I used WYLBUR at Texas A&M University in the early 80's. It worked well enough for undergraduate programmers although it got very slow towards the end of the semester when everybody was trying to finish their final projects. The EXEC facility was pretty slick.
I hated the line editor but didn't know any better. When I got my first real job someone showed me SPF edit and I thought I'd died on gone to heaven. Robert Crawford Abstract Evolutions LLC (210) 913-3822 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:24 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXT] Re: Is the IBM Assembler List still alive - Dumps - Early days You ever work with WYLBUR? Single address space, keeping users from crossing boundaries (RACF, ACF2, Top Secret and WACF). Could edit a library with RECFM=U. So one could keep source there if they wanted. Would, on close compress the PDS to a single extent if it could. Used very low level interfaces for allocation, such that SMS would not even see the file get opened or closed. So I had to finish fixing that so that in an SMS environment, that interface could be turned off (in testing we found we could cause MVS to have to be re-ipled), and then we used SVC99 for all allocations after that (SVC99 takes a lot of resources as I recall). Had its own scripting language, so applications were written to run inside of Wylbur. With the SRB mode, we could read JES2 spool directly (this was a problem, that I was going to fix when I got to implementing SAF.... sigh.) I have forgotten all the stuff that Wylbur did with stack processing, and all so it could handle 250 simultaneous users in one address space. That was another thing I needed to fix. I needed to change Wylbur Paging to use a larger number of pages to accommodate more users. (yes, it did its own paging, and interestingly enough, CICS was following along with what we did so that CICS/TS was doing what we had just done with task management). I absolutely loved working on Wylbur, best job I ever had after Amdahl MDF. Steve Thompson On 9/7/2023 9:15 PM, Leonard D Woren wrote: > Bill Johnson wrote on 9/7/2023 1:05 PM: >> We used to use ROSCOE at a small shop in the 80’s because it used >> less resources. I hated it. > > ROSCOE was one of a collection of TSO alternatives, which were all > junk. TONE, ACEP, Wylbur, maybe more that I don't remember. They all > had 1 two-pronged design goal: except for Wylbur, a PITA in its own > category, allow TSO-like online use without the perceived overhead of > TSO, and also, they would run on systems other than MVS. > > The reason the resource utilization of all of those was lower than TSO > is that it took longer for programmers to get their work done, so the > resource utilization was spread out over more elapsed time, lowering > the apparent resources used in a given elapsed time period, but also > lowering productivity. Something beancounters generally don't factor > because they don't understand it. They liked the fact that a given > set of hardware could support 50 (choose your poison from above) > online users while TSO could support only 25. > > Fortunately, we're way past hardware costing more than people. > > > /Leonard > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
