date:20230406


Thanks.

This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce 
"classic" load modules,

while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.

With C++ (I guess), this is due to the fact that (writable) static data 
can be initialized not only by
static initializers (which could be implemented by CSECT formatting), 
but by function calls, which
needs init functions called after program load or task creation. So with 
C++, the requirement
for program objects is driven by the language definition. But I'm not 
sure about this.


For COBOL, it is kind of strange, and as I understood, it is only driven 
by some sort of

debugging option which only can be handled by program objects.

The PL/1 compiler group, FWIW, stated that they don't plan to require 
program objects

in the near future.

By the way: NORENT C can produce load modules, too. We still use NORENT 
C generating
load modules (without the compiler options RENT, DLL, LONGNAME). I hope 
that this will
be supported in the future, too ... and that "normal load modules" won't 
go away soon

(I don't think it will be possible).

It would by interesting, again, what PL/X does. Maybe the new fancy 
stuff is only

for the customers :-)

Kind regards

Bernd


Am 06.04.2023 um 00:26 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:

Originally SCEERUN2 contained LE modules that had to be PDS/E while SCEERUN
could be PDS.  Also for PL/I and Fortran only SCEERUN is needed;  Cobol and
C/C++ needs SCEERUN2 as well as SCEERUN.  Finally some of the SCEERUN2
modules had naming conflicts with very old pre-LE runtimes, while SCEERUN
modules did not.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:59 AM Frank Swarbrick 
wrote:


What is the major difference between the SCEERUN and SCEERUN2 libraries?
Is RUN2 for XPLINK and RUN for non-XPLINK?



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: LE runtime

2023-04-06 Thread Frank Swarbrick

The "strange debugging option" for COBOL is, I believe, the ability to store 
the compressed source code data in a NOLOAD segment of a program object; 
something not supported with legacy load modules.  A very useful thing, in my 
opinion.  Much better than having the debug data in a separate module in a 
separate library.

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Bernd Oppolzer 
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: LE runtime

Thanks.

This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
"classic" load modules,
while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.

With C++ (I guess), this is due to the fact that (writable) static data
can be initialized not only by
static initializers (which could be implemented by CSECT formatting),
but by function calls, which
needs init functions called after program load or task creation. So with
C++, the requirement
for program objects is driven by the language definition. But I'm not
sure about this.

For COBOL, it is kind of strange, and as I understood, it is only driven
by some sort of
debugging option which only can be handled by program objects.

The PL/1 compiler group, FWIW, stated that they don't plan to require
program objects
in the near future.

By the way: NORENT C can produce load modules, too. We still use NORENT
C generating
load modules (without the compiler options RENT, DLL, LONGNAME). I hope
that this will
be supported in the future, too ... and that "normal load modules" won't
go away soon
(I don't think it will be possible).

It would by interesting, again, what PL/X does. Maybe the new fancy
stuff is only
for the customers :-)

Kind regards

Bernd

Am 06.04.2023 um 00:26 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:
> Originally SCEERUN2 contained LE modules that had to be PDS/E while SCEERUN
> could be PDS.  Also for PL/I and Fortran only SCEERUN is needed;  Cobol and
> C/C++ needs SCEERUN2 as well as SCEERUN.  Finally some of the SCEERUN2
> modules had naming conflicts with very old pre-LE runtimes, while SCEERUN
> modules did not.
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:59 AM Frank Swarbrick 
> wrote:
>
>> What is the major difference between the SCEERUN and SCEERUN2 libraries?
>> Is RUN2 for XPLINK and RUN for non-XPLINK?
>>

--
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

Re: LE runtime

Are you sure that any of them can directly create load modules or program 
objects? I suspect that they still produce object modules, albeit in a modern 
format, and require, e.g., the Binder, as a final step.

Does anybody remember SQUOZE ?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Frank Swarbrick [frank.swarbr...@outlook.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LE runtime

The "strange debugging option" for COBOL is, I believe, the ability to store 
the compressed source code data in a NOLOAD segment of a program object; 
something not supported with legacy load modules.  A very useful thing, in my 
opinion.  Much better than having the debug data in a separate module in a 
separate library.

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Bernd Oppolzer 
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 1:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: LE runtime

Thanks.

This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
"classic" load modules,
while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.

With C++ (I guess), this is due to the fact that (writable) static data
can be initialized not only by
static initializers (which could be implemented by CSECT formatting),
but by function calls, which
needs init functions called after program load or task creation. So with
C++, the requirement
for program objects is driven by the language definition. But I'm not
sure about this.

For COBOL, it is kind of strange, and as I understood, it is only driven
by some sort of
debugging option which only can be handled by program objects.

The PL/1 compiler group, FWIW, stated that they don't plan to require
program objects
in the near future.

By the way: NORENT C can produce load modules, too. We still use NORENT
C generating
load modules (without the compiler options RENT, DLL, LONGNAME). I hope
that this will
be supported in the future, too ... and that "normal load modules" won't
go away soon
(I don't think it will be possible).

It would by interesting, again, what PL/X does. Maybe the new fancy
stuff is only
for the customers :-)

Kind regards

Bernd

Am 06.04.2023 um 00:26 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:
> Originally SCEERUN2 contained LE modules that had to be PDS/E while SCEERUN
> could be PDS.  Also for PL/I and Fortran only SCEERUN is needed;  Cobol and
> C/C++ needs SCEERUN2 as well as SCEERUN.  Finally some of the SCEERUN2
> modules had naming conflicts with very old pre-LE runtimes, while SCEERUN
> modules did not.
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:59 AM Frank Swarbrick 
> wrote:
>
>> What is the major difference between the SCEERUN and SCEERUN2 libraries?
>> Is RUN2 for XPLINK and RUN for non-XPLINK?
>>

--
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

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: LE runtime

Directly, or via GOFF to Binder?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Bernd Oppolzer [bernd.oppol...@t-online.de]
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LE runtime

Thanks.

This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
"classic" load modules,
while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.

With C++ (I guess), this is due to the fact that (writable) static data
can be initialized not only by
static initializers (which could be implemented by CSECT formatting),
but by function calls, which
needs init functions called after program load or task creation. So with
C++, the requirement
for program objects is driven by the language definition. But I'm not
sure about this.

For COBOL, it is kind of strange, and as I understood, it is only driven
by some sort of
debugging option which only can be handled by program objects.

The PL/1 compiler group, FWIW, stated that they don't plan to require
program objects
in the near future.

By the way: NORENT C can produce load modules, too. We still use NORENT
C generating
load modules (without the compiler options RENT, DLL, LONGNAME). I hope
that this will
be supported in the future, too ... and that "normal load modules" won't
go away soon
(I don't think it will be possible).

It would by interesting, again, what PL/X does. Maybe the new fancy
stuff is only
for the customers :-)

Kind regards

Bernd

Am 06.04.2023 um 00:26 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:
> Originally SCEERUN2 contained LE modules that had to be PDS/E while SCEERUN
> could be PDS.  Also for PL/I and Fortran only SCEERUN is needed;  Cobol and
> C/C++ needs SCEERUN2 as well as SCEERUN.  Finally some of the SCEERUN2
> modules had naming conflicts with very old pre-LE runtimes, while SCEERUN
> modules did not.
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:59 AM Frank Swarbrick 
> wrote:
>
>> What is the major difference between the SCEERUN and SCEERUN2 libraries?
>> Is RUN2 for XPLINK and RUN for non-XPLINK?
>>

--
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

Re: LE runtime

I don't know much about the specific output formats that the compilers 
produce,
but in the installations I know, the Binder is used to produce the load 
modules;
this is necessary because run time objects have to be linked together 
with the

output coming from the compiler.

In my historic MVS environment, I see that the compiler output is recfm 
FB 80;
the well known ESD - RLD - TXT format. Don't know if this is still in 
use today (in modern
environments). The record format of the load libraries is something like 
U 19069

(valid until today, AFAIK).

GOFF, AFAIK, is a more modern output format ... don't know if this applies
to the PL/1 and C compilers and to the output of the compilers in general
(and input to the linkers or binders).

BTW: I didn't say "strange debugging option"; what is strange IMO is the 
fact
that COBOL requires the modules in PDSEs not because the language needs 
this,
but only to support some debugging tools, which could IMO store their 
information

at another place. But the COBOL community seems to have accepted this move.

Kind regards

Bernd


Am 06.04.2023 um 14:25 schrieb Seymour J Metz:

Directly, or via GOFF to Binder?


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Bernd Oppolzer [bernd.oppol...@t-online.de]
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LE runtime

Thanks.

This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
"classic" load modules,
while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.

With C++ (I guess), this is due to the fact that (writable) static data
can be initialized not only by
static initializers (which could be implemented by CSECT formatting),
but by function calls, which
needs init functions called after program load or task creation. So with
C++, the requirement
for program objects is driven by the language definition. But I'm not
sure about this.

For COBOL, it is kind of strange, and as I understood, it is only driven
by some sort of
debugging option which only can be handled by program objects.

The PL/1 compiler group, FWIW, stated that they don't plan to require
program objects
in the near future.

By the way: NORENT C can produce load modules, too. We still use NORENT
C generating
load modules (without the compiler options RENT, DLL, LONGNAME). I hope
that this will
be supported in the future, too ... and that "normal load modules" won't
go away soon
(I don't think it will be possible).

It would by interesting, again, what PL/X does. Maybe the new fancy
stuff is only
for the customers :-)

Kind regards

Bernd


Am 06.04.2023 um 00:26 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:

Originally SCEERUN2 contained LE modules that had to be PDS/E while SCEERUN
could be PDS.  Also for PL/I and Fortran only SCEERUN is needed;  Cobol and
C/C++ needs SCEERUN2 as well as SCEERUN.  Finally some of the SCEERUN2
modules had naming conflicts with very old pre-LE runtimes, while SCEERUN
modules did not.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:59 AM Frank Swarbrick 
wrote:


What is the major difference between the SCEERUN and SCEERUN2 libraries?
Is RUN2 for XPLINK and RUN for non-XPLINK?


--
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


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary Kildall

2023-04-06 Thread Schmitt, Michael

Then what do you call the current version?

For example, z/OS 2.4 LE module CEEBINT was compiled on 3/12/2019 with a 
compiler identification string of "PL/X-390" v2.4, which I assumed meant that 
it was compiled with PL/X 390.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

I remember IBM charging and then refunding for PartnerWorld.

I passed on PLX: did not see committing to an unsupported language that might 
be withdrawn at any time (as it was).

IBM should open source PL/X 390. Hardly would give away their secret sauce at 
this point! PL/X 390 -- not current PL/X whatever it is called.

Charles

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 22:05:34 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:

>On 4/4/2023 10:09 AM, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
>> The language I'd be interested in is PL/X 390.
>
>
>
>~1992 (don't hold me to that date), IBM announced that PartnerWorld was now
>pay-to-play, $5K/year. We gritted our teeth and ponied up. One of the
>benefits of the new scheme was that you could now get PL/X! So I asked for
>it, got a nice minireel.
>
>
>
>A few months later, they changed their minds. I got to go to my VP with a
>good news/bad news story, and they were the same piece of news: IBM was
>refunding.most of our money. Seems POK had to pay RAL for the PL/X license,
>which they couldn't get back, so they took it out of our $5K.

--
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

Re: JCL EXEC PARM= default?

I've always seen cut&past used as a generic term for both C-C/C-V and C-X/C-V.

I find the relevant material in the manual, copy the URL from the URL line, and 
manually type the fragment.





From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 2:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: JCL EXEC PARM= default?

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 17:51:22 +, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

>Yes.
>
>Cut and paste.
>
"Cut" (ITYM "Copy") from where?  (I'm trying do decide whether it's
worth an RCF to ibmd...@us.ibm.com)

>
>From: Paul Gilmartin
>Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 1:04 PM
>
>On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:48:35 +, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>
>>The fragment page= is the normal way to request a specific page within a PDF, 
>>but the number is the sequential page within the PDF rather than the number 
>>on the page. Your PDF viewer should show you that number.
>>
>When you click (with what viewer?) on the URL you posted, does it actually open
>a PDF document to that page?
>
>What tool generated that URL?

>>On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 16:16:33 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>
>>>

--
gil

--
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

Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary Kildall

2023-04-06 Thread Phil Smith III

Schmitt, Michael asked, re PL/X:
>Then what do you call the current version?

 

Looks like PL/X might still be the name, though this is hardly a very
complete page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PL/S


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary Kildall

Where does PL/8 (for 801) fit in the timeline. Could anybody add that to the 
article, preferably with citations?

Thanks.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Phil Smith III 
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

Schmitt, Michael asked, re PL/X:
>Then what do you call the current version?



Looks like PL/X might still be the name, though this is hardly a very
complete page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PL/S


--
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

Re: JCL EXEC PARM= default?

2023-04-06 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:01:24 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:

>I've always seen cut&past used as a generic term for both C-C/C-V and C-X/C-V.
>
I'll be pedantic.  "cut" deletes the selected string.

>I find the relevant material in the manual, copy the URL from the URL line, 
>and manually type the fragment.
>
Ah!  So you did *not* click on/copy from the hyperlink from the JCLRef. to the
Services Gulde.  When I do that, depending on viewer (the best I have is
Firefox), I get:
   


which gives:  HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request

-- 
Thanks,
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: JCL EXEC PARM= default?

Yes, I have had issues using copy link, and find it more reliable and then copy 
from the URL field. Also, I edit the domain name to make it generic, e.g., 
www-40 to www.

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: JCL EXEC PARM= default?

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:01:24 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:

>I've always seen cut&past used as a generic term for both C-C/C-V and C-X/C-V.
>
I'll be pedantic.  "cut" deletes the selected string.

>I find the relevant material in the manual, copy the URL from the URL line, 
>and manually type the fragment.
>
Ah!  So you did *not* click on/copy from the hyperlink from the JCLRef. to the
Services Gulde.  When I do that, depending on viewer (the best I have is
Firefox), I get:

which gives:  HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request

--
Thanks,
gil

--
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

REXX/COBOL conversion question

2023-04-06 Thread Allan Staller

Classification: Confidential
I have the following:

COBOL:
05 FR-KWY PIC X(12).
IF FR-KEY=SPACES
  MOVE..

REXX:
IF fr_key = ' ' THEN
  Move..

Are these 2 statements equivalent? I suspect REXX will do a 1 -by compare vs. a 
12 byte compare for COBOL.

Can anyone confirm?

Thanks in advance,

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

A compare using = adds trailing blanks; use == if you need an exact match.

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Allan Staller <0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 10:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: REXX/COBOL conversion question

Classification: Confidential
I have the following:

COBOL:
05 FR-KWY PIC X(12).
IF FR-KEY=SPACES
  MOVE..

REXX:
IF fr_key = ' ' THEN
  Move..

Are these 2 statements equivalent? I suspect REXX will do a 1 -by compare vs. a 
12 byte compare for COBOL.

Can anyone confirm?

Thanks in advance,

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.

--
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

Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary Kildall

2023-04-06 Thread Schmitt, Michael

On my system I can find programs compiled with:

PL/S II
PL/AS
PL/S III
PL/AS FT
PL/X 370
PL/X 390

And it looks like the current version is "zPLX" 3.2.1, compiled 6/6/2021.

I'm guessing this is PL/X for z/OS.


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 8:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

Then what do you call the current version?

For example, z/OS 2.4 LE module CEEBINT was compiled on 3/12/2019 with a 
compiler identification string of "PL/X-390" v2.4, which I assumed meant that 
it was compiled with PL/X 390.



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

I remember IBM charging and then refunding for PartnerWorld.

I passed on PLX: did not see committing to an unsupported language that might 
be withdrawn at any time (as it was).

IBM should open source PL/X 390. Hardly would give away their secret sauce at 
this point! PL/X 390 -- not current PL/X whatever it is called.

Charles

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 22:05:34 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:

>On 4/4/2023 10:09 AM, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
>> The language I'd be interested in is PL/X 390.
>
>
>
>~1992 (don't hold me to that date), IBM announced that PartnerWorld was now
>pay-to-play, $5K/year. We gritted our teeth and ponied up. One of the
>benefits of the new scheme was that you could now get PL/X! So I asked for
>it, got a nice minireel.
>
>
>
>A few months later, they changed their minds. I got to go to my VP with a
>good news/bad news story, and they were the same piece of news: IBM was
>refunding.most of our money. Seems POK had to pay RAL for the PL/X license,
>which they couldn't get back, so they took it out of our $5K.

--
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




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary Kildall

2023-04-06 Thread Farley, Peter

I've suspected for a long time that part of the continuing "closed" decision 
for the PL/* family of language compilers is that more recent versions may 
include facilities/capabilities at the millicode-level which if opened to the 
world would then expose "too much" of IBM's hardware IP.

That is rampant speculation of course, and I would not expect IBM to admit or 
deny it.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

On my system I can find programs compiled with:

PL/S II
PL/AS
PL/S III
PL/AS FT
PL/X 370
PL/X 390

And it looks like the current version is "zPLX" 3.2.1, compiled 6/6/2021.

I'm guessing this is PL/X for z/OS.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 8:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

Then what do you call the current version?

For example, z/OS 2.4 LE module CEEBINT was compiled on 3/12/2019 with a 
compiler identification string of "PL/X-390" v2.4, which I assumed meant that 
it was compiled with PL/X 390.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

I remember IBM charging and then refunding for PartnerWorld.

I passed on PLX: did not see committing to an unsupported language that might 
be withdrawn at any time (as it was).

IBM should open source PL/X 390. Hardly would give away their secret sauce at 
this point! PL/X 390 -- not current PL/X whatever it is called.

Charles

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 22:05:34 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:

>On 4/4/2023 10:09 AM, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
>> The language I'd be interested in is PL/X 390.
>
>~1992 (don't hold me to that date), IBM announced that PartnerWorld was 
>now pay-to-play, $5K/year. We gritted our teeth and ponied up. One of 
>the benefits of the new scheme was that you could now get PL/X! So I 
>asked for it, got a nice minireel.
>
>A few months later, they changed their minds. I got to go to my VP with 
>a good news/bad news story, and they were the same piece of news: IBM 
>was refunding.most of our money. Seems POK had to pay RAL for the PL/X 
>license, which they couldn't get back, so they took it out of our $5K.
--

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary Kildall

Well, IBM recently sued Micro Focus for allegedly trying to reverse engineer 
IBM’s software. Why make it easier?

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 11:33 AM, Farley, Peter 
<031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

I've suspected for a long time that part of the continuing "closed" decision 
for the PL/* family of language compilers is that more recent versions may 
include facilities/capabilities at the millicode-level which if opened to the 
world would then expose "too much" of IBM's hardware IP.

That is rampant speculation of course, and I would not expect IBM to admit or 
deny it.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

On my system I can find programs compiled with:

PL/S II
PL/AS
PL/S III
PL/AS FT
PL/X 370
PL/X 390

And it looks like the current version is "zPLX" 3.2.1, compiled 6/6/2021.

I'm guessing this is PL/X for z/OS.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Schmitt, Michael
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 8:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

Then what do you call the current version?

For example, z/OS 2.4 LE module CEEBINT was compiled on 3/12/2019 with a 
compiler identification string of "PL/X-390" v2.4, which I assumed meant that 
it was compiled with PL/X 390.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Fascinating Interview with Steve Jobs [non-mainframe] - now Gary 
Kildall

I remember IBM charging and then refunding for PartnerWorld.

I passed on PLX: did not see committing to an unsupported language that might 
be withdrawn at any time (as it was).

IBM should open source PL/X 390. Hardly would give away their secret sauce at 
this point! PL/X 390 -- not current PL/X whatever it is called.

Charles

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 22:05:34 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:

>On 4/4/2023 10:09 AM, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
>> The language I'd be interested in is PL/X 390.
>
>~1992 (don't hold me to that date), IBM announced that PartnerWorld was 
>now pay-to-play, $5K/year. We gritted our teeth and ponied up. One of 
>the benefits of the new scheme was that you could now get PL/X! So I 
>asked for it, got a nice minireel.
>
>A few months later, they changed their minds. I got to go to my VP with 
>a good news/bad news story, and they were the same piece of news: IBM 
>was refunding.most of our money. Seems POK had to pay RAL for the PL/X 
>license, which they couldn't get back, so they took it out of our $5K.
--

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.

--
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

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

2023-04-06 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:04:19 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:

>A compare using = adds trailing blanks; use == if you need an exact match.
>
Trailing and/or leading.

"=" has a very lenient criterion of numeric equality:
"say 2 = ' 200e-2  '"
1

"==" gives better performance (empirically).

-- 
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

2023-04-06 Thread Warren Brown

 Allen:  This is Warren Brown.  Do you remember working with me?
Warren 
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:58:29 AM EDT, Allan Staller 
<0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:  
 
 Classification: Confidential
I have the following:

COBOL:
05 FR-KWY PIC X(12).
IF FR-KEY=SPACES
              MOVE..

REXX:
IF fr_key = ' ' THEN
              Move..

Are these 2 statements equivalent? I suspect REXX will do a 1 -by compare vs. a 
12 byte compare for COBOL.

Can anyone confirm?

Thanks in advance,

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


--
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

Re: JCL EXEC PARM= default?

2023-04-06 Thread Peter Relson

Gil asked if the location linked to by Shmuel is the right place for the doc
about the case of no PARM.

To be clear, that location is here:
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=list-program-in-primary-asc-mode
within the assembler services guide linkage conventions section.

This is the right place. But only because the place you'd look (the JCL book's
definition for PARM and PARMDD) links to it. We don't want the information in
multiple places, and the linkage conventions section is a good place for it to
land.
Thanks to the question, we noticed that the links from PARM and PARMDD are not
the same (PARM's link gets you to the book itself with no information about
where in the book - I hate that). PARMDD's link gets you to the containing
section
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=conventions-passing-information-through-parameter-list

That's a lot better because it's a lot closer. At a minimum, we'll update the
two to be consistent.

If I were guiding someone to this area, in words, I'd say go to the assembler
services guide's section for conventions for passing information through a
parameter list, and then to the subsection for a program in primary ASC mode.
I'd have the link be to that specific section. I don't know if the link'ing
functionality works that way, but that's my goal anyway.

Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

2023-04-06 Thread ITschak Mugzach

The variable is defined at level 05 so it is probably part of a structure
(group item in terms of cobol). You must maintain the copect length. For
example xxx = copies(' ',12).

Btw, the compare is ok and will work same as in cobol.
Best
ITschak

בתאריך יום ה׳, 6 באפר׳ 2023 ב-17:58 מאת Allan Staller <
0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>:

> Classification: Confidential
> I have the following:
>
> COBOL:
> 05 FR-KWY PIC X(12).
> IF FR-KEY=SPACES
>   MOVE..
>
> REXX:
> IF fr_key = ' ' THEN
>   Move..
>
> Are these 2 statements equivalent? I suspect REXX will do a 1 -by compare
> vs. a 12 byte compare for COBOL.
>
> Can anyone confirm?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> ::DISCLAIMER::
> 
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and
> intended for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain
> viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or without
> referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator
> or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this
> email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the
> views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction,
> dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or
> publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized
> representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before
> opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and
> other defects.
> 
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring
for z/OS, x/Linux & IBM I **| z/VM coming soon  *

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

Yes to both. I rarely use ==, has = almost always has the semantics I want.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 12:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:04:19 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:

>A compare using = adds trailing blanks; use == if you need an exact match.
>
Trailing and/or leading.

"=" has a very lenient criterion of numeric equality:
"say 2 = ' 200e-2  '"
1

"==" gives better performance (empirically).

--
gil

--
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

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

Why? Unless you use a strict (==) compare REXX will add trailing blanks.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
ITschak Mugzach [imugz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 12:22 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

The variable is defined at level 05 so it is probably part of a structure
(group item in terms of cobol). You must maintain the copect length. For
example xxx = copies(' ',12).

Btw, the compare is ok and will work same as in cobol.
Best
ITschak

בתאריך יום ה׳, 6 באפר׳ 2023 ב-17:58 מאת Allan Staller <
0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>:

> Classification: Confidential
> I have the following:
>
> COBOL:
> 05 FR-KWY PIC X(12).
> IF FR-KEY=SPACES
>   MOVE..
>
> REXX:
> IF fr_key = ' ' THEN
>   Move..
>
> Are these 2 statements equivalent? I suspect REXX will do a 1 -by compare
> vs. a 12 byte compare for COBOL.
>
> Can anyone confirm?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> ::DISCLAIMER::
> 
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and
> intended for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain
> viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or without
> referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator
> or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this
> email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the
> views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction,
> dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or
> publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized
> representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before
> opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and
> other defects.
> 
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring
for z/OS, x/Linux & IBM I **| z/VM coming soon  *

--
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

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

2023-04-06 Thread Rupert Reynolds

The "principle of least astonishment" works well for me in Rexx, although I
confess it took a while to make the best of it :-)

Yes, I checked in ooRexx and in the docs for Regina:-

Comparison with = is case-sensitive and leading/trailing blanks are
stripped and/or added. So ("" = "") evaluates to true.

Compare() is different--shorter string is padded on the right (with blanks
by default), but leading and trailing blanks are compared.

I wrote the proof-of-concept bytecode interpreter for my toy language
project in Rexx, and its rich text handling and arbitrary precision
arithmetic far outweighed its other quirks. 200-digit logarithms, anyone?
:-)

Roops
P.S. Most Rexx peops end up with something like dorexx.rex:-
/* Rexx to noodle about.
 Enter EXIT to quit */
do forever
  parse pull stuff
  interpret stuff
end

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023, 18:05 Seymour J Metz,  wrote:

> Why? Unless you use a strict (==) compare REXX will add trailing blanks.
>
>
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

It's a bit worse with ooRexx; by the time I learn the ins and outs of all of 
the classes they will have added more. Once you get used to it, it's hard to 
live without it.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Rupert Reynolds [rreyno...@cix.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:01 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX/COBOL conversion question

The "principle of least astonishment" works well for me in Rexx, although I
confess it took a while to make the best of it :-)

Yes, I checked in ooRexx and in the docs for Regina:-

Comparison with = is case-sensitive and leading/trailing blanks are
stripped and/or added. So ("" = "") evaluates to true.

Compare() is different--shorter string is padded on the right (with blanks
by default), but leading and trailing blanks are compared.

I wrote the proof-of-concept bytecode interpreter for my toy language
project in Rexx, and its rich text handling and arbitrary precision
arithmetic far outweighed its other quirks. 200-digit logarithms, anyone?
:-)

Roops
P.S. Most Rexx peops end up with something like dorexx.rex:-
/* Rexx to noodle about.
 Enter EXIT to quit */
do forever
  parse pull stuff
  interpret stuff
end

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023, 18:05 Seymour J Metz,  wrote:

> Why? Unless you use a strict (==) compare REXX will add trailing blanks.
>
>
>

--
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

Re: JCL EXEC PARM= default?

2023-04-06 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 16:16:24 +, Peter Relson wrote:

>Gil asked if the location linked to by Shmuel is the right place for the doc 
>about the case of no PARM.
>
>... We don't want the information in multiple places, 
>
Usually I agree rather strongly with that principle.  It makes maintenance
of the document more robust with less effort and spares the user the
chore of reading multiple very similar descriptions, looking for minute
differences.  However ...

> and the linkage conventions section is a good place for it to land.
>
There's a joke that says, "A bore is a person who, if asked 'what time
is it?' would start telling you how to build a clock!"  For programmers
who want only to know what is the effect on their programs when
PARM= is omitted, Shmuel gave the right answer, "empty string".
Such people don't care about "linkage conventions" or the construction
of clocks.

The Services Guide says, "If the PARM field was omitted in the EXEC
statement, the count is set to zero."  If it further added the phrase,
"as if PARM=''" had been coded," I'd have to agree (grudgingly) the
right information for the target audience was provided, but in the
wrong place.  It belongs in the JCL Ref.

As for the RCF on function as opposed to content, the hyperlink
(anchor) on the HTML page works for me, as I suspect it does for you.
Can you use the hyperlink in the PDF document?  For me, it gives
""HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request".  Does it work for anyone, with any
viewer?  If so, it's an SR for my viewer(s).  If not, it's an RCF for
Tech Dcs.

-- 
Thanks for your investigation,
gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM z16 Model A02 Announcement

2023-04-06 Thread Alan Altmark

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 20:23:21 +, Enzo D'Amato  
wrote:

>I think that it's very good that we now have something like the multiprise 
>3000 back again. I think having smaller systems available for the "mainframe 
>curious" will help a lot in getting new companies on the platform.

It's not a new concept, Enzo.  IBM has always had models at the low end, and 
this is the 3rd generation in a row to be available in a 19-inch form factor 
(rack mount).

Alan Altmark
IBM

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM z16 Model A02 Announcement

2023-04-06 Thread Pew, Curtis G

On Apr 6, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Alan Altmark 
mailto:alan_altm...@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

It's not a new concept, Enzo.  IBM has always had models at the low end, and 
this is the 3rd generation in a row to be available in a 19-inch form factor 
(rack mount).

But isn’t it the first time IBM is advertising “you can put it in your own 
rack”? The z14 ZR1 and z15 came in 19” racks, but you had to use the one from 
IBM that came with the system.


--
Curtis Pew
ITS Campus Solutions
curtis@austin.utexas.edu




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM z16 Model A02 Announcement

2023-04-06 Thread Mike Schwab

At least it was a rack you could put next to your other racks.
Previously you had to have a stand alone area.  And doing the half
rack allows you to install a small disk system for a 1 rack mainframe
and disk.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 2:28 PM Pew, Curtis G
 wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Alan Altmark 
> mailto:alan_altm...@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
> It's not a new concept, Enzo.  IBM has always had models at the low end, and 
> this is the 3rd generation in a row to be available in a 19-inch form factor 
> (rack mount).
>
> But isn’t it the first time IBM is advertising “you can put it in your own 
> rack”? The z14 ZR1 and z15 came in 19” racks, but you had to use the one from 
> IBM that came with the system.
>
>
> --
> Curtis Pew
> ITS Campus Solutions
> curtis@austin.utexas.edu
>
>
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



-- 
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM z16 Model A02 Announcement

2023-04-06 Thread Tom Brennan

That's how I see it: the ability to add a switch or disk or R42 or 
whatever to the unused space.  But someone I work with brought up 
another possibility, that it could make non-mainframe Linux folks feel 
more at home with the hardware.


The 19" racks sure look a lot nicer in a datacenter.  I was at one a few 
weeks ago with nice neat lines of 19" racks heading off to the horizon, 
but in the middle a few z14's were poking their big doors out into the 
aisle.  One z14 was then replaced with a z16, which unfortunately left a 
hole.  But hey, that can now be used as a shortcut between the long aisles.


On 4/6/2023 12:35 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:

At least it was a rack you could put next to your other racks.
Previously you had to have a stand alone area.  And doing the half
rack allows you to install a small disk system for a 1 rack mainframe
and disk.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 2:28 PM Pew, Curtis G
 wrote:


On Apr 6, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Alan Altmark 
mailto:alan_altm...@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

It's not a new concept, Enzo.  IBM has always had models at the low end, and 
this is the 3rd generation in a row to be available in a 19-inch form factor 
(rack mount).

But isn’t it the first time IBM is advertising “you can put it in your own 
rack”? The z14 ZR1 and z15 came in 19” racks, but you had to use the one from 
IBM that came with the system.


--
Curtis Pew
ITS Campus Solutions
curtis@austin.utexas.edu




--
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

Re: IBM z16 Model A02 Announcement

2023-04-06 Thread Tony Thigpen

When we were looking at a DS8k, it was cheaper to buy it in the rack vs. 
buying the model you could install into the gap in the new z 19-inch 
rack CPU. I wonder if the same will be true for the z16?


Tony Thigpen

Tom Brennan wrote on 4/6/23 16:45:
That's how I see it: the ability to add a switch or disk or R42 or 
whatever to the unused space.  But someone I work with brought up 
another possibility, that it could make non-mainframe Linux folks feel 
more at home with the hardware.


The 19" racks sure look a lot nicer in a datacenter.  I was at one a few 
weeks ago with nice neat lines of 19" racks heading off to the horizon, 
but in the middle a few z14's were poking their big doors out into the 
aisle.  One z14 was then replaced with a z16, which unfortunately left a 
hole.  But hey, that can now be used as a shortcut between the long aisles.


On 4/6/2023 12:35 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:

At least it was a rack you could put next to your other racks.
Previously you had to have a stand alone area.  And doing the half
rack allows you to install a small disk system for a 1 rack mainframe
and disk.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 2:28 PM Pew, Curtis G
 wrote:


On Apr 6, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Alan Altmark 
mailto:alan_altm...@us.ibm.com>> wrote:


It's not a new concept, Enzo.  IBM has always had models at the low 
end, and this is the 3rd generation in a row to be available in a 
19-inch form factor (rack mount).


But isn’t it the first time IBM is advertising “you can put it in 
your own rack”? The z14 ZR1 and z15 came in 19” racks, but you had to 
use the one from IBM that came with the system.



--
Curtis Pew
ITS Campus Solutions
curtis@austin.utexas.edu




--
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


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

> On 5 Apr 2023, at 11:20, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> I remember this.
> David Crayford said:
> ”I'm calling BS. None of the challenger banks (Startling, Yolt, Monzo, 
> Moneze, N26 etc) run mainframes. They have millions of customers and are 
> gaining millions by the week at the expense of traditional banks.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response
> 
> Most of those “banks” aren’t banks and most of them are kaput.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How’s those challenger banks doing?
> YOLT = owned by ING (who runs a mainframe) is being shut down.MONZO = CEO 
> jumped ship. Not going well.N26 = pulled out of the US.

ING moved off the mainframe a couple of years ago. 


> MONEZE = actually spelled MONESE. Doesn’t look like they are replacing JP 
> Morgan any time soon.STARLING = tiny barely staying viable.
> Many are charging fees now. Amazing that investors always want some revenue 
> (and eventually profit) to justify the investment.
> Having millions of mostly poor customers isn’t exactly a booming business 
> model.
> So I’ll repeat. 95% of banks use the mainframe. Not these fake banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:33 PM, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> You said internet banking was going to destroy large banks. How’s that 
> working out?
> Microfocus COBOL isn’t regular COBOL. And is a tiny fraction of the COBOL 
> market.
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:26 PM, David Crayford  
> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/3/23 22:07, Bill Johnson wrote:
>> +1
>> About a year or so ago I posted about the number of lines of COBOL code in 
>> use worldwide and stated COBOL was going to be the language of choice for 
>> many decades to come. Estimates say 800 billion lines (and growing) in use 
>> today. As usual, I was attacked for my fact based opinion. 
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-how-much-cobol-code-is-out-there-the-answer-might-surprise-you/
> 
> Facts! You've quoted an article from the internet!
> 
> "The study, commissioned by IT company Micro Focus and conducted by 
> research and analysis firm Vanson Bourne"
> 
> Micro Focus is a vendor who hawks COBOL compilers and IDE's. It's a bit 
> like McDonalds commissioning research on the health benefits of Big Mac's.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 1:56 AM, Farley, Peter 
>> <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I am getting increasingly tired of snide or outright dismissive references 
>> to COBOL and by extension to COBOL programmers.
>> 
>> Programmers like me.
>> 
>> Yes, I am also well versed in HLASM, Rexx, awk and gawk, somewhat facile in 
>> SORT (at least as far as knowing and using JOIN's), SQL, JCL and various 
>> other z/OS utilities, MetalC, and lately python and bash scripting.  I even 
>> remember some of the PL/I and Fortran and Pascal I used in college and my 
>> early employment days.  I even remember some SNOBOL, which I actually got to 
>> use productively at a then-major NY bank very early in my career.
>> 
>> COBOL pays my bills and keeps my employer operating successfully and 
>> profitably.
>> 
>> COBOL does NOT rot the brain.  Alcohol and various other legal and illegal 
>> substances can, in fact, do that.  Intelligently devising business solutions 
>> to business problems in ANY computer language does NOT rot the brain.
>> 
>> It is not funny or acceptable to say so.  It never was.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>> Paul Gilmartin
>> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 8:14 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ASM call by value
>> 
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:18:49 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> In COBOL, for example, the following end up doing the same thing.
>>> 
>> Do not use CO BOL as an exemplar of programming discipline.  Cobol rots the 
>> brain.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
>> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. 
>> If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized 
>> representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
>> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail 
>> and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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...@l

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

ING isn’t a bank either. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 5:59 PM, David Crayford  wrote:

> On 5 Apr 2023, at 11:20, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> I remember this.
> David Crayford said:
> ”I'm calling BS. None of the challenger banks (Startling, Yolt, Monzo, 
> Moneze, N26 etc) run mainframes. They have millions of customers and are 
> gaining millions by the week at the expense of traditional banks.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response
> 
> Most of those “banks” aren’t banks and most of them are kaput.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How’s those challenger banks doing?
> YOLT = owned by ING (who runs a mainframe) is being shut down.MONZO = CEO 
> jumped ship. Not going well.N26 = pulled out of the US.

ING moved off the mainframe a couple of years ago. 


> MONEZE = actually spelled MONESE. Doesn’t look like they are replacing JP 
> Morgan any time soon.STARLING = tiny barely staying viable.
> Many are charging fees now. Amazing that investors always want some revenue 
> (and eventually profit) to justify the investment.
> Having millions of mostly poor customers isn’t exactly a booming business 
> model.
> So I’ll repeat. 95% of banks use the mainframe. Not these fake banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:33 PM, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> You said internet banking was going to destroy large banks. How’s that 
> working out?
> Microfocus COBOL isn’t regular COBOL. And is a tiny fraction of the COBOL 
> market.
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:26 PM, David Crayford  
> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/3/23 22:07, Bill Johnson wrote:
>> +1
>> About a year or so ago I posted about the number of lines of COBOL code in 
>> use worldwide and stated COBOL was going to be the language of choice for 
>> many decades to come. Estimates say 800 billion lines (and growing) in use 
>> today. As usual, I was attacked for my fact based opinion. 
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-how-much-cobol-code-is-out-there-the-answer-might-surprise-you/
> 
> Facts! You've quoted an article from the internet!
> 
> "The study, commissioned by IT company Micro Focus and conducted by 
> research and analysis firm Vanson Bourne"
> 
> Micro Focus is a vendor who hawks COBOL compilers and IDE's. It's a bit 
> like McDonalds commissioning research on the health benefits of Big Mac's.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 1:56 AM, Farley, Peter 
>> <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I am getting increasingly tired of snide or outright dismissive references 
>> to COBOL and by extension to COBOL programmers.
>> 
>> Programmers like me.
>> 
>> Yes, I am also well versed in HLASM, Rexx, awk and gawk, somewhat facile in 
>> SORT (at least as far as knowing and using JOIN's), SQL, JCL and various 
>> other z/OS utilities, MetalC, and lately python and bash scripting.  I even 
>> remember some of the PL/I and Fortran and Pascal I used in college and my 
>> early employment days.  I even remember some SNOBOL, which I actually got to 
>> use productively at a then-major NY bank very early in my career.
>> 
>> COBOL pays my bills and keeps my employer operating successfully and 
>> profitably.
>> 
>> COBOL does NOT rot the brain.  Alcohol and various other legal and illegal 
>> substances can, in fact, do that.  Intelligently devising business solutions 
>> to business problems in ANY computer language does NOT rot the brain.
>> 
>> It is not funny or acceptable to say so.  It never was.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>> Paul Gilmartin
>> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 8:14 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ASM call by value
>> 
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:18:49 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> In COBOL, for example, the following end up doing the same thing.
>>> 
>> Do not use CO BOL as an exemplar of programming discipline.  Cobol rots the 
>> brain.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
>> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. 
>> If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized 
>> representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
>> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail 
>> and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

Here’s some comments from the ING CEO. From 2016.

Speaking to The Register, he confirmed the finance giant still ran mainframes: 
“You won’t find a bank without a mainframe, unless recently established.”

But, he continued, “We are extremely aggressively moving away from them.”

This was not because “a mainframe in itself is a bad technology. It’s maybe one 
of the most virtualised environments ever invented, even before the whole 
hypervisor was there.”

"Intrinsically," he said, "there’s two problems. [Firstly] They’re not 
real-time in their connectivity."

***

Utter BS.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 5:59 PM, David Crayford  wrote:

> On 5 Apr 2023, at 11:20, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> I remember this.
> David Crayford said:
> ”I'm calling BS. None of the challenger banks (Startling, Yolt, Monzo, 
> Moneze, N26 etc) run mainframes. They have millions of customers and are 
> gaining millions by the week at the expense of traditional banks.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response
> 
> Most of those “banks” aren’t banks and most of them are kaput.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How’s those challenger banks doing?
> YOLT = owned by ING (who runs a mainframe) is being shut down.MONZO = CEO 
> jumped ship. Not going well.N26 = pulled out of the US.

ING moved off the mainframe a couple of years ago. 


> MONEZE = actually spelled MONESE. Doesn’t look like they are replacing JP 
> Morgan any time soon.STARLING = tiny barely staying viable.
> Many are charging fees now. Amazing that investors always want some revenue 
> (and eventually profit) to justify the investment.
> Having millions of mostly poor customers isn’t exactly a booming business 
> model.
> So I’ll repeat. 95% of banks use the mainframe. Not these fake banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:33 PM, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> You said internet banking was going to destroy large banks. How’s that 
> working out?
> Microfocus COBOL isn’t regular COBOL. And is a tiny fraction of the COBOL 
> market.
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:26 PM, David Crayford  
> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/3/23 22:07, Bill Johnson wrote:
>> +1
>> About a year or so ago I posted about the number of lines of COBOL code in 
>> use worldwide and stated COBOL was going to be the language of choice for 
>> many decades to come. Estimates say 800 billion lines (and growing) in use 
>> today. As usual, I was attacked for my fact based opinion. 
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-how-much-cobol-code-is-out-there-the-answer-might-surprise-you/
> 
> Facts! You've quoted an article from the internet!
> 
> "The study, commissioned by IT company Micro Focus and conducted by 
> research and analysis firm Vanson Bourne"
> 
> Micro Focus is a vendor who hawks COBOL compilers and IDE's. It's a bit 
> like McDonalds commissioning research on the health benefits of Big Mac's.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 1:56 AM, Farley, Peter 
>> <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I am getting increasingly tired of snide or outright dismissive references 
>> to COBOL and by extension to COBOL programmers.
>> 
>> Programmers like me.
>> 
>> Yes, I am also well versed in HLASM, Rexx, awk and gawk, somewhat facile in 
>> SORT (at least as far as knowing and using JOIN's), SQL, JCL and various 
>> other z/OS utilities, MetalC, and lately python and bash scripting.  I even 
>> remember some of the PL/I and Fortran and Pascal I used in college and my 
>> early employment days.  I even remember some SNOBOL, which I actually got to 
>> use productively at a then-major NY bank very early in my career.
>> 
>> COBOL pays my bills and keeps my employer operating successfully and 
>> profitably.
>> 
>> COBOL does NOT rot the brain.  Alcohol and various other legal and illegal 
>> substances can, in fact, do that.  Intelligently devising business solutions 
>> to business problems in ANY computer language does NOT rot the brain.
>> 
>> It is not funny or acceptable to say so.  It never was.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>> Paul Gilmartin
>> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 8:14 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ASM call by value
>> 
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:18:49 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> In COBOL, for example, the following end up doing the same thing.
>>> 
>> Do not use CO BOL as an exemplar of programming discipline.  Cobol rots the 
>> brain.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
>> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. 
>> If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized 
>> representati

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

2023-04-06 Thread René Jansen

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.

> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> ING isn’t a bank either. 
> 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

The know it all took a few days for this. ING is partially a bank but they 
still shut down their challenger “quasi bank” YOLT. And the other challenger 
“banks” are struggling. Funny how that happens when the cost of money 
increases. And investors want profits and returns for their investments. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 5:59 PM, David Crayford  wrote:

> On 5 Apr 2023, at 11:20, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> I remember this.
> David Crayford said:
> ”I'm calling BS. None of the challenger banks (Startling, Yolt, Monzo, 
> Moneze, N26 etc) run mainframes. They have millions of customers and are 
> gaining millions by the week at the expense of traditional banks.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response
> 
> Most of those “banks” aren’t banks and most of them are kaput.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How’s those challenger banks doing?
> YOLT = owned by ING (who runs a mainframe) is being shut down.MONZO = CEO 
> jumped ship. Not going well.N26 = pulled out of the US.

ING moved off the mainframe a couple of years ago. 


> MONEZE = actually spelled MONESE. Doesn’t look like they are replacing JP 
> Morgan any time soon.STARLING = tiny barely staying viable.
> Many are charging fees now. Amazing that investors always want some revenue 
> (and eventually profit) to justify the investment.
> Having millions of mostly poor customers isn’t exactly a booming business 
> model.
> So I’ll repeat. 95% of banks use the mainframe. Not these fake banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:33 PM, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> You said internet banking was going to destroy large banks. How’s that 
> working out?
> Microfocus COBOL isn’t regular COBOL. And is a tiny fraction of the COBOL 
> market.
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 11:26 PM, David Crayford  
> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/3/23 22:07, Bill Johnson wrote:
>> +1
>> About a year or so ago I posted about the number of lines of COBOL code in 
>> use worldwide and stated COBOL was going to be the language of choice for 
>> many decades to come. Estimates say 800 billion lines (and growing) in use 
>> today. As usual, I was attacked for my fact based opinion. 
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-how-much-cobol-code-is-out-there-the-answer-might-surprise-you/
> 
> Facts! You've quoted an article from the internet!
> 
> "The study, commissioned by IT company Micro Focus and conducted by 
> research and analysis firm Vanson Bourne"
> 
> Micro Focus is a vendor who hawks COBOL compilers and IDE's. It's a bit 
> like McDonalds commissioning research on the health benefits of Big Mac's.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, March 27, 2023, 1:56 AM, Farley, Peter 
>> <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I am getting increasingly tired of snide or outright dismissive references 
>> to COBOL and by extension to COBOL programmers.
>> 
>> Programmers like me.
>> 
>> Yes, I am also well versed in HLASM, Rexx, awk and gawk, somewhat facile in 
>> SORT (at least as far as knowing and using JOIN's), SQL, JCL and various 
>> other z/OS utilities, MetalC, and lately python and bash scripting.  I even 
>> remember some of the PL/I and Fortran and Pascal I used in college and my 
>> early employment days.  I even remember some SNOBOL, which I actually got to 
>> use productively at a then-major NY bank very early in my career.
>> 
>> COBOL pays my bills and keeps my employer operating successfully and 
>> profitably.
>> 
>> COBOL does NOT rot the brain.  Alcohol and various other legal and illegal 
>> substances can, in fact, do that.  Intelligently devising business solutions 
>> to business problems in ANY computer language does NOT rot the brain.
>> 
>> It is not funny or acceptable to say so.  It never was.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>> Paul Gilmartin
>> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 8:14 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ASM call by value
>> 
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:18:49 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> In COBOL, for example, the following end up doing the same thing.
>>> 
>> Do not use CO BOL as an exemplar of programming discipline.  Cobol rots the 
>> brain.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
>> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. 
>> If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized 
>> representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
>> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail 
>> and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
>> 
>> 
>>

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

I used to work at Mellon bank in Pittsburgh. Mellon shut down their retail 
banking division to concentrate on the investment industry. Over 20 years ago. 
Retail banking is a low profit business. Challenger banking is a no profit 
business. Which is why they are failing.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.

> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> ING isn’t a bank either. 
> 

--
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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

More on ING.
Why is ING bank closed?Dutch banking giant ING is leaving the Philippine retail 
banking market before the end of 2022. ING cited the “uncertain global macro 
situation in the last few years” as the primary reason that led to it decision 
to pull back from expanding activities in other countries, the Philippines 
included.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.

> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> ING isn’t a bank either. 
> 

--
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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

2023-04-06 Thread Doug

What gave you the idea that retail banking is a low profit business? It 
really does not have to be depending on how it is run. ANYTHING can be 
low profit, even IBM, when it is run badly.


Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 18:13:55
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by 
value]



I used to work at Mellon bank in Pittsburgh. Mellon shut down their retail 
banking division to concentrate on the investment industry. Over 20 years ago. 
Retail banking is a low profit business. Challenger banking is a no profit 
business. Which is why they are failing.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.


 On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

 ING isn’t a bank either.



--
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


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: LE runtime

2023-04-06 Thread Attila Fogarasi

Cobol first started to use PDS/E in 2001 when exploiting new Cobol support
for long program names, object-oriented programs and for using the Binder
for DLLs instead of the prelinker.  Program objects also cured the 16MB
maximum load module size which was becoming a problem (PO size limit is
1GB).   There are probably other Cobol language features which require
PDS/E.  I'm pretty sure this was just after Y2K, so over 20 years ago now.
Getting old enough to be called legacy :)

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:46 PM Bernd Oppolzer 
wrote:

> I don't know much about the specific output formats that the compilers
> produce,
> but in the installations I know, the Binder is used to produce the load
> modules;
> this is necessary because run time objects have to be linked together
> with the
> output coming from the compiler.
>
> In my historic MVS environment, I see that the compiler output is recfm
> FB 80;
> the well known ESD - RLD - TXT format. Don't know if this is still in
> use today (in modern
> environments). The record format of the load libraries is something like
> U 19069
> (valid until today, AFAIK).
>
> GOFF, AFAIK, is a more modern output format ... don't know if this applies
> to the PL/1 and C compilers and to the output of the compilers in general
> (and input to the linkers or binders).
>
> BTW: I didn't say "strange debugging option"; what is strange IMO is the
> fact
> that COBOL requires the modules in PDSEs not because the language needs
> this,
> but only to support some debugging tools, which could IMO store their
> information
> at another place. But the COBOL community seems to have accepted this move.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Bernd
>
>
> Am 06.04.2023 um 14:25 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
> > Directly, or via GOFF to Binder?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
> >
> > 
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
> behalf of Bernd Oppolzer [bernd.oppol...@t-online.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 3:18 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: LE runtime
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
> > "classic" load modules,
> > while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.
> >
> > With C++ (I guess), this is due to the fact that (writable) static data
> > can be initialized not only by
> > static initializers (which could be implemented by CSECT formatting),
> > but by function calls, which
> > needs init functions called after program load or task creation. So with
> > C++, the requirement
> > for program objects is driven by the language definition. But I'm not
> > sure about this.
> >
> > For COBOL, it is kind of strange, and as I understood, it is only driven
> > by some sort of
> > debugging option which only can be handled by program objects.
> >
> > The PL/1 compiler group, FWIW, stated that they don't plan to require
> > program objects
> > in the near future.
> >
> > By the way: NORENT C can produce load modules, too. We still use NORENT
> > C generating
> > load modules (without the compiler options RENT, DLL, LONGNAME). I hope
> > that this will
> > be supported in the future, too ... and that "normal load modules" won't
> > go away soon
> > (I don't think it will be possible).
> >
> > It would by interesting, again, what PL/X does. Maybe the new fancy
> > stuff is only
> > for the customers :-)
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Bernd
> >
> >
> > Am 06.04.2023 um 00:26 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:
> >> Originally SCEERUN2 contained LE modules that had to be PDS/E while
> SCEERUN
> >> could be PDS.  Also for PL/I and Fortran only SCEERUN is needed;  Cobol
> and
> >> C/C++ needs SCEERUN2 as well as SCEERUN.  Finally some of the SCEERUN2
> >> modules had naming conflicts with very old pre-LE runtimes, while
> SCEERUN
> >> modules did not.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:59 AM Frank Swarbrick <
> frank.swarbr...@outlook.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What is the major difference between the SCEERUN and SCEERUN2
> libraries?
> >>> Is RUN2 for XPLINK and RUN for non-XPLINK?
> >>>
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

Like I said, there’s little money in retail banking. And zero money to be made 
in challenger banking. It’s why they are all shrinking or closed. Mellon bank 
saw this 20+ years ago. ING & others are focusing more on investment banking. 
Mostly for the high net worth people but also people in our financial arena. 
It’s why Bank of America agreed to take on Merrill Lynch in 2008 during the 
meltdown. And still can’t make much money because of their focus on retail 
banking. Wells Fargo got fined a bundle for trying to rip off consumers because 
there’s little money in retail banking. Most banks are trying to get into 
investment banking where significant money can be made. Quasi Goldman Sachs or 
Morgan Stanley like.

You can see how precarious the economy is for retail banking companies by how 
quickly they can become insolvent. Even a bank considered excellent because of 
their clientele like SVB. Then Credit Suisse almost went belly up until UBS 
saved them. Deutsche Bank isn’t exactly a bastion of profitability either. 
Citibank almost went belly up in 2008. One of the largest banks in the world. 
Anyone who claims banking, especially retail banking is a profit generating 
machine is not paying attention.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.

> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> ING isn’t a bank either. 
> 

--
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

Re: LE runtime

IMO, the other languages (PL/I, C) also support building program objects 
and very large
programs (> 16 MB), but COBOL with the newest compiler version REQUIRES 
even small
programs to live in PDSEs (as program objects) and does not allow old 
(classic) load modules.


I'm not sure about this, but IMO in some places in the OS "old" load 
modules are still required
and program objects living in PDSEs cannot be used, maybe because PDSE 
support requires
some help from the OS, and this is not available in the very early 
stages after IPL.


Maybe, OTOH, nobody wants COBOL programs there ... these modules are 
probably

PL/X or ASSEMBLER or Metal C ...

I cannot imagine a monolithic program with code size larger than 16 MB, 
and a program which has
static tables bigger than 16 MB is, IMHO, a design failure. But this is 
maybe an old school point of view ...


Kind regards

Bernd


Am 07.04.2023 um 01:09 schrieb Attila Fogarasi:

Cobol first started to use PDS/E in 2001 when exploiting new Cobol support
for long program names, object-oriented programs and for using the Binder
for DLLs instead of the prelinker.  Program objects also cured the 16MB
maximum load module size which was becoming a problem (PO size limit is
1GB).   There are probably other Cobol language features which require
PDS/E.  I'm pretty sure this was just after Y2K, so over 20 years ago now.
Getting old enough to be called legacy :)




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

2023-04-06 Thread Doug

Maybe you should have actually worked in retail banking, which clearly, 
you never have.



Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 19:16:58
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by 
value]



Like I said, there’s little money in retail banking. And zero money to be made in 
challenger banking. It’s why they are all shrinking or closed. Mellon bank saw this 
20+ years ago. ING & others are focusing more on investment banking. Mostly for 
the high net worth people but also people in our financial arena. It’s why Bank of 
America agreed to take on Merrill Lynch in 2008 during the meltdown. And still 
can’t make much money because of their focus on retail banking. Wells Fargo got 
fined a bundle for trying to rip off consumers because there’s little money in 
retail banking. Most banks are trying to get into investment banking where 
significant money can be made. Quasi Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley like.

You can see how precarious the economy is for retail banking companies by how 
quickly they can become insolvent. Even a bank considered excellent because of 
their clientele like SVB. Then Credit Suisse almost went belly up until UBS 
saved them. Deutsche Bank isn’t exactly a bastion of profitability either. 
Citibank almost went belly up in 2008. One of the largest banks in the world. 
Anyone who claims banking, especially retail banking is a profit generating 
machine is not paying attention.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.


 On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

 ING isn’t a bank either.



--
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


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: LE runtime

2023-04-06 Thread Charles Mills

C++ can produce object code that can be linked into a traditional load module 
in a PDS. I do it all the time.

Charles

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 09:18:28 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer  
wrote:

>Thanks.
>
>This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
>"classic" load modules,
>while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

I did. Mellon Bank during the transition from retail bank to investment bank. 
Retail banking sucks for profits. That’s why Citi is selling for 6 times 
earnings. ING stock would have lost you a ton of money over the last 20 years. 
Why are bank stocks selling at a huge discount to the market?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 8:06 PM, Doug  wrote:

Maybe you should have actually worked in retail banking, which clearly, 
you never have.


Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 19:16:58
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by 
value]

>Like I said, there’s little money in retail banking. And zero money to be made 
>in challenger banking. It’s why they are all shrinking or closed. Mellon bank 
>saw this 20+ years ago. ING & others are focusing more on investment banking. 
>Mostly for the high net worth people but also people in our financial arena. 
>It’s why Bank of America agreed to take on Merrill Lynch in 2008 during the 
>meltdown. And still can’t make much money because of their focus on retail 
>banking. Wells Fargo got fined a bundle for trying to rip off consumers 
>because there’s little money in retail banking. Most banks are trying to get 
>into investment banking where significant money can be made. Quasi Goldman 
>Sachs or Morgan Stanley like.
>
>You can see how precarious the economy is for retail banking companies by how 
>quickly they can become insolvent. Even a bank considered excellent because of 
>their clientele like SVB. Then Credit Suisse almost went belly up until UBS 
>saved them. Deutsche Bank isn’t exactly a bastion of profitability either. 
>Citibank almost went belly up in 2008. One of the largest banks in the world. 
>Anyone who claims banking, especially retail banking is a profit generating 
>machine is not paying attention.
>
>
>Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
>On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
> wrote:
>
>They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
>Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
>Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
>Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
>stuff on Micro Focus.
>
>best regards,
>
>René.
>
>>  On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
>><0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  ING isn’t a bank either.
>>
>
>--
>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

--
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

Re: LE runtime

I recall that if you use certain language constructs, the binder 
complains about

"this object requires PO format 3 and cannot be stored in a load module";
maybe if you initialize a static value using a function call (which is 
not valid in ANSI C).


I once had the need to convert such a C++ function to ANSI C, because 
one branch of
my customer doesn't allow C++ ... the other branch does, and I had to 
copy a routine
which creates UUIDs from the other branch. To do this in C, I had to get 
rid of the
initialization of the (writable) static data by using a function call. 
In C, it is not possible
to do function calls when initalizing static data; static data is 
initialized at enclave creation
time, and the C language description allows only constants at this time, 
no function calls.
Load modules (in the NORENT case) initialize their static data at 
compile time by
CSECT formatting. With RENT, a compiler created initialization routine 
is called, but with C,

it is not possible that this routine calls "user" routines.

Of course, if you don't do this and you use only features that could 
also be simulated

using ANSI C, you maybe don't have this problem.

So my opinion is: not all C++ programs require PDSEs, but there are 
some, which require

program objects format 3, and these will, of course, require PDSEs.

Kind regards

Bernd


Am 07.04.2023 um 02:12 schrieb Charles Mills:

C++ can produce object code that can be linked into a traditional load module 
in a PDS. I do it all the time.

Charles

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 09:18:28 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer  
wrote:


Thanks.

This (to me) seems related to the fact that PL/I still can produce
"classic" load modules,
while COBOL and C++ create program objects, which must reside in PDSEs.

--
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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

And their stock performance has been dismal for decades.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.

> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> ING isn’t a bank either. 
> 

--
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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

2023-04-06 Thread Doug

For alot more complex reasons than your simplistic view of banking. 
Perhaps some time learning real banking might help. Or some 
macroeconomics to go along with it. I've made plenty over the years on 
the right bank investments. And took some risks with others. But I 
actually understand the business.
And despite your pronouncement, plenty of retail banks are quite 
profitable.


Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 20:19:39
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by 
value]



I did. Mellon Bank during the transition from retail bank to investment bank. 
Retail banking sucks for profits. That’s why Citi is selling for 6 times 
earnings. ING stock would have lost you a ton of money over the last 20 years. 
Why are bank stocks selling at a huge discount to the market?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 8:06 PM, Doug  wrote:

Maybe you should have actually worked in retail banking, which clearly,
you never have.


Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 19:16:58
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by
value]


Like I said, there’s little money in retail banking. And zero money to be made in 
challenger banking. It’s why they are all shrinking or closed. Mellon bank saw this 
20+ years ago. ING & others are focusing more on investment banking. Mostly for 
the high net worth people but also people in our financial arena. It’s why Bank of 
America agreed to take on Merrill Lynch in 2008 during the meltdown. And still 
can’t make much money because of their focus on retail banking. Wells Fargo got 
fined a bundle for trying to rip off consumers because there’s little money in 
retail banking. Most banks are trying to get into investment banking where 
significant money can be made. Quasi Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley like.

You can see how precarious the economy is for retail banking companies by how 
quickly they can become insolvent. Even a bank considered excellent because of 
their clientele like SVB. Then Credit Suisse almost went belly up until UBS 
saved them. Deutsche Bank isn’t exactly a bastion of profitability either. 
Citibank almost went belly up in 2008. One of the largest banks in the world. 
Anyone who claims banking, especially retail banking is a profit generating 
machine is not paying attention.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.


  On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

  ING isn’t a bank either.



--
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


--
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


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

I know more about banking than you know it alls. Already proved Crayford wrong 
regarding the challenger banks. And ING dropped their mainframe as their stock 
price is cut in half the last 20 years. Explain the complex reasons or are you 
making that up too?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 10:11 PM, Doug  wrote:

For alot more complex reasons than your simplistic view of banking. 
Perhaps some time learning real banking might help. Or some 
macroeconomics to go along with it. I've made plenty over the years on 
the right bank investments. And took some risks with others. But I 
actually understand the business.
And despite your pronouncement, plenty of retail banks are quite 
profitable.

Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 20:19:39
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by 
value]

>I did. Mellon Bank during the transition from retail bank to investment bank. 
>Retail banking sucks for profits. That’s why Citi is selling for 6 times 
>earnings. ING stock would have lost you a ton of money over the last 20 years. 
>Why are bank stocks selling at a huge discount to the market?
>
>
>Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
>On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 8:06 PM, Doug  wrote:
>
>Maybe you should have actually worked in retail banking, which clearly,
>you never have.
>
>
>Doug Fuerst
>d...@bkassociates.net
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
>To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
>Sent: 06-Apr-23 19:16:58
>Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by
>value]
>
>>Like I said, there’s little money in retail banking. And zero money to be 
>>made in challenger banking. It’s why they are all shrinking or closed. Mellon 
>>bank saw this 20+ years ago. ING & others are focusing more on investment 
>>banking. Mostly for the high net worth people but also people in our 
>>financial arena. It’s why Bank of America agreed to take on Merrill Lynch in 
>>2008 during the meltdown. And still can’t make much money because of their 
>>focus on retail banking. Wells Fargo got fined a bundle for trying to rip off 
>>consumers because there’s little money in retail banking. Most banks are 
>>trying to get into investment banking where significant money can be made. 
>>Quasi Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley like.
>>
>>You can see how precarious the economy is for retail banking companies by how 
>>quickly they can become insolvent. Even a bank considered excellent because 
>>of their clientele like SVB. Then Credit Suisse almost went belly up until 
>>UBS saved them. Deutsche Bank isn’t exactly a bastion of profitability 
>>either. Citibank almost went belly up in 2008. One of the largest banks in 
>>the world. Anyone who claims banking, especially retail banking is a profit 
>>generating machine is not paying attention.
>>
>>
>>Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>>
>>
>>On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
>> wrote:
>>
>>They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
>>Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
>>Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
>>Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
>>stuff on Micro Focus.
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>René.
>>
>>>  On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
>>><0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>  ING isn’t a bank either.
>>>
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>--
>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

--
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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]


On 7/4/23 06:07, René Jansen wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.


ING are one of the biggest banks in the world. My colleague and I had a 
meeting with a clever guy who works for the DTO who used to work for 
ING. He told us that they were still running some COBOL applications on 
x86. It was a shock! It's never nice to hear about really big customers 
moving off platform as it shrinks the market for all of us.





best regards,

René.


On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

ING isn’t a bank either.


--
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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]


On 7/4/23 10:15, Bill Johnson wrote:

I know more about banking than you know it alls. Already proved Crayford wrong 
regarding the challenger banks. And ING dropped their mainframe as their stock 
price is cut in half the last 20 years. Explain the complex reasons or are you 
making that up too?

Throughout my time on this forum, I've engaged in numerous debates, but 
I always maintain the highest regard for those I disagree with. These 
individuals are exceptional mainframe experts, boasting extensive 
experience and adding immense value to our community. Bill, I struggle 
to recall any technical insights you've shared in our discussions. 
Instead, you tend to repeatedly express unconstructive comments. Please 
consider reevaluating your approach, as your current contributions are 
not generating much interest or value.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 10:11 PM, Doug  wrote:

For alot more complex reasons than your simplistic view of banking.
Perhaps some time learning real banking might help. Or some
macroeconomics to go along with it. I've made plenty over the years on
the right bank investments. And took some risks with others. But I
actually understand the business.
And despite your pronouncement, plenty of retail banks are quite
profitable.

Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 20:19:39
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by
value]


I did. Mellon Bank during the transition from retail bank to investment bank. 
Retail banking sucks for profits. That’s why Citi is selling for 6 times 
earnings. ING stock would have lost you a ton of money over the last 20 years. 
Why are bank stocks selling at a huge discount to the market?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 8:06 PM, Doug  wrote:

Maybe you should have actually worked in retail banking, which clearly,
you never have.


Doug Fuerst
d...@bkassociates.net

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Sent: 06-Apr-23 19:16:58
Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by
value]


Like I said, there’s little money in retail banking. And zero money to be made in 
challenger banking. It’s why they are all shrinking or closed. Mellon bank saw this 
20+ years ago. ING & others are focusing more on investment banking. Mostly for 
the high net worth people but also people in our financial arena. It’s why Bank of 
America agreed to take on Merrill Lynch in 2008 during the meltdown. And still 
can’t make much money because of their focus on retail banking. Wells Fargo got 
fined a bundle for trying to rip off consumers because there’s little money in 
retail banking. Most banks are trying to get into investment banking where 
significant money can be made. Quasi Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley like.

You can see how precarious the economy is for retail banking companies by how 
quickly they can become insolvent. Even a bank considered excellent because of 
their clientele like SVB. Then Credit Suisse almost went belly up until UBS 
saved them. Deutsche Bank isn’t exactly a bastion of profitability either. 
Citibank almost went belly up in 2008. One of the largest banks in the world. 
Anyone who claims banking, especially retail banking is a profit generating 
machine is not paying attention.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
 wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

best regards,

René.


   On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

   ING isn’t a bank either.


--
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

--
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

---

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

ING is maybe top 30. The stock has been a real dog losing half its value in the 
last 20 years. A money loser. Any company that shut down their mainframe and 
replaced it with Micro Focus, another company that loses money by the bushel, 
isn’t much of a bank. They opened a challenger bank and shut it down soon 
after. Probably wasted tens of millions or more. Just over a trillion in 
assets. Small time. Hey David, where are all those challenger “banks” you 
touted? 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 11:56 PM, David Crayford  
wrote:

On 7/4/23 06:07, René Jansen wrote:
> They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
> Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
> Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
> Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
> stuff on Micro Focus.

ING are one of the biggest banks in the world. My colleague and I had a 
meeting with a clever guy who works for the DTO who used to work for 
ING. He told us that they were still running some COBOL applications on 
x86. It was a shock! It's never nice to hear about really big customers 
moving off platform as it shrinks the market for all of us.

>
> best regards,
>
> René.
>
>> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
>> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>
>> ING isn’t a bank either.
>>
> --
> 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

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]


On 7/4/23 12:12, Bill Johnson wrote:

ING is maybe top 30. The stock has been a real dog losing half its value in the 
last 20 years. A money loser. Any company that shut down their mainframe and 
replaced it with Micro Focus, another company that loses money by the bushel, 
isn’t much of a bank. They opened a challenger bank and shut it down soon 
after. Probably wasted tens of millions or more. Just over a trillion in 
assets. Small time. Hey David, where are all those challenger “banks” you 
touted?


You need to see a doctor man, you've lost your mind :) Top 30 biggest 
banks in the word is money loser. Take a nap fella. Go and rest your 
legs and have lay down. You spouted the same BS about FedEx when the 
announced their intentions to move to the cloud. Is Bill Johnson your 
real name? Please provide a link to your linkedin profile so we can all 
have laugh.





Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 11:56 PM, David Crayford  
wrote:

On 7/4/23 06:07, René Jansen wrote:

They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
stuff on Micro Focus.

ING are one of the biggest banks in the world. My colleague and I had a
meeting with a clever guy who works for the DTO who used to work for
ING. He told us that they were still running some COBOL applications on
x86. It was a shock! It's never nice to hear about really big customers
moving off platform as it shrinks the market for all of us.



best regards,

René.


On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
<0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

ING isn’t a bank either.


--
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




--
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

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

LOLOLOLOL, there are thousands of Systems Programmers and other IT 
professionals in the world. About a dozen dominate this forum. I don’t have the 
free time or the ego necessary to post here hundreds of times a week. I don’t 
need the confirmation. My experience is more varied and longer than yours by 
nearly 15 years. If your worth is determined by the number of postings here, 
you’re a sad loser.
ING is the 36th largest financial institution in the world. That’s 
unimpressive. And as an investment, has been terrible. Losing half its stock 
value. Explains the cost cutting management had to try to save costs by 
eliminating the mainframe. And the millions down the drain on their challenger 
bank.
Micro Focus is also a money loser for years. Stock was under $2/share until 
OpenText bought them last year for $6, right before IBM sued them for allegedly 
trying to reverse engineer IBM software.

Who is Jerzy?

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, April 7, 2023, 12:05 AM, David Crayford  wrote:

On 7/4/23 10:15, Bill Johnson wrote:
> I know more about banking than you know it alls. Already proved Crayford 
> wrong regarding the challenger banks. And ING dropped their mainframe as 
> their stock price is cut in half the last 20 years. Explain the complex 
> reasons or are you making that up too?
>
Throughout my time on this forum, I've engaged in numerous debates, but 
I always maintain the highest regard for those I disagree with. These 
individuals are exceptional mainframe experts, boasting extensive 
experience and adding immense value to our community. Bill, I struggle 
to recall any technical insights you've shared in our discussions. 
Instead, you tend to repeatedly express unconstructive comments. Please 
consider reevaluating your approach, as your current contributions are 
not generating much interest or value.
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 10:11 PM, Doug  wrote:
>
> For alot more complex reasons than your simplistic view of banking.
> Perhaps some time learning real banking might help. Or some
> macroeconomics to go along with it. I've made plenty over the years on
> the right bank investments. And took some risks with others. But I
> actually understand the business.
> And despite your pronouncement, plenty of retail banks are quite
> profitable.
>
> Doug Fuerst
> d...@bkassociates.net
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Sent: 06-Apr-23 20:19:39
> Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by
> value]
>
>> I did. Mellon Bank during the transition from retail bank to investment 
>> bank. Retail banking sucks for profits. That’s why Citi is selling for 6 
>> times earnings. ING stock would have lost you a ton of money over the last 
>> 20 years. Why are bank stocks selling at a huge discount to the market?
>>
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 8:06 PM, Doug  wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you should have actually worked in retail banking, which clearly,
>> you never have.
>>
>>
>> Doug Fuerst
>> d...@bkassociates.net
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Bill Johnson" <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
>> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
>> Sent: 06-Apr-23 19:16:58
>> Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by
>> value]
>>
>>> Like I said, there’s little money in retail banking. And zero money to be 
>>> made in challenger banking. It’s why they are all shrinking or closed. 
>>> Mellon bank saw this 20+ years ago. ING & others are focusing more on 
>>> investment banking. Mostly for the high net worth people but also people in 
>>> our financial arena. It’s why Bank of America agreed to take on Merrill 
>>> Lynch in 2008 during the meltdown. And still can’t make much money because 
>>> of their focus on retail banking. Wells Fargo got fined a bundle for trying 
>>> to rip off consumers because there’s little money in retail banking. Most 
>>> banks are trying to get into investment banking where significant money can 
>>> be made. Quasi Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley like.
>>>
>>> You can see how precarious the economy is for retail banking companies by 
>>> how quickly they can become insolvent. Even a bank considered excellent 
>>> because of their clientele like SVB. Then Credit Suisse almost went belly 
>>> up until UBS saved them. Deutsche Bank isn’t exactly a bastion of 
>>> profitability either. Citibank almost went belly up in 2008. One of the 
>>> largest banks in the world. Anyone who claims banking, especially retail 
>>> banking is a profit generating machine is not paying attention.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 6:07 PM, René Jansen 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
>>> Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postche

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]

Why is ING stock down to $10 a share from $22 two decades ago. Size doesn’t 
matter, profits do. You’re as financially savvy as you are IT savvy.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, April 7, 2023, 12:17 AM, David Crayford  wrote:

On 7/4/23 12:12, Bill Johnson wrote:
> ING is maybe top 30. The stock has been a real dog losing half its value in 
> the last 20 years. A money loser. Any company that shut down their mainframe 
> and replaced it with Micro Focus, another company that loses money by the 
> bushel, isn’t much of a bank. They opened a challenger bank and shut it down 
> soon after. Probably wasted tens of millions or more. Just over a trillion in 
> assets. Small time. Hey David, where are all those challenger “banks” you 
> touted?

You need to see a doctor man, you've lost your mind :) Top 30 biggest 
banks in the word is money loser. Take a nap fella. Go and rest your 
legs and have lay down. You spouted the same BS about FedEx when the 
announced their intentions to move to the cloud. Is Bill Johnson your 
real name? Please provide a link to your linkedin profile so we can all 
have laugh.


>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023, 11:56 PM, David Crayford  
> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/23 06:07, René Jansen wrote:
>> They will be disappointed if they hear that, there are a fusion between 
>> Rijkspostspaarbank, NMB (Nederlansche Middenstandsbank, Postcheque en 
>> Girodienst, and Nationale Nederlanden. They are a very large bank in the 
>> Netherlands. And yes they are off the mainframe, running a lot of mainframe 
>> stuff on Micro Focus.
> ING are one of the biggest banks in the world. My colleague and I had a
> meeting with a clever guy who works for the DTO who used to work for
> ING. He told us that they were still running some COBOL applications on
> x86. It was a shock! It's never nice to hear about really big customers
> moving off platform as it shrinks the market for all of us.
>
>
>> best regards,
>>
>> René.
>>
>>> On 7 Apr 2023, at 00:01, Bill Johnson 
>>> <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> ING isn’t a bank either.
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value]