I guess some sort of answer is:
if you have programs from - say - the 1980s and you have no reason for
changing them - and no business case -
then you probably don't want to change them as long as they run
satisfactorily.
Nowadays it is even trickier ... sometimes I come along some programs
which from my technical point of view
need some maintenance, but the bean counters tell me that I am not
allowed to do it as long as nobody is writing
a ticket for them ... and if I write a ticket myself, it has to go thru
a lot of quality gate checks before I am allowed to
start working on it, mostly done by people, who don't know nothing about
the technical facts ...
this can take weeks and months, and in the end, it may well be refused :-(
It seems to be easier for the top management to complain about the
mainframe being "old and clumsy"
and then trying to replace it by what they consider "modern technology"
... but then I see these migration projects
always failing, which keeps the mainframe running and running and the
mainframe specialists growing older and older.
I'm 64 now, which is young, IMO. My colleagues (still working, for the
same customers) are 73, for example.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 10.12.2023 um 16:06 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
Why does it take so long for people to use new features? HLASM has a lot of
nifty things that have been around and well documented for decades.
A similar question exists for new instructions; how many shops are still
running boxen that don't support the z immediate, long displacement and
relative instructions, e,g.,JC, LARL, LAY?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Peter
Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2023 9:13 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Assembler optimization OPTION
The starting point to almost all of these discussions tends to be to write
reentrant programs (as high level languages naturally produce).
If you must stick with a non-reentrant program, consider the LOCTR directive. If you don't feel like truly moving the
data-defining statements within your program, you can use the LOCTR directive to help to "move" data to a
separate area. You might have an area for your "code" and an area for your "static data" and an
area for your "dynamic data"
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
