On 17/09/2013 8:12 PM, John McKown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Timothy Sipples <[email protected]> wrote:
Simply put, we *DON'T* have such animals [Java programs on z/OS].
Nor will we in the foreseeable future.
There are no possible business justifications that would lead to
implementing Java programs on z/OS? No matter what the benefits, no matter
what the business requirements your users and customers have, as long as
you're around it'll never happen. Am I understanding you correctly, or am I
misinterpreting you?
Perhaps Ed is just stating what _is_ at his shop. There are a lot of shops
out there, ours included, which are basically "functionally stabilized". A
few years ago, we had some IT management which started a Linux push. Part
of which was using Java instead of .NET on the Windows boxen and in
addition to COBOL on z/OS. They were promptly replaced. Java, in truth or
not, is perceived around here as dead technology. It is also "expensive" in
CPU resources compared to most COBOL programs. Now, one could argue that
with a zIIP and zAAP on zIIP processing, that Java is actually cheaper to
run. But then there is the upgrade cost to add a zIIP processor. Oh, and
we're stuck on a z9BC due to lack of money to go to current technology.
Java as a language is probably considered legacy now. But the original
designers got it right separating the language from the runtime.
There is considerable momentum towards Scala these days and that runs in
the JVM.
We only recently got a zIIP and I've been running some benchmark Java
DB2 workloads. The startup is slow but once it gets going it's
almost as fast as C code (very fast). I was quite surprised. Java is a
fast horse but it needs a couple of laps around the track
to warm up. I wouldn't suggest using it for quick batch jobs but for
long jobs or a server it's good. It does require a lot of memory!
But I'm not arguing against PDSE usage. Most of our application libraries
are PDSEs. Mainly because we're too lazy to do a compress <grin/>. I wish
that I really knew why COBOL 5.1 uses them. I read it had something to do
with "embedded" debugging information. But I guess that I'm out of date on
what can be done with a PDSE (user loadable classes?). I need to delve into
the books more. But that leads to frustration because I know that I will
_never_ see this. For good or ill, this is my final job. Not because I am
ready (personally or financially) to retire. But because no company would
hire me due to my age and health. I'm not real sick, but I'm not as healthy
as I was when I was 30. With health care costs going into low Earth orbit,
I (like the z itself) am simply "too expensive" for all the the largest of
companies. Thanks for the knife in the back, Mr. President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
