Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
John Gilmore wrote: > I disagree so strongly with an earlier recommendation to avoid macros > that I do not trust myself to comment upon it. I will, however, > venture to remind its poster that LIBMAC makes relevant macro > definitions readily and immediately available. I am the poster you refer to. I did a quick check of an assembly that is typical of the sort if thing I work with every day. The SYSLIB concatenation contains roughly 6500 members (not all of these are macros, of course). It may well be that in this vast collection there are already macros -- quite possibly dozens of them -- to assist with using the ED and/or EDMK instructions. However, it would be *much* quicker for me to write a new macro every time I need one than it would be for me to search for an existing macro. And it is *much* quicker for me to write easy-to-understand open code than it is for me to write, test, and document a macro to generate the code. That's what I prefer to do and that's what I prefer others to do in code that I work with. Why do you object to that? Best regards, Steve Hobson Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, will not bother. I just pity the poor people you work with. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Steve Hobson Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM John Gilmore wrote: I disagree so strongly with an earlier recommendation to avoid macros that I do not trust myself to comment upon it. I will, however, venture to remind its poster that LIBMAC makes relevant macro definitions readily and immediately available. I am the poster you refer to. I did a quick check of an assembly that is typical of the sort if thing I work with every day. The SYSLIB concatenation contains roughly 6500 members (not all of these are macros, of course). It may well be that in this vast collection there are already macros -- quite possibly dozens of them -- to assist with using the ED and/or EDMK instructions. However, it would be *much* quicker for me to write a new macro every time I need one than it would be for me to search for an existing macro. And it is *much* quicker for me to write easy-to-understand open code than it is for me to write, test, and document a macro to generate the code. That's what I prefer to do and that's what I prefer others to do in code that I work with. Why do you object to that? Best regards, Steve Hobson Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
Steve (Hobson): We do not inhabit the same universe of discourse, and I do not really think that you would be persuaded by any attempt on my part to convince you of (what I take to be) the folly of your views. I regard those views as professionally disqualifying, as akin to those of flat-earthers; but I have, of course, no personal animus against you or them. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
Tony Thigpen wrote: > There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. > But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, > will not bother. Actually I do care. That's why I post here. If you disagree with what I say then tell me (and others here) what's wrong with it. > I just pity the poor people you work with. I'll pass that on to them if you think it'll help. Best regards, Steve Hobson Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
John Gilmore wrote > We do not inhabit the same universe of discourse, and I do not really > think that you would be persuaded by any attempt on my part to > convince you of (what I take to be) the folly of your views. I think you do a disservice to the strength of your arguments (which I don't think you've actually expressed yet). And I think you are a tad dismissive of my ability to consider views contrary to my own. Why not give it a try? Tell us when you think it is beneficial for someone in my position to add to the (literally) thousands of macros that we already have. Mostly I don't think it is. Do you really: > regard those views as professionally disqualifying, as akin to those of flat-earthers Best regards, Steve Hobson Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
I work regularly with Steve. It is, and has been, a please and a delight. I've always respected his views, many of which I agree with. Sharuff smo...@uk.ibm.com > > Date:Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:35:36 -0400 > From:Tony Thigpen > Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) > > There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. > But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, > will not bother. > > I just pity the poor people you work with. > > Tony Thigpen > > -Original Message - > From: Steve Hobson > Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
Probably best to ignore certain individuals who rather seem to like to be insulting, but of course not personally. On the whole they don't do much for most discussions, other than beating their own drum. I think Steve is talking about different people/groups basically doing their own thing and ending up with lots of probably undocumented little macros, and I agree that that is worse than useless for the wider world. OTOH one can develop suites of macros to implement higher level functions, frameworks etc. which if documented, maintained and supported by training and management guidelines can be very useful for larger developments. Where would we be without IBM system macros, after all? One can extend them with further really useful functionality and save a lot of repetitive development effort. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Sharuff Morsa3 Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 11:36 An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) I work regularly with Steve. It is, and has been, a please and a delight. I've always respected his views, many of which I agree with. Sharuff smo...@uk.ibm.com > > Date:Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:35:36 -0400 > From:Tony Thigpen > Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) > > There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. > But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, > will not bother. > > I just pity the poor people you work with. > > Tony Thigpen > > -Original Message - > From: Steve Hobson > Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
And there is the rub: "... if documented, maintained and supported by training and management guidelines". Too many shops have no such support system in place, nor the requisite team to perform the documentation and maintenance. IOW no one wants to pay for a "programmers' tools team". I have never understood why there is so little support for a tools team when the payback in productivity and speed-to-market (which can certainly be measured in real money) is so pronounced. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Stokes Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:56 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) Probably best to ignore certain individuals who rather seem to like to be insulting, but of course not personally. On the whole they don't do much for most discussions, other than beating their own drum. I think Steve is talking about different people/groups basically doing their own thing and ending up with lots of probably undocumented little macros, and I agree that that is worse than useless for the wider world. OTOH one can develop suites of macros to implement higher level functions, frameworks etc. which if documented, maintained and supported by training and management guidelines can be very useful for larger developments. Where would we be without IBM system macros, after all? One can extend them with further really useful functionality and save a lot of repetitive development effort. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Sharuff Morsa3 Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 11:36 An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) I work regularly with Steve. It is, and has been, a please and a delight. I've always respected his views, many of which I agree with. Sharuff > > Date:Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:35:36 -0400 > From:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) > > There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. > But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, > will not bother. > > I just pity the poor people you work with. > > Tony Thigpen > > -Original Message - > From: Steve Hobson > Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM -- 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: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
I think you hit something on the head, but not what you expected. Why should there be a tools team? The main programmers know what they need and usually can write the tools they need. They can also maintain the doc. But, everybody wants someone else to do it. Good programmers want to be efficient. They like debugged macros. Most simple macros only need about 1 or 2 lines of doc at the front about their usage. If the macro name and the macro parms are named well, maybe not even that much. Remember, the programmer using the macro does understand the basics about macros and can review the code if he has a question. He can even update the comments when he is done. And all it takes for an index of macros is to put a spreadsheet on a shared network drive. Anytime a macro is added, or discovered, place an entry in the table. It does not take but a few seconds. Now days, everybody wants someone else to do it, so they don't perform even the simplest thing. The man-hours that could be saved by that same programmer reinventing the wheel would have more than covered the time it would have taken him to update a spreadsheet listing macros. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: 07/23/2014 09:55 AM And there is the rub: "... if documented, maintained and supported by training and management guidelines". Too many shops have no such support system in place, nor the requisite team to perform the documentation and maintenance. IOW no one wants to pay for a "programmers' tools team". I have never understood why there is so little support for a tools team when the payback in productivity and speed-to-market (which can certainly be measured in real money) is so pronounced. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Stokes Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:56 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) Probably best to ignore certain individuals who rather seem to like to be insulting, but of course not personally. On the whole they don't do much for most discussions, other than beating their own drum. I think Steve is talking about different people/groups basically doing their own thing and ending up with lots of probably undocumented little macros, and I agree that that is worse than useless for the wider world. OTOH one can develop suites of macros to implement higher level functions, frameworks etc. which if documented, maintained and supported by training and management guidelines can be very useful for larger developments. Where would we be without IBM system macros, after all? One can extend them with further really useful functionality and save a lot of repetitive development effort. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Sharuff Morsa3 Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 11:36 An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) I work regularly with Steve. It is, and has been, a please and a delight. I've always respected his views, many of which I agree with. Sharuff Date:Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:35:36 -0400 From:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, will not bother. I just pity the poor people you work with. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Steve Hobson Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM -- 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: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
I don't totally disagree with you, but the problem is that without good standards and some architectural concept behind them such small macros start to multiply, there are different versions, copies, recreation of existing things because someone didn't look (or care) that something was already there, and so on. At the end of the day if uncontrolled what happens is that each competent programmer decides to do his own thing and make his own set of "helpful" macros. I'm not recommending a lot of trivial macros anyway. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Tony Thigpen Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 16:13 An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) I think you hit something on the head, but not what you expected. Why should there be a tools team? The main programmers know what they need and usually can write the tools they need. They can also maintain the doc. But, everybody wants someone else to do it. Good programmers want to be efficient. They like debugged macros. Most simple macros only need about 1 or 2 lines of doc at the front about their usage. If the macro name and the macro parms are named well, maybe not even that much. Remember, the programmer using the macro does understand the basics about macros and can review the code if he has a question. He can even update the comments when he is done. And all it takes for an index of macros is to put a spreadsheet on a shared network drive. Anytime a macro is added, or discovered, place an entry in the table. It does not take but a few seconds. Now days, everybody wants someone else to do it, so they don't perform even the simplest thing. The man-hours that could be saved by that same programmer reinventing the wheel would have more than covered the time it would have taken him to update a spreadsheet listing macros. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: 07/23/2014 09:55 AM > And there is the rub: "... if documented, maintained and supported by > training and management guidelines". Too many shops have no such support > system in place, nor the requisite team to perform the documentation and > maintenance. IOW no one wants to pay for a "programmers' tools team". > > I have never understood why there is so little support for a tools team when > the payback in productivity and speed-to-market (which can certainly be > measured in real money) is so pronounced. > > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] > On Behalf Of David Stokes > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:56 AM > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) > > Probably best to ignore certain individuals who rather seem to like to be > insulting, but of course not personally. On the whole they don't do much for > most discussions, other than beating their own drum. > > I think Steve is talking about different people/groups basically doing their > own thing and ending up with lots of probably undocumented little macros, and > I agree that that is worse than useless for the wider world. > > OTOH one can develop suites of macros to implement higher level functions, > frameworks etc. which if documented, maintained and supported by training and > management guidelines can be very useful for larger developments. Where would > we be without IBM system macros, after all? One can extend them with further > really useful functionality and save a lot of repetitive development effort. > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im > Auftrag von Sharuff Morsa3 > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 11:36 > An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) > > I work regularly with Steve. It is, and has been, a please and a delight. > I've always respected his views, many of which I agree with. > Sharuff > >> >> Date:Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:35:36 -0400 >> From:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) >> >> There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. >> But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, > >> will not bother. >> >> I just pity the poor people you work with. >> >> Tony Thigpen >> >> -Original Message - >>From: Steve Hobson >>Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM > -- > > This message and any a
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
Where is the programmer manager during all this? Did he not bother to do even a basic code review? It looks like he did not control his people so things went down fast. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: David Stokes Sent: 07/23/2014 11:05 AM I don't totally disagree with you, but the problem is that without good standards and some architectural concept behind them such small macros start to multiply, there are different versions, copies, recreation of existing things because someone didn't look (or care) that something was already there, and so on. At the end of the day if uncontrolled what happens is that each competent programmer decides to do his own thing and make his own set of "helpful" macros. I'm not recommending a lot of trivial macros anyway. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Tony Thigpen Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 16:13 An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) I think you hit something on the head, but not what you expected. Why should there be a tools team? The main programmers know what they need and usually can write the tools they need. They can also maintain the doc. But, everybody wants someone else to do it. Good programmers want to be efficient. They like debugged macros. Most simple macros only need about 1 or 2 lines of doc at the front about their usage. If the macro name and the macro parms are named well, maybe not even that much. Remember, the programmer using the macro does understand the basics about macros and can review the code if he has a question. He can even update the comments when he is done. And all it takes for an index of macros is to put a spreadsheet on a shared network drive. Anytime a macro is added, or discovered, place an entry in the table. It does not take but a few seconds. Now days, everybody wants someone else to do it, so they don't perform even the simplest thing. The man-hours that could be saved by that same programmer reinventing the wheel would have more than covered the time it would have taken him to update a spreadsheet listing macros. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: 07/23/2014 09:55 AM And there is the rub: "... if documented, maintained and supported by training and management guidelines". Too many shops have no such support system in place, nor the requisite team to perform the documentation and maintenance. IOW no one wants to pay for a "programmers' tools team". I have never understood why there is so little support for a tools team when the payback in productivity and speed-to-market (which can certainly be measured in real money) is so pronounced. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Stokes Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:56 AM To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) Probably best to ignore certain individuals who rather seem to like to be insulting, but of course not personally. On the whole they don't do much for most discussions, other than beating their own drum. I think Steve is talking about different people/groups basically doing their own thing and ending up with lots of probably undocumented little macros, and I agree that that is worse than useless for the wider world. OTOH one can develop suites of macros to implement higher level functions, frameworks etc. which if documented, maintained and supported by training and management guidelines can be very useful for larger developments. Where would we be without IBM system macros, after all? One can extend them with further really useful functionality and save a lot of repetitive development effort. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Sharuff Morsa3 Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 11:36 An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) I work regularly with Steve. It is, and has been, a please and a delight. I've always respected his views, many of which I agree with. Sharuff Date:Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:35:36 -0400 From: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. But, based on your last statement, you don't care anyway, so I, for one, will not bother. I just pity the poor people you work with. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Steve Hobson Sent: 07/22/2014 04:25 PM -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and con
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
>>Where is the programmer manager during all this? Did he not bother to do even >>a basic code review? It looks like he did not control his people so things >>went down fast. Yes, sort of my point, partly. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Tony Thigpen Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 17:34 An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) Where is the programmer manager during all this? Did he not bother to do even a basic code review? It looks like he did not control his people so things went down fast. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: David Stokes Sent: 07/23/2014 11:05 AM > I don't totally disagree with you, but the problem is that without good > standards and some architectural concept behind them such small macros start > to multiply, there are different versions, copies, recreation of existing > things because someone didn't look (or care) that something was already > there, and so on. At the end of the day if uncontrolled what happens is that > each competent programmer decides to do his own thing and make his own set of > "helpful" macros. I'm not recommending a lot of trivial macros anyway. > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List > [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] Im Auftrag von Tony Thigpen > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Juli 2014 16:13 > An: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Betreff: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) > > I think you hit something on the head, but not what you expected. > > Why should there be a tools team? The main programmers know what they > need and usually can write the tools they need. They can also maintain > the doc. > > But, everybody wants someone else to do it. > > Good programmers want to be efficient. They like debugged macros. Most > simple macros only need about 1 or 2 lines of doc at the front about > their usage. If the macro name and the macro parms are named well, > maybe not even that much. Remember, the programmer using the macro > does understand the basics about macros and can review the code if he > has a question. He can even update the comments when he is done. > > And all it takes for an index of macros is to put a spreadsheet on a > shared network drive. Anytime a macro is added, or discovered, place > an entry in the table. It does not take but a few seconds. > > Now days, everybody wants someone else to do it, so they don't perform > even the simplest thing. The man-hours that could be saved by that > same programmer reinventing the wheel would have more than covered the > time it would have taken him to update a spreadsheet listing macros. > > > Tony Thigpen > > -Original Message - >From: Farley, Peter x23353 >Sent: 07/23/2014 09:55 AM >> And there is the rub: "... if documented, maintained and supported by >> training and management guidelines". Too many shops have no such support >> system in place, nor the requisite team to perform the documentation and >> maintenance. IOW no one wants to pay for a "programmers' tools team". >> >> I have never understood why there is so little support for a tools team when >> the payback in productivity and speed-to-market (which can certainly be >> measured in real money) is so pronounced. >> >> Peter >> >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List >> [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Stokes >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:56 AM >> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative) >> >> Probably best to ignore certain individuals who rather seem to like to be >> insulting, but of course not personally. On the whole they don't do much for >> most discussions, other than beating their own drum. >> >> I think Steve is talking about different people/groups basically doing their >> own thing and ending up with lots of probably undocumented little macros, >> and I agree that that is worse than useless for the wider world. >> >> OTOH one can develop suites of macros to implement higher level functions, >> frameworks etc. which if documented, maintained and supported by training >> and management guidelines can be very useful for larger developments. Where >> would we be without IBM system macros, after all? One can extend them with >> further really useful functionality and save a lot of repetitive development >> effort. >>
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
Just catching up... David Stokes wrote: > I think Steve is talking about different people/groups basically > doing their own thing and ending up with lots of probably > undocumented little macros, and I agree that that is worse than > useless for the wider world. Thanks for your comments. Undocumented little macros written by people groups with an exagerated idea of their value and not much clue about their cost can be part of the problem. But I think there are more dimensions to it, in particular time. Much of the Assembler code that exists today was originally written decades ago (quite a lot of it by me) and I expect that much of the code written today will still be in use for many decades. Being old, I have had plenty of opportunity to observe what happens over time. Something like this, usually... Someone (maybe me) writes a macro that seems like a good idea. Maybe it even is a good idea. If it is a good idea and/or if people are compelled to use it then, over time, a growing mass of code uses the macro. Meanwhile, things change (24-bit -> 31-bit -> 64-bit, new instructions, ASC-AR mode, Interlocked Access Facility, realtive addressing, new programming standards, new documentation and testing technologies, etc). So someone may need to change the macro. Do I have the nerve to do that? How sure am I that all the existing code (in my case, thousands of programs) will continue to work after my change? How sure am I that all the machines running the code will support my changes? Who pays for the testing effort? Who pays for updating the documentation? Of course, it's not just one macro that might need need changing. How confident am I about changing all the macros that need attention? (Did I mention I see about 6500 members in my SYSLIB concatenation?) It's unsafe to leave it to the original authors, especially if they are no longer with us. Do I have time to even find the macros that need attention? Is it sensible to make that investment? There are large mutipliers. Best regards, Steve Hobson Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:35:36 -0400, Tony Thigpen wrote: >There is just so much wrong with several things you mentioned. My initial reaction to Steve's post was similar to yours. Then I remembered that we were talking about a macro to make the it easier to construct the pattern bytes for ED and EDMK. These are not so terribly difficult and IMO there is little benefit to coding a macro to do it. Especially like the simplistic one that someone presented here. To use that macro, someone would have to already understand the way the pattern bytes work. For example, that the Significance Starter would be the last byte to receive the fill character if the characters up to that point are all zero. If I wanted to code an EDit instruction and didn't remember how, I'd have to look it up in the POO, and look up the documentation for the macro. Someone suggested that it should be listed in a spreadsheet. How will I find the macro to be used for EDit/EDMK patterns in a spreadsheet with 6500 macros in it? -- Tom Marchant
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
I'd leave them in the MACLIBs and use SRCHALL. That's what I use to find stuff I coded a week ago! Gary Weinhold On 2014-07-25 16:12, Tom Marchant wrote: If I wanted to code an EDit instruction and didn't remember how, I'd have to look it up in the POO, and look up the documentation for the macro. Someone suggested that it should be listed in a spreadsheet. How will I find the macro to be used for EDit/EDMK patterns in a spreadsheet with 6500 macros in it?
Re: Macros -- was: EDit mask for floating minus (negative)
I of course agree that simplistic macros have no value. But it is not necessary to write simplistic macros. We are all creatures of our experience, and Steve Hobson's views must reflect his. Mine has been very different. In my view one of the great strengths of macros is just that they make available what I hope I will be forgiven for calling a testicular grasp on change. If, say, the macro definition GUBBINS is used in N places, changing GUBBINS effectively changes what is done in these N places. Finding and changing idioms that were written out in extenso is much harder. Another, related merit of macros is that they regularize code. Deprived of macros, as I recently was in a very primitive environment, I found it diffricult to avoid ringing changes on standard figures. Macros do not suffer ennui or boredom; and this in many contexts is a merit. One of the striking things about Steve Hobson's posts is that they reflect what I shall call a handicraft orientation, one under which the sophistication of the products produced is very much greater than that of the technology used to produce them. I am reminded of some of the camel-bone inlaid wooden boxes produced in Middle Eastern bazaars, things of great beauty made using only a few simple hand tools.. My approach is again different. One of the features of the macros I write is that they all contain a sequence of comment lines in a standard, easily parsed format that specify the names of the other macros that they use directly, in many cases several dozens of these names. These macro names are also used to construct a square boolean reference matrix R in which element r(i,j) is boolean 1 if macro i invokes macro j or boolean 0 if not. (The diagonal of this matrix may contain boolean ones. Many macros usefully invoke themselves recursively.) Raising this matrix to the appropriate boolean power then yields a dependency matrix D in which element d(i,j) is 1 if macro i is in any way dependent upon macro j or boolean 0 if not. Let me also offer one more general comment. That some technique lends itself to misuse by clots is not in my view a good argument for suppressing that technique. I suspect, indeed, that any powerful and useful technique ineluctably lends itself to abuse by clots. The "Don't do anything complex or difficult because some clot who comes after you may not understand it" argument seems to me to be not just without merit but vicious. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
