On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:27:28 -0500, John McKown wrote: >This is just for discussion. I am seemingly one of few z/OS sysprogs (et >al.) who view UNIX services as just another set of tools in the box, along >with the "legacy" z/OS tools. E.g. I am just as willing to use "awk" for >something as REXX. But I've noticed that many, my manager included, who >basically avoid any programming other than REXX, and then only "TSO" REXX. >Even when I use UNIX for an "ad hoc" report for myself, my manager is >"unhappy" with it and asks why I don't just use REXX. Why don't I? Well, >for one thing, I like and use Extended Regular Expressions. Oh, wait, those >are evil too. It's just mildly irritating to be shackled to "how I do it". >It's the same attitude that the CIO has -- he doesn't understand z/OS, >doesn't want to learn z/OS, and so z/OS must be eliminated for efficiency >reasons. > o There's some argument from the weight of the toolbox you and your co-workers must tote around.
o Portability? In the broad view, nowadays Legacy OS is more a obstacle than an aid to portability. In the late 1960s, our research project had been using FORTRAN II on a 7090. We switched to a CDC 3600 for economic reasons. (Partly fabricated; our Principal Investigator had political connections from the Manhattan Project and was quite good at shopping around for the cheapest computer time she could cajole from outside agencies.) On the 3600, I began using FORTRAN IV facilities. My immediate supervisor frowned when he saw "IF (boolean-expression) ...", arguing portability. I perceive his reaction as largely future shock. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
