> On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Bill Woodger <bill.wood...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Danger of this becoming another ABO thread in disguise :-) > > The question of the testing of ABO is not entirely cultural, or not > necessarily so. Nor necessarily "compliance". There can be a technical basis > on which to make decisions, which cultural and compliance issues may make > moot. I'm keen to poke for the technical basis, of which there are not much > more than hints and generalisations for now :-) > > It's like developing a strain of peas which pick themselves when ready, pack > themselves and stack themselves in boxes on the trailer. So will stick to > "the One True Way to cultivate peas", some will stick to "the only way the > rules allow to cultivate peas". Some will get on with more interesting stuff > whilst the peas look after themselves. That latter group will be small if > there are no detailed instructions on the sacks of seed. > > IBM's intention going forward is that ABO and Enterprise COBOL are a > complimentary package. New ARCH level, new compiler (or PTF to existing > compiler), new ABO. You don't need to recompile everything to use the new > instructions immediately, you can ABO (even perhaps "on the fly"). New > development/maintenance uses the new compiler. "Migration" becomes... > > A cultural and real-world (compliance) impact for sure, but if the technical > basis has no more known grounding than the Witchdoctory One True Way then it > won't happen on any scale.
I personally have been burned way too many times when IBM does things dynamically. I hate getting awakened at 0 dark 30 to debug something like this. Hey it ran fine on system a but it burped when it ran on system c. To add to this sentiment I no longer trust the COBOL and LE people. I have spent so many hours with the LE people we got to be on a first name basis. I thought PSF was bad LE just put them in a last place position. The COBOL people I have had skirmishes with and generally don’t care for their attitude, More than once they came across as condescending. I would rather not have the option of optimizing by machine. The resultant debugging for me was I almost swore I would give up system programming. Ed > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
