anyone. It doesn't make much sense to
have an entirely new compiler ("Open XL C/C++") with a name so subtly
different from the old one ("XL C/C++"). It's typical of IBM to add &
remove fashionable buzzwords to/from product names with no significance.
So this is definitely causing a lot of confusion.
And if the salient feature of XL C/C++ 3.4.1 is that it drops support for
running on MVS, then that's just nuts. It would seem to imply there is
*no* future for MVS C/C++, and it sure seems like a major change that
deserves more than a minor mod-level update.
And maybe I'm still confused.
sas
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:29 AM Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> wrote:
> David Crayford wrote:
>
> >They're different products. I can't see a convergence as that would be
>
> >a high impact change to customers and would require Metal/C spinning
>
> >off. It's far more likely that XL 2.4.1 and Open XL C/C++ will
>
> >converge.
>
>
>
> Huh, something gave me the impression that 2.4.1 was Open XL C/C++. The
> fact that it looks like a slight update to 2.4 of XL C is, of course, a big
> part of the problem here!
>
>
>
> I would very much like to understand what's what and what's going where
> here, for planning purposes. IBM? Please?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
