Careful, Jon, or you'll have the Rustaceans flooding us with "we already did that!"...
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 1:12 PM Jon Perryman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:26:19 +0100, Colin Paice <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >benefit. They found it was best to structure their code and let the PLS > >compiler optimise it - which was generally better than they could. > > Until IBM makes PLS available outside IBM, we must live with the compilers > we are given. Those compilers have major flaws. For instance, I think the > alternative to PLS is HLASM. C has major flaws like memcpy(a, b, 7) calling > a generic program instead understanding the "7" should use MVC instruction. > As an FYI, Cobol recognizes the 7 and handles it appropriately. GO is only > 15 years old but only fixed a few C flaws in it's implementation. As far as > I know, Java also has generic routines. For application programmers, these > languages are acceptable despite their flaws. > > It's time to develop a modern programming language. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Jay Maynard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
