Hello all, yes, I know this, but this is the OLD part of the OS. I could not have been done in normal PL/1 because of too much overhead and because of the (too) many features of the language, which prevent effective optimization.
C was designed as a systems programming language, and so you have the possibility to use it for system development. And IBM finally has started to do it this way, and I'm pretty sure, that there has been much testing (and discussions) before this decision. And so I think the author of the article is completely wrong, when he says that the mainframe does not work well with C or so. And my personal observations show the same. Regards Bernd Am Son, 21 Apr 2002 schrieben Sie: > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >One statement struck me as clearly incorrect is the following: > > > >"In contrast, most mainframe control environments, including loadable > >libraries and related systems level applications, are written and > >maintained very close to the hardware -- usually in PL/1 or assembler > >but often with handwritten or at least "tweaked" object code -- ... > > The author is right, almost. If you read "PL/1" > as "PL/S", "PL/AS", "PL/X", or whatever IBM calls > their internal-use-only systems programming language > these days, the comment makes sense and is even correct. > Most mainframe control environments (SCPs) are indeed > written in PL/whatever or Assembler. > > Ross Patterson > Computer Associates
