subject:"Re\: ISPF for mainframe Linux"

Whoosh! A syntax direct editor is a frequent component of an IDE.

What seems to you is, as usual, wrong. Meanwhile, you are hypocritically doing 
exactly what you accuse me of and not even trying to understand what I and 
others have written.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 2:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 31/01/2021 10:49 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Did it ever occur to you that when you write things that people know to be 
> false, they're less likely to believe what you write about other matters?

Shrug! I could care less what you think. You're understanding of
mainframe technology seems to be chained to the past. Hence why you take
so many endless trips down memory lane.

>
> BTW, syntax directed editors have been around longer than three decades, 
> regardless of when you first discovered them.

I don't remember mentioning syntax directed editors? I was talking about
LSP and using a client/server architecture to decouple the editor from
language specific features like
context assist, hover over, auto-completion and advanced static code
analyzers. Any editor that is an LSP client can uses IBM's free COBOL,
PL/1, HLASM language servers. And that is pretty much
every popular editor including Vim (neovim). Zowe has mainframe specific
editors that use LSP. There are also many commercial products coming
online from mainframe vendors that
use LSP. It seems to me that you don't even bother trying to understand
what I'm talking about. You just hit reply and start typing lots of
pompous, ignorant drivel.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-30 Thread David Crayford


On 31/01/2021 10:49 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that when you write things that people know to be 
false, they're less likely to believe what you write about other matters?



Shrug! I could care less what you think. You're understanding of 
mainframe technology seems to be chained to the past. Hence why you take 
so many endless trips down memory lane.





BTW, syntax directed editors have been around longer than three decades, 
regardless of when you first discovered them.



I don't remember mentioning syntax directed editors? I was talking about 
LSP and using a client/server architecture to decouple the editor from 
language specific features like
context assist, hover over, auto-completion and advanced static code 
analyzers. Any editor that is an LSP client can uses IBM's free COBOL, 
PL/1, HLASM language servers. And that is pretty much
every popular editor including Vim (neovim). Zowe has mainframe specific 
editors that use LSP. There are also many commercial products coming 
online from mainframe vendors that
use LSP. It seems to me that you don't even bother trying to understand 
what I'm talking about. You just hit reply and start typing lots of 
pompous, ignorant drivel.


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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

"But his answer little meaning, little relevancy bore".   Your question has no 
connection to what I actually wrote. Further, were I to contribute to an editor 
project, I would not consult you on the choice of project, nor would I inform 
you that I had done so.


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



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Crayford 
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 1:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 30/01/2021 3:44 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I would guess that there are more people here who have written a text editor 
> than there are who have used only one.

In that case why don't you contribute to the lspf project. You mentioned
it didn't support file tailoring so jump in and implement it. I'm sure
the maintainer will welcome a PR with open arms.

Or maybe, you just talk a good game ;)


>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:06 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:
>
>> No offense taken. You may find it far fetched but it's true. I'm
>> cognizant to the fact that most folks on here only know ISPF
>> and have no experience of using an IDE or text editor
>> like vim or emacs.
> I think it's pretty likely that many (if not most) people here will have
> used a great many text editors, though maybe not recently.
>
> In my case, I wrote one when I was a student. It wasn't very good, but
> one written by a peer was so good that the whole student body, staff
> etc all stopped using the system-provided one (on DEC VAXes running,
> I suppose, VMS).
>
> Later, though while still a student, I wrote one in APL (for IBM) which
> vaguely resembled Xedit (though only had a handful of commands)
> but still made editing of APL functions a whole lot easier than with the
> default editor in APL.
>
> Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
> remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
> pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
> sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
> not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
> complex.
>
> In the 1980s, I wrote from scratch a structured editor which, I guess,
> would be a bit like a document editor that these days would read a
> DTD to determine the syntax etc of a language and allow a valid XML
> document that complied with that DTD to be edited.  I invented the
> definition language, wrote a parser and compiler for it, then wrote the
> editor to use the compiled skeletal framework.  And... it was all done in
> COBOL as that was the only licenced/supported language my employers
> would let me do it in.  It had to be able to handle documents whose
> size exceeded the addressable working storage size of the COBOL
> compiler we had (and certainly exceeded the spare space there after
> all the program's own working storage structures were defined), and of
> course it had to handle free format text and variable length strings.  I
> started off by implementing a sort of paging subsystem that dynamically
> paged parts of the document that was being edited in and out of work
> files, and designed that so that the values stored in those files - both user
> data & control tables for the document structure could be arbitrary sizes.
> The editor also had a (programmers-only) interactive debugger which
> could follow linked-lists of data, and force garbage collection of that
> managed storage etc).
>
> On RISC OS systems I've used the default editor (which is poor, somewhat
> like Notepad) and a programmers' editor named StrongED, which is not
> quite an IDE but is very powerful ... but dates back to when systems had
> only a few MB of RAM.
>
> On Windows PCs I've used around four other programmers' editors, but
> lack of scriptability, or a requirement to learn a script language that was
> only usable inside that editor and a command set that didn't directly
> relate to the commands users used (or actions only available from mouse
> operated menus and no command line), made using them a struggle
> compared with Kedit... even allowing for the fact that I started to use Kedit
> for real more than 20 years after I last used Xedit, with 18 or so years' use
> of ispf edit in the middle period to confuse me.
>
> --
>

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-30 Thread David Crayford


On 30/01/2021 3:44 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:

I would guess that there are more people here who have written a text editor 
than there are who have used only one.


In that case why don't you contribute to the lspf project. You mentioned 
it didn't support file tailoring so jump in and implement it. I'm sure 
the maintainer will welcome a PR with open arms.


Or maybe, you just talk a good game ;)




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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:


No offense taken. You may find it far fetched but it's true. I'm
cognizant to the fact that most folks on here only know ISPF
and have no experience of using an IDE or text editor
like vim or emacs.

I think it's pretty likely that many (if not most) people here will have
used a great many text editors, though maybe not recently.

In my case, I wrote one when I was a student. It wasn't very good, but
one written by a peer was so good that the whole student body, staff
etc all stopped using the system-provided one (on DEC VAXes running,
I suppose, VMS).

Later, though while still a student, I wrote one in APL (for IBM) which
vaguely resembled Xedit (though only had a handful of commands)
but still made editing of APL functions a whole lot easier than with the
default editor in APL.

Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
complex.

In the 1980s, I wrote from scratch a structured editor which, I guess,
would be a bit like a document editor that these days would read a
DTD to determine the syntax etc of a language and allow a valid XML
document that complied with that DTD to be edited.  I invented the
definition language, wrote a parser and compiler for it, then wrote the
editor to use the compiled skeletal framework.  And... it was all done in
COBOL as that was the only licenced/supported language my employers
would let me do it in.  It had to be able to handle documents whose
size exceeded the addressable working storage size of the COBOL
compiler we had (and certainly exceeded the spare space there after
all the program's own working storage structures were defined), and of
course it had to handle free format text and variable length strings.  I
started off by implementing a sort of paging subsystem that dynamically
paged parts of the document that was being edited in and out of work
files, and designed that so that the values stored in those files - both user
data & control tables for the document structure could be arbitrary sizes.
The editor also had a (programmers-only) interactive debugger which
could follow linked-lists of data, and force garbage collection of that
managed storage etc).

On RISC OS systems I've used the default editor (which is poor, somewhat
like Notepad) and a programmers' editor named StrongED, which is not
quite an IDE but is very powerful ... but dates back to when systems had
only a few MB of RAM.

On Windows PCs I've used around four other programmers' editors, but
lack of scriptability, or a requirement to learn a script language that was
only usable inside that editor and a command set that didn't directly
relate to the commands users used (or actions only available from mouse
operated menus and no command line), made using them a struggle
compared with Kedit... even allowing for the fact that I started to use Kedit
for real more than 20 years after I last used Xedit, with 18 or so years' use
of ispf edit in the middle period to confuse me.

--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-30 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 03:31:46 +, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

>I knew about acoustic delay lines, but a mechanical delay line is mind 
>boggling! Thanks.
>
I might call it circularly polarized transverse acoustic.  The quanta are
still phonons.  I wonder what the propagation velocity is?

>
>From: Wayne Bickerdike 
>Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 5:42 PM
>
>True, I inherited one written in COBOL for a Sycor 445. The machine is
>described here:
>http://www.satyam.com.ar/comphist.htm

-- gil

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I knew about acoustic delay lines, but a mechanical delay line is mind 
boggling! Thanks.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Wayne Bickerdike [wayn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 5:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Seymour Wrote:


*I would guess that there are more people here who have written a text
editor than there are who have used only one.*

True, I inherited one written in COBOL for a Sycor 445. The machine is
described here:
http://secure-web.cisco.com/163zjmUr1Oq4O7-rCUDmYSYn_f5yvRGmq2UPVII6TKbubL7DsOGRHsZ4cJAgWM9TwY3LIcalLOCdTZ_RBSmswmmMnEux4r4H2I5FIMHE9wXcuBtNO297_tiWM82sB9xqMOa7H221SxAD8bNlYHStyWXNFzEl6rjR-XC48V_tfLZnibO9pv7OPt_0j-Zv-ffUC5MgDNqnZLiFjKh_peW3lDiTUDRCutc8-3W5Wba43ZkGojY3zF6K8ClH-1-THWUOP7h02WH7go6JRMNhlzI51m5yWfr45P4Mwm7oz5Wq3spGrOCwgxCD515t4c1_za2De0_TV2OGcggj5K_S2z8EAod4bqQeBocsmvghcGwDJPBmxyvnIhdJIyJf9VMSsnnBaAinMZzp3ZAC6jOQvumdAqz-D-keKjc_e_DYZrjljF6drteGQDH4-goCRYKVg0DSA/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.satyam.com.ar%2Fcomphist.htm

I modified it to work as a data entry "simplifier". Full screen editors
were always a dream when I came away from MVS for a while.

In that interregnum, our editor of choice was Wordmaster which morphed into
Wordstar and it perhaps was the forerunner of those Control key combos a
lot of us utilise. A fair few famous authors still use and love Wordstar or
its descendents.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Glad someone invented ISPF edit
macros. Others have a different vi(ew!)


On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 6:45 AM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> I would guess that there are more people here who have written a text
> editor than there are who have used only one.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf
> of Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:06 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:
>
> > No offense taken. You may find it far fetched but it's true. I'm
> > cognizant to the fact that most folks on here only know ISPF
> > and have no experience of using an IDE or text editor
> > like vim or emacs.
>
> I think it's pretty likely that many (if not most) people here will have
> used a great many text editors, though maybe not recently.
>
> In my case, I wrote one when I was a student. It wasn't very good, but
> one written by a peer was so good that the whole student body, staff
> etc all stopped using the system-provided one (on DEC VAXes running,
> I suppose, VMS).
>
> Later, though while still a student, I wrote one in APL (for IBM) which
> vaguely resembled Xedit (though only had a handful of commands)
> but still made editing of APL functions a whole lot easier than with the
> default editor in APL.
>
> Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
> remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
> pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
> sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
> not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
> complex.
>
> In the 1980s, I wrote from scratch a structured editor which, I guess,
> would be a bit like a document editor that these days would read a
> DTD to determine the syntax etc of a language and allow a valid XML
> document that complied with that DTD to be edited.  I invented the
> definition language, wrote a parser and compiler for it, then wrote the
> editor to use the compiled skeletal framework.  And... it was all done in
> COBOL as that was the only licenced/supported language my employers
> would let me do it in.  It had to be able to handle documents whose
> size exceeded the addressable working storage size of the COBOL
> compiler we had (and certainly exceeded the spare space there after
> all the program's own working storage structures were defined), and of
> course it had to handle free format text and variable length strings.  I
> started off by implementing a sort of paging subsystem that dynamically
> paged parts of the document that was being edited in and out of work
> files, and designed that so that the values stored in those files - both
> user
> data & control tables for the document structure could be arbitrary sizes.
> The editor also had a (programmers-only) interactive debugger which
> could follow linked-lists of data, and force garbage collection of that
> managed storage etc).
>
> On RISC OS systems I've

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

There you go again, treating your fantasies about what others know and do as 
facts. 

Did it ever occur to you that when you write things that people know to be 
false, they're less likely to believe what you write about other matters?

BTW, syntax directed editors have been around longer than three decades, 
regardless of when you first discovered them.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 12:34 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 30/01/2021 6:42 am, Wayne Bickerdike wrote:
> Necessity is the mother of invention. Glad someone invented ISPF edit
> macros. Others have a different vi(ew!)

It's going to take a lot more than a few ISPF edit macros to implement
what's available in the new generation of mainframe IDEs Wayne! A couple
of years back we attended the Z roadshow at IBM, Perth.
They demoed IBM Wazi Developer which was impressive. It's a web based
IDE that spins up docker containers in the cloud for workspaces. A few
years back IBM acquired EZSource which
is a suite of tools for deep code analysis of COBOL/PL1 legacy code. It
builds a dependency graph of all the assets in an application. It can
find dead code, logic errors. Modern editors like VS Code are implemented
using language servers and the Language Server Protocol (LSP) [2] to run
RPC calls on the back-end for code completion, context assist, linting
etc. All of this fits into a devops pipeline. There were loads of young
devs
from Perths big bank that day who were using IBM developer for Z and
they will jump right on Wazi. BW are transitioning to Git so we will
lose a Proteus SCM customer and gain a Git customer.

Tooling like this is a necessity as the developers with deep knowledge
of the system retire or drop off, which is happening now.  Intelligent
tooling and modern development practices are a must. The ISPF editor is
not intelligent.
I can't even write a customer syntax highlighter for shell scripts let
alone Python, both of which are first class mainframe languages. Of
course, most of the old timers that have used ISPF for 30+ years will
stick to what they know and good luck to them.

Good news that you can get a VS Code based z/OS mainframe editor that
supports COBOL, PL1 and HLASM for free [3]. If you're running Zowe it
can integrate with the remote system explorer. I was involved in code
reviews for some of the RSE work and
it's a very neat implementation. All of the code is open source on
Github. It's hard to justify stumping up hundreds of $$ for Slickedit or
Ultraedit when you can get this for free!

[1] https://www.ibm.com/products/wazi-developer
[2] 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fzflFlaV1eL1bSYU1FPuAdSRNE0YVIKVjRN8nWdGxtFzRgJUIGifAl-EMouAFu459BUZ2A1te_e576ljRBRIhKhyya_gRxfChHYuQ2Yew4ZM-DJ9ITcymGnbluWZ8-GLqjeQ_tWGasIZb3ks9XY_auzuaQLHMz57A-t-qqC0v1-Z05qDt9UwPrnY5MxaT-PzKR2aHYPGbjyM6C9f4xYxTcN9JnkMxNYgPoDQ0AnwDlMpzQeA8EfIKDmy2eFo_VVwlB-jX8hKuEQdbRR-4FUr2V5KmvQYeUWWCw12vbElXH6GMfew5Mj3b89lLS7XXmhPkH7Q9bF9qlyU5OijJv6T8BzJAaFD6lGrgLk66lqcqYg6oNrvUWkzbxUJNQM3tgL68doMPU8bgcDcb9ZGYTHIKxmM2olCJjJHa9ct4z5xxPhiPfQvSgIJIJUFVbwURlz5Jz2xGnxv0NoTfJMJ5X85cQ/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLanguage_Server_Protocol
[3] 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Crt2Y9ns4pJIOXARhnn8pUVKhyxSlGloaqKrXmhO5_TC6wnyLNWdyQwbCT3JCOsk0hD3HQxK1oa3luh7fFfssiUkqnXzS7a-zTwOSTz5Vkooo35wSPgv7h7Jwod8OiFXy5QvyvPF16MtwjoeDhWo-g9Tm58E4-SGnnJIfuWB8PNkYfnLz4l0lE8yUvaqgvEjfewoT7BNgq0g3i5TQnLZKn8P0Y8KL1jBRBuEhO24w_o7kRDuMv3dV_ULEA0h8POf9c-KmUOYLdT9M-ncAhtc2LJIlF8ILTWlXWM02bCeHz7vAygev37exvSaCGu9eGXGo_uYeEjgW2JMmNFGK8SzEnOWUH3LeEGlWljrY5WSKWJeuCgYvEAOHlGChZsHyr1x1endomuGTtByOaof0iAY3UA5-WH_BgT2Ev8g2VAb6mWU4alBLZny6Buj4-DjGZLlUV3raqWfOpTQYNHOuUAUyQ/https%3A%2F%2Fibm.github.io%2Fzopeneditor-about%2F

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-30 Thread Alan Young

I use JOE as an editor for linux command line. 
https://joe-editor.sourceforge.io . On windows or wine, I use Notepad++. 
https://notepad-plus-plus.org

mc.ext can be configured to launch custom programs (or editors) for file 
extensions.

Exiting and keeping the directory location...Do you have an alias set for mc? 
Depending on the distro and shell, it should be something like 
alias mc='. /usr/share/mc/bin/mc-wrapper.sh'
To use that wrapper, use F10 to exit mc. Don’t enter “exit” on its prompt.

Alan

-Original Message-
>From: "Farley, Peter x23353" <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
>Sent: Jan 28, 2021 9:58 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
>Depends heavily on the editor software.  One editor I remember trying (I don't 
>remember which one now) used Ctrl-left-click to start and end a block copy.  
>Quite easy to use, one hand for the mouse and one for the Ctrl key, then 
>Ctrl-C or -X then Ctrl-V to copy/cut and paste.
>
>Sometimes combinations of mouse and keyboard are more usable than either one 
>alone.
>
>OTOH, my day-to-day PC editor under Windows (EditPlus) uses Alt-C to start a 
>block copy, then Ctrl-C or Ctrl-X to copy or cut and Ctrl-V to paste the 
>block.  I hardly have to think about it -- it Just Works.
>
>I've been tempted once or twice to pay for UltraEdit, but have not done so 
>yet.  It looks pretty good, and UltraEdit is available for Windows, Mac and 
>Linux, but it isn't cheap (though also not extraordinarily expensive for what 
>you get).
>
>There is also a free version of the MS Visual Code editor which I also haven't 
>tried yet.
>
>On Linux I often use the Midnight Commander view/edit programs (mcview/mcedit) 
>for quick browses and edits, but not for serious coding.  "vi" and it's 
>descendants are not intuitive to me, nor is emacs.  Nano is OK, but again not 
>my cup of tea for serious writing (code or text).
>
>Midnight Commander is awesome for file tree navigation from a console session 
>in both Windows and Linux.  Highly recommended.  I just wish I could figure 
>out how to tell it to STAY in the directory that I navigated to when I exit, 
>rather than going back to the directory where I started.
>
>Peter
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>Seymour J Metz
>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:29 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
>You have to carve the bird at the joints. How about a comparison of block copy 
>using keyboard versus mouse?
>
>--
>________
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
>Pew, Curtis G 
>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:23 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
>On Jan 28, 2021, at 10:04 AM, Joel C. Ewing  wrote:
>>
>> I would be willing to bet the the stopwatch studies cited were based 
>> on a highly restricted cases.
>
>The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or 
>selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as 
>moving the mouse, but the brain doesn't perceive the time passing while 
>remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the 
>mouse.
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>
>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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-29 Thread David Crayford


On 30/01/2021 6:42 am, Wayne Bickerdike wrote:

Necessity is the mother of invention. Glad someone invented ISPF edit
macros. Others have a different vi(ew!)


It's going to take a lot more than a few ISPF edit macros to implement 
what's available in the new generation of mainframe IDEs Wayne! A couple 
of years back we attended the Z roadshow at IBM, Perth.
They demoed IBM Wazi Developer which was impressive. It's a web based 
IDE that spins up docker containers in the cloud for workspaces. A few 
years back IBM acquired EZSource which
is a suite of tools for deep code analysis of COBOL/PL1 legacy code. It 
builds a dependency graph of all the assets in an application. It can 
find dead code, logic errors. Modern editors like VS Code are implemented
using language servers and the Language Server Protocol (LSP) [2] to run 
RPC calls on the back-end for code completion, context assist, linting 
etc. All of this fits into a devops pipeline. There were loads of young  
devs
from Perths big bank that day who were using IBM developer for Z and 
they will jump right on Wazi. BW are transitioning to Git so we will 
lose a Proteus SCM customer and gain a Git customer.


Tooling like this is a necessity as the developers with deep knowledge 
of the system retire or drop off, which is happening now.  Intelligent 
tooling and modern development practices are a must. The ISPF editor is 
not intelligent.
I can't even write a customer syntax highlighter for shell scripts let 
alone Python, both of which are first class mainframe languages. Of 
course, most of the old timers that have used ISPF for 30+ years will 
stick to what they know and good luck to them.


Good news that you can get a VS Code based z/OS mainframe editor that 
supports COBOL, PL1 and HLASM for free [3]. If you're running Zowe it 
can integrate with the remote system explorer. I was involved in code 
reviews for some of the RSE work and
it's a very neat implementation. All of the code is open source on 
Github. It's hard to justify stumping up hundreds of $$ for Slickedit or 
Ultraedit when you can get this for free!


[1] https://www.ibm.com/products/wazi-developer
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Server_Protocol
[3] https://ibm.github.io/zopeneditor-about/

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-29 Thread Wayne Bickerdike

Seymour Wrote:


*I would guess that there are more people here who have written a text
editor than there are who have used only one.*

True, I inherited one written in COBOL for a Sycor 445. The machine is
described here:
http://www.satyam.com.ar/comphist.htm

I modified it to work as a data entry "simplifier". Full screen editors
were always a dream when I came away from MVS for a while.

In that interregnum, our editor of choice was Wordmaster which morphed into
Wordstar and it perhaps was the forerunner of those Control key combos a
lot of us utilise. A fair few famous authors still use and love Wordstar or
its descendents.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Glad someone invented ISPF edit
macros. Others have a different vi(ew!)


On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 6:45 AM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> I would guess that there are more people here who have written a text
> editor than there are who have used only one.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf
> of Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:06 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:
>
> > No offense taken. You may find it far fetched but it's true. I'm
> > cognizant to the fact that most folks on here only know ISPF
> > and have no experience of using an IDE or text editor
> > like vim or emacs.
>
> I think it's pretty likely that many (if not most) people here will have
> used a great many text editors, though maybe not recently.
>
> In my case, I wrote one when I was a student. It wasn't very good, but
> one written by a peer was so good that the whole student body, staff
> etc all stopped using the system-provided one (on DEC VAXes running,
> I suppose, VMS).
>
> Later, though while still a student, I wrote one in APL (for IBM) which
> vaguely resembled Xedit (though only had a handful of commands)
> but still made editing of APL functions a whole lot easier than with the
> default editor in APL.
>
> Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
> remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
> pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
> sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
> not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
> complex.
>
> In the 1980s, I wrote from scratch a structured editor which, I guess,
> would be a bit like a document editor that these days would read a
> DTD to determine the syntax etc of a language and allow a valid XML
> document that complied with that DTD to be edited.  I invented the
> definition language, wrote a parser and compiler for it, then wrote the
> editor to use the compiled skeletal framework.  And... it was all done in
> COBOL as that was the only licenced/supported language my employers
> would let me do it in.  It had to be able to handle documents whose
> size exceeded the addressable working storage size of the COBOL
> compiler we had (and certainly exceeded the spare space there after
> all the program's own working storage structures were defined), and of
> course it had to handle free format text and variable length strings.  I
> started off by implementing a sort of paging subsystem that dynamically
> paged parts of the document that was being edited in and out of work
> files, and designed that so that the values stored in those files - both
> user
> data & control tables for the document structure could be arbitrary sizes.
> The editor also had a (programmers-only) interactive debugger which
> could follow linked-lists of data, and force garbage collection of that
> managed storage etc).
>
> On RISC OS systems I've used the default editor (which is poor, somewhat
> like Notepad) and a programmers' editor named StrongED, which is not
> quite an IDE but is very powerful ... but dates back to when systems had
> only a few MB of RAM.
>
> On Windows PCs I've used around four other programmers' editors, but
> lack of scriptability, or a requirement to learn a script language that was
> only usable inside that editor and a command set that didn't directly
> relate to the commands users used (or actions only available from mouse
> operated menus and no command line), made using them a struggle
> compared with Kedit... even allowing for the fact that I started to use
> Kedit
> for real more than 20 years after I last used Xedit, with 18 or so years'
> use
> of ispf edit in the middle period to confuse me.
&g

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-29 Thread Jeremy Nicoll

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 19:29, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:06:55 +, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:
> >...
> >Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
> >remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
> >pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
> >sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
> >not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
> >complex.

> ??? That seems an internal contradiction: it should be easier to
> memorize command names than PF key definitions.

The students concerned had a total of let's say one day (it might 
have been half a day) to learn about the task they had to do, 
learn to use a text editor, learn how to write and test their very
simple program, and feel they'd achieved something.  None of 
them had any knowledge of any kind of computer at the start
of the course.

The system editor was Xedit and it wasn't possible to lock down 
how it worked so that they couldn't tie themselves in a knot.

I was asked to write something that would, like a normal editor
display the contents of the file, allow them to duplicate lines,
delete them, move, copy them, & insert new ones (I think that's
all).  

So in the default view there would be a small number of PF keys
active, each of which if pressed would commence a series of 
prompts depending on what had been pressed.  I can't recall
the fine details, but while someone was, say, moving a line, the
only things they could do were identify the line that was to be 
moved or cancel the process.  Once they'd identified the line,
the next choice allowed only identification of where the line was
to go, or cancel the process.  And so on.

> And "PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context sensitive"
> (extremely modal) is only possible with a very sophisticated
> terminal that can re-label keys depending on context (like
> Mac Pro's touch bar?)  Or was there a key legend on screen?

I'm not sure that anything was "very sophisticated".  The screen
contents was under the total control of the editor program. We
did not have ISPF (too expensive).  Instead the utility that was eg
used to present screens for data entry was used to present the
editor view, and if eg at the foot it said "PF7 Move" then the 
user would be able to press PF7 to initiate a Move process. If
they pressed an unlabelled PF key, nothing would happen.  I'm
fairly sure that as soon as a Move was being done the fields 
that contained lines of data were protected so they couldn't 
change lines while moving others

It was deliberately designed (by the teaching staff) to be far,
far less powerful than Xedit.

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-29 Thread Seymour J Metz

I would guess that there are more people here who have written a text editor 
than there are who have used only one.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:

> No offense taken. You may find it far fetched but it's true. I'm
> cognizant to the fact that most folks on here only know ISPF
> and have no experience of using an IDE or text editor
> like vim or emacs.

I think it's pretty likely that many (if not most) people here will have
used a great many text editors, though maybe not recently.

In my case, I wrote one when I was a student. It wasn't very good, but
one written by a peer was so good that the whole student body, staff
etc all stopped using the system-provided one (on DEC VAXes running,
I suppose, VMS).

Later, though while still a student, I wrote one in APL (for IBM) which
vaguely resembled Xedit (though only had a handful of commands)
but still made editing of APL functions a whole lot easier than with the
default editor in APL.

Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
complex.

In the 1980s, I wrote from scratch a structured editor which, I guess,
would be a bit like a document editor that these days would read a
DTD to determine the syntax etc of a language and allow a valid XML
document that complied with that DTD to be edited.  I invented the
definition language, wrote a parser and compiler for it, then wrote the
editor to use the compiled skeletal framework.  And... it was all done in
COBOL as that was the only licenced/supported language my employers
would let me do it in.  It had to be able to handle documents whose
size exceeded the addressable working storage size of the COBOL
compiler we had (and certainly exceeded the spare space there after
all the program's own working storage structures were defined), and of
course it had to handle free format text and variable length strings.  I
started off by implementing a sort of paging subsystem that dynamically
paged parts of the document that was being edited in and out of work
files, and designed that so that the values stored in those files - both user
data & control tables for the document structure could be arbitrary sizes.
The editor also had a (programmers-only) interactive debugger which
could follow linked-lists of data, and force garbage collection of that
managed storage etc).

On RISC OS systems I've used the default editor (which is poor, somewhat
like Notepad) and a programmers' editor named StrongED, which is not
quite an IDE but is very powerful ... but dates back to when systems had
only a few MB of RAM.

On Windows PCs I've used around four other programmers' editors, but
lack of scriptability, or a requirement to learn a script language that was
only usable inside that editor and a command set that didn't directly
relate to the commands users used (or actions only available from mouse
operated menus and no command line), made using them a struggle
compared with Kedit... even allowing for the fact that I started to use Kedit
for real more than 20 years after I last used Xedit, with 18 or so years' use
of ispf edit in the middle period to confuse me.

--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-29 Thread Seymour J Metz

You don't need a sophisticated terminal to have context-dependent definitions 
of a PFK; all that you need are macros that test the context. BTDT,GTTS (no 
scars, just the tee shirt)

Of course, if you want the labeling on the key to change, that's harder.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin [000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:06:55 +, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:
>...
>Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
>remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
>pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
>sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
>not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
>complex.
>
??? That seems an internal contradiction: it should be easier to
memorize command names than PF key definitions.  And
"PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context sensitive"
(extremely modal) is only possible with a very sophisticated
terminal that can re-label keys depending on context (like
Mac Pro's touch bar?)  Or was there a key legend on screen?

-- 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-29 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:06:55 +, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:
>...
>Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to
>remember any commands; everything they did was selected by
>pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context
>sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did
>not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything
>complex.
> 
??? That seems an internal contradiction: it should be easier to
memorize command names than PF key definitions.  And
"PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context sensitive"
(extremely modal) is only possible with a very sophisticated
terminal that can re-label keys depending on context (like
Mac Pro's touch bar?)  Or was there a key legend on screen?

-- gil

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-29 Thread Jeremy Nicoll

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, at 03:27, David Crayford wrote:

> No offense taken. You may find it far fetched but it's true. I'm 
> cognizant to the fact that most folks on here only know ISPF 
> and have no experience of using an IDE or text editor 
> like vim or emacs. 

I think it's pretty likely that many (if not most) people here will have 
used a great many text editors, though maybe not recently.

In my case, I wrote one when I was a student. It wasn't very good, but
one written by a peer was so good that the whole student body, staff
etc all stopped using the system-provided one (on DEC VAXes running, 
I suppose, VMS).

Later, though while still a student, I wrote one in APL (for IBM) which 
vaguely resembled Xedit (though only had a handful of commands)
but still made editing of APL functions a whole lot easier than with the
default editor in APL. 

Later, I wrote a PF-key driven editor (that is users did not have to 
remember any commands; everything they did was selected by 
pressing various PF keys whose labels (and actions) were context 
sensitive.  That was designed for use by very naive users who did 
not have (allocated lecture-course) time to learn to use anything 
complex.

In the 1980s, I wrote from scratch a structured editor which, I guess, 
would be a bit like a document editor that these days would read a 
DTD to determine the syntax etc of a language and allow a valid XML 
document that complied with that DTD to be edited.  I invented the 
definition language, wrote a parser and compiler for it, then wrote the 
editor to use the compiled skeletal framework.  And... it was all done in 
COBOL as that was the only licenced/supported language my employers 
would let me do it in.  It had to be able to handle documents whose 
size exceeded the addressable working storage size of the COBOL 
compiler we had (and certainly exceeded the spare space there after 
all the program's own working storage structures were defined), and of 
course it had to handle free format text and variable length strings.  I 
started off by implementing a sort of paging subsystem that dynamically
paged parts of the document that was being edited in and out of work 
files, and designed that so that the values stored in those files - both user 
data & control tables for the document structure could be arbitrary sizes.
The editor also had a (programmers-only) interactive debugger which 
could follow linked-lists of data, and force garbage collection of that 
managed storage etc).

On RISC OS systems I've used the default editor (which is poor, somewhat
like Notepad) and a programmers' editor named StrongED, which is not 
quite an IDE but is very powerful ... but dates back to when systems had 
only a few MB of RAM.

On Windows PCs I've used around four other programmers' editors, but 
lack of scriptability, or a requirement to learn a script language that was
only usable inside that editor and a command set that didn't directly 
relate to the commands users used (or actions only available from mouse
operated menus and no command line), made using them a struggle 
compared with Kedit... even allowing for the fact that I started to use Kedit
for real more than 20 years after I last used Xedit, with 18 or so years' use
of ispf edit in the middle period to confuse me.

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread David Crayford


On 29/01/2021 4:40 am, Bob Bridges wrote:

I didn't bother to reply to Mr Crayford's post; he seems to be saying that
he encounters no editing task nowadays that he can't do just as well
manually as if he wrote an editing program.  I can't take that seriously.
(No offense intended; I may have misunderstood.)


No offense taken. You may find it far fetched but it's true. I'm 
cognizant to the fact that most folks on here
only know ISPF and have no experience of using an IDE or text editor 
like vim or emacs. And that is the salient point of the OP.
If you find yourself working on Linux then you should learn the tools of 
that platform. You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find.


If anybody want's to be adventurous and try out vim (neovim) my colleage 
has written a nerdtree plugin [1] that supports z/OS remote browsing
using FTP and PDS data sets. It uses the z/OSMF REST API to submit jobs 
and retrieve spool output. There is also a JCL syntax highlighter [2].


[1] https://github.com/davdai01/nerdtree-zos-plugin
[2] https://github.com/davdai01/jcl.vim

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Farley, Peter x23353

Ah, memories!  I still have my copy of P J Brown's book around here somewhere.  
Seminal work.

I was not aware of Prof. Cole's book, thanks for the link.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Jeremy Nicoll
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:48 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 22:21, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> The term macro has been used for programs called from within the 
> assembler since the 1950s, and the generated text was rescanned. In 
> the TSO world, edit macros written in CLIST are subject to controlled 
> rescans while edit macros written in REXX are not.
> 
> There's a lot more to the history than what's in the wiki article.

Yes I know.  I've read two textbooks cover-to-cover on macro processing:

A J Cole's - Macro Processors
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/34593/Macro-Processors/__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!ZoBT40xWxZcyxj-LEA72fMzpuiA1gm-sW0Hhak6XzJ_Q5Tjd6Hwq-yCXy6tWjKWiZDFGXg$

(Prof Cole was the Comp Sci prof at St Andrews University, in Scotland, where 
I'm ashamed to say I didn't work very hard, but sang in lots and lots of 
choirs.  I bought and read most of my textbook collection after
graduating.)

P J Brown  - Macro Processors and Techniques for Portable Software 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/10153/Macro-Processors-and-Techniques-for-Portable-Software/__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!ZoBT40xWxZcyxj-LEA72fMzpuiA1gm-sW0Hhak6XzJ_Q5Tjd6Hwq-yCXy6tWjKXWPq5yjw$
(IIRC Peter Brown was a prof elsewhere - Univ of Canterbury? - and I do 
remember him coming as a visiting lecturer.)

--

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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 22:21, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> The term macro has been used for programs called from within the 
> assembler since the 1950s, and the generated text was rescanned. In the 
> TSO world, edit macros written in CLIST are subject to controlled 
> rescans while edit macros written in REXX are not.
> 
> There's a lot more to the history than what's in the wiki article.

Yes I know.  I've read two textbooks cover-to-cover on macro processing:

A J Cole's - Macro Processors
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/34593/Macro-Processors/

(Prof Cole was the Comp Sci prof at St Andrews University, in Scotland, 
where I'm ashamed to say I didn't work very hard, but sang in lots and 
lots of choirs.  I bought and read most of my textbook collection after 
graduating.)

P J Brown  - Macro Processors and Techniques for Portable Software
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/10153/Macro-Processors-and-Techniques-for-Portable-Software/
(IIRC Peter Brown was a prof elsewhere - Univ of Canterbury? - and I do
remember him coming as a visiting lecturer.)

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Well, TECO was the original platform for Emacs, back in the day.

I started with cards; even Wordstar was more user friendly. Of course, by the 
time I was forced to use Wordstar I had already been exposed to better editors.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob 
Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 1:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

All this is reminding me repeatedly of the time I spent learning, and
eventually writing edit macros in, TECO, the singularly unintuitive text
editor on the DECsystem-10.  Not that I'm moaning for it to come back...but
it was unexpectedly handy once I learned its ins and outs.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.  -Ambrose Bierce */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:31

The first thing I look at in an editor is the macro language. ISPF has it
all over vi in that regard. While I don't like all those parentheses, emacs
is clearly better than vi in that regard.

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:44 AM

Doesn't everybody know that 'G' takes you to the bottom of the file and 'gg'
to the top ;)

I used to hate Vim and considered the learning curve too steep. First thing
I would do when I spun up a Linux VM was install nano. Then I bit the bullet
and invested the time to learn how to use it.
Now it's my favorite text editor. I use it all the time on z/OS as my
employer has ported it as part of the z/OS Open Source tools product.
Once you have an intermediate level of proficiency you can do amazing things
WRT navigation, searching/replacing, editing all with a ridiculously small
amount of keystrokes. To beautify source code indentation simply type
'gg=G'.

If you check out the neovim [1] fork contributors. They're all young guys!
These are web devs, devops, game developers all using a shell based TUI
editor and not a fancy GUI. 41K stars is just amazing!
To general consensus is that using a mouse is a productivity killer. How
times change! Nobody would consider writing an ISPF WSA these days.

Don't fight it, feel it. Watch a few YouTube tutorial videos and you'll be a
convert in no time.

[1]
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QgPCAFtLnqwmqEYF3MPtZYZENyxwzsFUV4xpSA38BYbBU_
QN4wbLZnTgYS8L82-nFWxMcG5Ms9jgKRGSr0Wpz6uh4TNOSsCXDCQTfA4phOymlCU0xnkhpLFK0G
FBmCZ1fiCsxUm0wkIwes12ehYbdliqwgCs3CKBSgG1attgYp1L6d6t1WxYDygW6cl9Fhw-hEn4Rr
5x7bKNKxmUEsQkA6NN3dbJW2pcPsx-CQKuZytIwb9_gvjvQakasLzqTGTQ8vGuSPWY3AYGDnW58o
eO25XyCiTBXVWU_B3_nVjj-WdbQSyvE90xAJba13Mhn31dG11FW9lVmEYa-uMUDObV6qyubWNMNu
12g9QBNIRI6dEVXSK-eqqH_qcimYrpQsFSZa5OB3e-GuVNhPYLGahpfFp9XEq69a2p4NyhEf62fj
oAv8cVB8eTzWGUqUPCKir7/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fneovim%2Fneovim

On 27/01/2021 1:57 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:
> On 1/26/2021 7:42 PM, David Crayford wrote:
>> I know the old adage that old dogs can't learn new tricks but why not
>> just learn native Linux tools?
> Because somebody decided that "end save" would be ":wq" which of
> course makes perfect sense :)
>
> Actually, I barely know enough of the vi editor to get by, and have to
> google every time even for simple things like how to move to the
> bottom of a file.  But other mainframe folks I work with are far worse
> than me.
>
> Still, I agree with you.  Just learn what everybody else has already
> found to work best in that environment.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Typically people call a program a script when it issues a lot of host commands 
and is interpreted rather than running from a compiled and linked executable.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:55 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 15:40, Bob Bridges  wrote:

> By the way, what in y'all's opinion is the proper use of the word "macro"?
> I hear the term "Excel macro" all the time, for example, but how is it not,
> simply, a program?  My own idea (not worth very much, but it is my own) is
> that a macro is a series of commands, such as we used to have in the old DOS
> .bat language.  But as soon as the syntax starts allowing for IF and GOTO
> statements, it's no longer a macro; it's a program.

Same thing with the word "script". That too is just a program, non?
(Well obviously script and program[me] have other, non-computer
usages.) I think script tends to be used for some loose combination of
non-compiled language and housekeeping tasks. So you write a REXX or
Lua or whatever program to run your fancy job, but a 10,000 line REXX
thing that could have been written in COBOL is a program. But then
there's Java and Javascript. Java used to be the thing server code was
written in, but now Javascript does a lot of that stuff too.

Tony H.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 19:44, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 07:58, David Crayford wrote:
> > I think your the one missing the point. I can't remember the last time I 
> > had to write a macro as I can do the things I need just using commands.
> 
> I used Xedit (with macros I wrote in EXEC or EXEC 2) for a few years in the
> 1980s.

One of those was quite interesting.  I was working in a college where we
taught students to program in WATERLOO BASIC, which was a line-
numbered language with GOTO and GOSUB that were line-number 
based.

I decided to expand the capability of the language to support named 
functions & procedures and remove all the line numbers.  When someone
saved a file written in my improved BASIC an edit macro reinserted the 
line numbers and replaced named function/procedure definitions and calls
with the line-number-based instructions, and placed a flag in a REM 
statement near the start of the file saying this had been done and 
altered other lines so the names the programmer had used were still 
there somewhere (I can't remember the fine details). Of course if there 
were problems with the file it stopped and told the user to fix them,
rather than writing the modified file to disk.

When someone started to edit such a program the line numbers were 
stripped out and their previously-defined names reinserted.  

Both macros obviously had to do a certain amount of checking for things
that could screw-up the process.

We only let the more competent students use the improved BASIC, as
at run-time it was the line-numbered code that they themselves hadn't
written that would run and errors they might see would be in terms of 
the manipulated code.  Ironically it was the less-able students who may
have benefitted most from being able to write 

   call printline

rather than eg 

12010 GOSUB 15000

Even just not having 6 or 7 columns of screen space wasted with the
line numbers was an advantage...

[I think what inspired me to do this may have been our use of a Pascal 
compiler (from a Swiss or German university?) which needed certain 
characters - maybe square brackets? - represented by different byte 
values from those that our UK VM/CMS system generated.  That was 
solved with Xedit macros that fiddled with those program files just 
before a user edited them and just afterwards.]  

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I don't recall KEDIT being unacceptably slow, just missing some features of 
XEDIT. I still believe that it was a good choice for that particular project.

My PC editor of choice, TSPF, could run contemporaneous edit macros and ISPF 
dialogs that didn't rely on MVS-only services. Could you tell from looking at 
this that it was never near TSO or ISPF?

   when rc = 4 then do
  'LINEAFTER .ZL = (books)'
  address ISPEXEC
  zedsmsg = 'Missing SET BOOKSHELF='
  zedlmsg = 'SET BOOKSHELF= line added to config.sys'
  'SETMSG MSG(ISRZ001)'
  exit 4
  end

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 20:21, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> KEXX? When I used KEDIT I found KEXX under powered for anything but key
> binding; KEDIT supported Quercus REXX, so I was home free. I just wish
> that KEDIT had been a larger subset of XEDIT, e.g., SET PENDING.
>
> Fortunately most of my XEDIT scripts were after REXX came along, and I
> didn't have to do much with EXEC and ECEX2. I wish that THE was fully
> compatible with XEDIT.

Although I bought Kedit a long, long time ago - in W3.1 days - I hated W3.1
so much that I didn't use it much and stuck to (ex-)Acorn RISC OS machines.

It wasn't until I was forced (by real life) to stop using RISC OS desktop
computers and acquired a Win XP laptop (and on it an emulator of the
StrongARM processor and RO etc) and slowly migrated what I did to XP
that I looked around for a text editor that I liked.  I tried several before I
remembered I still had the diskettes for Kedit, and then found it still existed
and got an updated version.

I know that at some point various size limits in Kedit got vastly increased and
KEXX also lost some limits, but it may be that realistically what's really made
the difference is vastly faster processors, lots more RAM, and recently SSDs.

I still regret that I cannot run any of my old ispf edit macros.

I miss the ability to insert note lines in files with code like

 "line_after .zcsr = noteline (text)"

and being able to overlay (merge) the contents of one set of lines with
another via prefix commands.

--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

The term macro has been used for programs called from within the assembler 
since the 1950s, and the generated text was rescanned. In the TSO world, edit 
macros written in CLIST are subject to controlled rescans while edit macros 
written in REXX are not.

There's a lot more to the history than what's in the wiki article.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 20:40, Bob Bridges wrote:

> By the way, what in y'all's opinion is the proper use of the word "macro"?

The classic computer science meaning is explained at:

https://secure-web.cisco.com/1WzQ7OjlMZa3cnz8KU_ys2z1pVbKs0Xj22Pj6wh50ru_TFm9FCDfyDckYx6iR1o0tbp-DxcJknw80Dc6op2gg0DJkqKfVl2sGIIbHiVrdoRUFWXqNO1TMJwk7fxYkGug80lZTnkJjIRSxGgr666CA8YuvOgGQwXyhiC1UPg09lc5AkDkzgf_81RUj5bFaNgffOhMWWzjshjHr43VOQ6Xcm3kOSozj4pe7cQ3-UiWTxm0BanV8hisphkbnd8tquuMMLfcn86swtdgSskxGQ1wPAUMvXHv4yU47Uzb4hdxdU0mdYtr7BSisrUxSuZf6L6SGFd0HbRavCjX3AryDdTFmx0J-8ZnpwhpclBW-3kXYx-GI4K2Ausm-5MnjPYJsx5aCMHUMvF0dccSXb8-RyAOc-0oxd3KdNQbPWdTXhj9OmvvEfIm3ADlMGtLR2E5QdMrw/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMacro_%28computer_science%29

- it's where one character sequence is detected in a file and replaced by
another.  The place you're most likely to see simple ones is in C programs
with things like

#define PI 3.14159

so that wherever PI  is placed in program source the C preprocessor will
replace those two characters by the seven characters: 3.14159

It also supports more complex string substitutions where eg

#define RADTODEG(x) ((x) * 57.29578)

means that an instance of  RADTODEG(17) in the program is replaced by
the character string ((17) * 57.29578).

The string is not evaluated - it's a direct string substitution before the
compiler gets to see the code.

The other obvious place is in Assembler where every time a macro is
found in the code it is replaced by the instruction sequence it generates.


The way that some applications record keystrokes and can then play them
back is closer to this meaning of "macro" because they work by replacing
a shortcut found in the keyboard buffer with the sequence of recorded
keystrokes, as if the user had typed them instead.

Of course, such processes these days tend also to record things like mouse
clicks, so it's not so obviously just a character string replacement.


I don't know why programs that run within an editor are named macros.
Maybe the earliest ones were?  If you say that a macro name placed in
the command line gets removed and replaced by a stored sequence of
editor commands, it's the same idea.  But by the time the macro gets
to the point of supporting a whole programming language of its own
and might not issue any editor commands at all, it's harder to justify.


--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 28, 2021, at 1:25 PM, Bob Bridges  wrote:
> 
> This is fascinating, and not a little disturbing.  I have long understood 
> that keyboard shortcuts that save me immense quantities of time won't help a 
> coworker who won't take the time to learn them deep down, simply because he 
> has to stop and think about what key sequence is the next step, while I 
> (who've been doing it longer) can "just do it".  (Actually this can be 
> applied to almost any task, not just keyboard shortcuts.)  So if I want to 
> eliminate all duplicate values in an Excel column, I can execute all the 
> steps in ten or fifteen seconds; but once I've explained to my boss how to do 
> it, and he understands it, it'll still take him 60 or 120 seconds until he's 
> done it often enough.
> 
> But this quotation would have me believe that the time I save by being 
> familiar with the process is illusory.  Is that possible?  It seems to me 
> that when I want to select a row in Excel, I don't have to think about which 
> key sequence to find; my fingers hit  without conscious 
> intervention.  But the horrible plausibility of the below claim lies in the 
> fact that I DON'T THINK ABOUT DOING IT - which is just what your article said.
> 
> ...Nah, I don't buy it anyway.  Any complicated task we learn, say driving a 
> car or playing your favorite X-box action game, involves becoming familiar 
> with commands and combinations of buttons that get us killed multiple times 
> at first - I hope that doesn't apply to your driving, but it certainly does 
> when learning to play EVE Online or Rainbow 6 - until you realize at some 
> point that you're no longer thinking about the buttons as such:  You 
> experience a strong impulse to dodge right and raise shields, and both events 
> occur, by magic apparently.
> 
> Come to think of it, this is how we notice we're finally learning a language, 
> too:  I hear something and understand it without translating it, or realize 
> that I've just said it without having to think out how.
> 
> Still, you've got me a just a little worried
> 

The studies cited took place in the 1980s and probably with people with little 
exposure to personal computers, or at least computers with graphical 
interfaces. Muscle memory is definitely a thing.

But the real point is that you can’t trust how long it seems to take. “Time 
flies when you’re having fun,” and it drags when you’re bored. Unless you’ve 
performed a real measurement, you don’t really know which is faster.


-- 
Pew, Curtis G
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 20:21, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> KEXX? When I used KEDIT I found KEXX under powered for anything but key 
> binding; KEDIT supported Quercus REXX, so I was home free. I just wish 
> that KEDIT had been a larger subset of XEDIT, e.g., SET PENDING.
> 
> Fortunately most of my XEDIT scripts were after REXX came along, and I 
> didn't have to do much with EXEC and ECEX2. I wish that THE was fully 
> compatible with XEDIT.

Although I bought Kedit a long, long time ago - in W3.1 days - I hated W3.1
so much that I didn't use it much and stuck to (ex-)Acorn RISC OS machines. 

It wasn't until I was forced (by real life) to stop using RISC OS desktop 
computers and acquired a Win XP laptop (and on it an emulator of the 
StrongARM processor and RO etc) and slowly migrated what I did to XP 
that I looked around for a text editor that I liked.  I tried several before I 
remembered I still had the diskettes for Kedit, and then found it still existed
and got an updated version.

I know that at some point various size limits in Kedit got vastly increased and
KEXX also lost some limits, but it may be that realistically what's really made
the difference is vastly faster processors, lots more RAM, and recently SSDs.

I still regret that I cannot run any of my old ispf edit macros.

I miss the ability to insert note lines in files with code like

 "line_after .zcsr = noteline (text)"

and being able to overlay (merge) the contents of one set of lines with 
another via prefix commands. 

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 20:40, Bob Bridges wrote:

> By the way, what in y'all's opinion is the proper use of the word "macro"?

The classic computer science meaning is explained at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_(computer_science)

- it's where one character sequence is detected in a file and replaced by 
another.  The place you're most likely to see simple ones is in C programs
with things like 

#define PI 3.14159

so that wherever PI  is placed in program source the C preprocessor will
replace those two characters by the seven characters: 3.14159

It also supports more complex string substitutions where eg 

#define RADTODEG(x) ((x) * 57.29578)

means that an instance of  RADTODEG(17) in the program is replaced by 
the character string ((17) * 57.29578).

The string is not evaluated - it's a direct string substitution before the 
compiler gets to see the code.

The other obvious place is in Assembler where every time a macro is 
found in the code it is replaced by the instruction sequence it generates.


The way that some applications record keystrokes and can then play them
back is closer to this meaning of "macro" because they work by replacing 
a shortcut found in the keyboard buffer with the sequence of recorded 
keystrokes, as if the user had typed them instead.

Of course, such processes these days tend also to record things like mouse
clicks, so it's not so obviously just a character string replacement.
 

I don't know why programs that run within an editor are named macros. 
Maybe the earliest ones were?  If you say that a macro name placed in 
the command line gets removed and replaced by a stored sequence of 
editor commands, it's the same idea.  But by the time the macro gets 
to the point of supporting a whole programming language of its own
and might not issue any editor commands at all, it's harder to justify.


-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Tony Harminc

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 15:40, Bob Bridges  wrote:

> By the way, what in y'all's opinion is the proper use of the word "macro"?
> I hear the term "Excel macro" all the time, for example, but how is it not,
> simply, a program?  My own idea (not worth very much, but it is my own) is
> that a macro is a series of commands, such as we used to have in the old DOS
> .bat language.  But as soon as the syntax starts allowing for IF and GOTO
> statements, it's no longer a macro; it's a program.

Same thing with the word "script". That too is just a program, non?
(Well obviously script and program[me] have other, non-computer
usages.) I think script tends to be used for some loose combination of
non-compiled language and housekeeping tasks. So you write a REXX or
Lua or whatever program to run your fancy job, but a 10,000 line REXX
thing that could have been written in COBOL is a program. But then
there's Java and Javascript. Java used to be the thing server code was
written in, but now Javascript does a lot of that stuff too.

Tony H.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

> Mr Crayford's post; he seems to be saying that
> he encounters no editing task nowadays that he can't do
> just as well manually as if he wrote an editing program.

More than that; he seems to be saying that nobody else has legitimate reasons 
for writing edit macros.

> By the way, what in y'all's opinion is the proper use of the word "macro"?

Well, could take the 1950s position that a macro is in a language integrated 
with the language that it generates, but I consider that to be too narrow. I do 
not consider key bindings generated by recording keystrokes to be macros, but 
that's a losing battle. I lean towards using the term for text processing 
programs interpreted within the context of an application and having access to 
the state of that application, or similar programs operating on semantic 
elements, but that is again too narrow: it excludes, e.g., 7070 Autocoder 
macros. It's like pornography - I know it when I see it, and not everybody will 
agree with how I classify it.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob 
Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 3:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I didn't bother to reply to Mr Crayford's post; he seems to be saying that
he encounters no editing task nowadays that he can't do just as well
manually as if he wrote an editing program.  I can't take that seriously.
(No offense intended; I may have misunderstood.)

Mr Nicoll got me thinking about it in more detail.  I have an ISPF Edit
macro I use all the time (I named it XP for "expand") that I can point to a
particular line number in my JCL; it'll find the DSN on that line number and
throw me into a View session of it.  No more highlighting and copying the
DSN, then splitting the screen and starting a View menu; just "XP 13" and
I'm looking at the DS.  There's an option that will copy the dataset into
the JCL instead of putting a View session over it, and others that will
browse or edit the dataset instead of view it.  And then, of course,
following Scott Adams' dictum, I had to teach it other things; why stop at
DD DSN=?  The same Edit macro can (usually) find a DSN in my REXX code, a
copybook member named in a COBOL statement, a PROC named in an EXEC
statement and anything else I take it into my head to teach it.

(There are some tasks that are so common that many REXX programmers automate
them, reïnventing the wheel over and over.  I don't understand why this
isn't one of them.)

---

By the way, what in y'all's opinion is the proper use of the word "macro"?
I hear the term "Excel macro" all the time, for example, but how is it not,
simply, a program?  My own idea (not worth very much, but it is my own) is
that a macro is a series of commands, such as we used to have in the old DOS
.bat language.  But as soon as the syntax starts allowing for IF and GOTO
statements, it's no longer a macro; it's a program.

I still write "ISPF Edit macro", just to match the documentation.  But it
isn't a macro; it's a program, n'est-ce pas?

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* Marriage is an act of will, divorce an act of won't.  -screenwriter Josh
Greenfeld */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
Jeremy Nicoll
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 14:44

A typical macro I have here gets used when I download a telephone bill.  The
data arrives here as a table of numbers called, call durations, dates etc.
The macro does a certain amount of syntax checking, so that it will fail
sensibly if the phone company change the format of their data file.  It then
reformats it, grouping calls per destination, summing the costs for each
destination, and also inserting textual descriptions of the numbers called
(ie people's names, company names etc).

I do not think a macro recording and playback approach would work.  There is
a lot of logic in the Kexx/Rexx aspect of the macro, apart from the editor
commands that get issued.

My longest macro is just over 12,500 lines long

--- On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 07:58, David Crayford wrote:
> I can't remember the last time I had to write a macro as I can do the
things I need just using commands.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Bob Bridges

I didn't bother to reply to Mr Crayford's post; he seems to be saying that
he encounters no editing task nowadays that he can't do just as well
manually as if he wrote an editing program.  I can't take that seriously.
(No offense intended; I may have misunderstood.)

Mr Nicoll got me thinking about it in more detail.  I have an ISPF Edit
macro I use all the time (I named it XP for "expand") that I can point to a
particular line number in my JCL; it'll find the DSN on that line number and
throw me into a View session of it.  No more highlighting and copying the
DSN, then splitting the screen and starting a View menu; just "XP 13" and
I'm looking at the DS.  There's an option that will copy the dataset into
the JCL instead of putting a View session over it, and others that will
browse or edit the dataset instead of view it.  And then, of course,
following Scott Adams' dictum, I had to teach it other things; why stop at
DD DSN=?  The same Edit macro can (usually) find a DSN in my REXX code, a
copybook member named in a COBOL statement, a PROC named in an EXEC
statement and anything else I take it into my head to teach it.

(There are some tasks that are so common that many REXX programmers automate
them, reïnventing the wheel over and over.  I don't understand why this
isn't one of them.)

---

By the way, what in y'all's opinion is the proper use of the word "macro"?
I hear the term "Excel macro" all the time, for example, but how is it not,
simply, a program?  My own idea (not worth very much, but it is my own) is
that a macro is a series of commands, such as we used to have in the old DOS
.bat language.  But as soon as the syntax starts allowing for IF and GOTO
statements, it's no longer a macro; it's a program.

I still write "ISPF Edit macro", just to match the documentation.  But it
isn't a macro; it's a program, n'est-ce pas?

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* Marriage is an act of will, divorce an act of won't.  -screenwriter Josh
Greenfeld */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
Jeremy Nicoll
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 14:44

A typical macro I have here gets used when I download a telephone bill.  The
data arrives here as a table of numbers called, call durations, dates etc.
The macro does a certain amount of syntax checking, so that it will fail
sensibly if the phone company change the format of their data file.  It then
reformats it, grouping calls per destination, summing the costs for each
destination, and also inserting textual descriptions of the numbers called
(ie people's names, company names etc).

I do not think a macro recording and playback approach would work.  There is
a lot of logic in the Kexx/Rexx aspect of the macro, apart from the editor
commands that get issued.

My longest macro is just over 12,500 lines long

--- On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 07:58, David Crayford wrote:
> I can't remember the last time I had to write a macro as I can do the
things I need just using commands.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Doing meaningful comparisons of languages is hard; there are a lot of variables 
to take into account, e.g., what finger macros do your users have. For the 
comparison to be generally applicabler you need a large enough sample so you 
can analyze the effect of each independent variable with a reasonable degree of 
confidence. You need a lot of test cases for similar reasons.

What I find disturbing is when I've been doing something for years, sometimes 
for decades, and a colleague tells me that the platform can't do it. Doesn't 
anybody RTFM? I suspect that that goes back to my Uncle Crow and Aunt Maggie.

While it has been misused, the things people do in excell show why major 
applications should be scriptable.

If you've developed finger macros for your key bindings then I doubt that the 
savings are illusory, unless the time to develope them exceeds the savings.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob 
Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 2:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

This is fascinating, and not a little disturbing.  I have long understood that 
keyboard shortcuts that save me immense quantities of time won't help a 
coworker who won't take the time to learn them deep down, simply because he has 
to stop and think about what key sequence is the next step, while I (who've 
been doing it longer) can "just do it".  (Actually this can be applied to 
almost any task, not just keyboard shortcuts.)  So if I want to eliminate all 
duplicate values in an Excel column, I can execute all the steps in ten or 
fifteen seconds; but once I've explained to my boss how to do it, and he 
understands it, it'll still take him 60 or 120 seconds until he's done it often 
enough.

But this quotation would have me believe that the time I save by being familiar 
with the process is illusory.  Is that possible?  It seems to me that when I 
want to select a row in Excel, I don't have to think about which key sequence 
to find; my fingers hit  without conscious intervention.  But the 
horrible plausibility of the below claim lies in the fact that I DON'T THINK 
ABOUT DOING IT - which is just what your article said.

...Nah, I don't buy it anyway.  Any complicated task we learn, say driving a 
car or playing your favorite X-box action game, involves becoming familiar with 
commands and combinations of buttons that get us killed multiple times at first 
- I hope that doesn't apply to your driving, but it certainly does when 
learning to play EVE Online or Rainbow 6 - until you realize at some point that 
you're no longer thinking about the buttons as such:  You experience a strong 
impulse to dodge right and raise shields, and both events occur, by magic 
apparently.

Come to think of it, this is how we notice we're finally learning a language, 
too:  I hear something and understand it without translating it, or realize 
that I've just said it without having to think out how.

Still, you've got me a just a little worried

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* ...in your bedchamber do not curse a king, and in your sleeping rooms do not 
curse a rich man, for a bird of the heavens will carry the sound, and the 
winged creature will make the matter known.  -Ecclesiastes 10:20 */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Pew, Curtis G
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:24

The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or 
selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as 
moving the mouse, but the brain doesn’t perceive the time passing while 
remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the 
mouse.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Pew, Curtis G
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:17

The point is subjective time is heavily dependent on cognitive engagement:

“People new to the mouse find the process of acquiring it every time they want 
to do anything other than type to be incredibly time-wasting. And therein lies 
the very advantage of the mouse: it is boring to find it because the two-second 
search does not require high-level cognitive engagement.

“It takes two seconds to decide upon which special-function key to press. 
Deciding among abstract symbols is a high-level cognitive function. Not only is 
this decision not boring, the user actually experiences amnesia! Real amnesia! 
The time-slice spent making the decision simply ceases to exist.

“While the keyboard users in this case feels as though they have gained two 
seconds over the mouse users, the opposite is really the case. Because while 
the keyboard users have been engaged in a process so fascinating that they have 
experienced amnesia, the mouse users ha

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

KEXX? When I used KEDIT I found KEXX under powered for anything but key 
binding; KEDIT supported Quercus REXX, so I was home free. I just wish that 
KEDIT had been a larger subset of XEDIT, e.g., SET PENDING.

Fortunately most of my XEDIT scripts were after REXX came along, and I didn't 
have to do much with EXEC and ECEX2. I wish that THE was fully compatible with 
XEDIT.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Jeremy Nicoll [jn.ls.mfrm...@letterboxes.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 2:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 07:58, David Crayford wrote:
> I think your the one missing the point. I can't remember the last time I
> had to write a macro as I can do the things I need just using commands.

I used Xedit (with macros I wrote in EXEC or EXEC 2) for a few years in the
1980s, then moved to an MVS site and ISPF edit and macros written in CLIST
and REXX.

At home I use Kedit, because for me it's more useful to be able to write
macros for that in KEXX (essentially REXX) than it is to use eg spflite but
have to write macros (with a familiar ispf edit command set) in the
version of BASIC that they support.

A typical macro I have here gets used when I download a telephone bill.
The data arrives here as a table of numbers called, call durations, dates
etc.

The macro does a certain amount of syntax checking, so that it will fail
sensibly if the phone company change the format of their data file.  It
then reformats it, grouping calls per destination, summing the costs for
each destination, and also inserting textual descriptions of the numbers
called (ie people's names, company names etc).

I do not think a macro recording and playback approach would work.
There is a lot of logic in the Kexx/Rexx aspect of the macro, apart from
the editor commands that get issued.

My longest macro is just over 12,500 lines long.  Its job was to read two
files that contained a list of all the radio & tv programmes downloadable
from the BBC (a few years ago, in the early days of BBC iPlayer - the lists
having being created by a perl program written by someone else). There
was typically about 3500 radio programmes and 1800 TV programmes
listed, and the lists changed every few hours.

The files contained programme series & episode names, & descriptions
of the contents of the programmes.  Data was not column-aligned.

The macro looked for programmes I might want to download, that I
already knew about, so that I'd find out about new episodes of things
in current series, and new series in due course.  It also kept track of
which episodes I'd already downloaded & didn't want to redownload.

But as well as that it looked for programmes I didn't know about, on
topics that interest me, or presented by people whose programmes I
generally like.  It excluded programmes on topics I don't care about
and featuring presenters I don't like.

Essentially it did many instances of:
  - find all lines containing some pattern
  - exclude any of those that contained many other things
  - note the results of that overall group of commands
  - reset so the whole file was visible again

and at the end, listed what it had found through the whole process. It
could also tell me (if I asked it to) why a particular programme had been
identified (ie which of the many searches had actually yielded it).

I also wrote a whole set of menu-driven editor commands which used
Kexx macros to manipulate the contents of this macro, because it had
to be edited a lot.

Typical parts of the code (this is a simplified example) looked like

   call srch "\Doctor Finlay\"
   call hsepprog "Doctor Finlay: The Further Adventures of a Black Bag"
   call send

   call prog "Doctor Finlay: The Further Adventures of a Black Bag"
   call omit "\Series 1|\  &  \|1. The Catch|\"
   call omit "\Series 1|\  &  \|2. The Fever|\"
   call pend

The lines between "call srch" and "call send" (ie the end of a search
definition) stored parameters in stems which would later look for
"\Doctor Finlay\" anywhere in the file, but ignore any of those finds
if they contained "Doctor Finlay: The Further Adventures of a Black Bag"
because that ("call hsepprog") was the name of a programme that was
handled separately.  The macro did check that things that were stated
to be handled separately were actually handled separately.

The lines between a "call prog" and "call pend" also stored parms for
a future search, but that search would only look at the parts of the
data that listed programme names (so eg would ignore the free text
descriptions of episodes).  The "call omit" lines would make sure I'd
not get told when episodes I'

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, at 07:58, David Crayford wrote:
> I think your the one missing the point. I can't remember the last time I 
> had to write a macro as I can do the things I need just using commands.

I used Xedit (with macros I wrote in EXEC or EXEC 2) for a few years in the
1980s, then moved to an MVS site and ISPF edit and macros written in CLIST
and REXX.

At home I use Kedit, because for me it's more useful to be able to write 
macros for that in KEXX (essentially REXX) than it is to use eg spflite but 
have to write macros (with a familiar ispf edit command set) in the 
version of BASIC that they support.

A typical macro I have here gets used when I download a telephone bill.
The data arrives here as a table of numbers called, call durations, dates
etc.

The macro does a certain amount of syntax checking, so that it will fail 
sensibly if the phone company change the format of their data file.  It
then reformats it, grouping calls per destination, summing the costs for 
each destination, and also inserting textual descriptions of the numbers 
called (ie people's names, company names etc).

I do not think a macro recording and playback approach would work. 
There is a lot of logic in the Kexx/Rexx aspect of the macro, apart from 
the editor commands that get issued.

My longest macro is just over 12,500 lines long.  Its job was to read two 
files that contained a list of all the radio & tv programmes downloadable
from the BBC (a few years ago, in the early days of BBC iPlayer - the lists
having being created by a perl program written by someone else). There
was typically about 3500 radio programmes and 1800 TV programmes
listed, and the lists changed every few hours.

The files contained programme series & episode names, & descriptions
of the contents of the programmes.  Data was not column-aligned.

The macro looked for programmes I might want to download, that I 
already knew about, so that I'd find out about new episodes of things
in current series, and new series in due course.  It also kept track of  
which episodes I'd already downloaded & didn't want to redownload.

But as well as that it looked for programmes I didn't know about, on 
topics that interest me, or presented by people whose programmes I
generally like.  It excluded programmes on topics I don't care about 
and featuring presenters I don't like.

Essentially it did many instances of:
  - find all lines containing some pattern 
  - exclude any of those that contained many other things
  - note the results of that overall group of commands
  - reset so the whole file was visible again

and at the end, listed what it had found through the whole process. It 
could also tell me (if I asked it to) why a particular programme had been
identified (ie which of the many searches had actually yielded it).

I also wrote a whole set of menu-driven editor commands which used
Kexx macros to manipulate the contents of this macro, because it had 
to be edited a lot.

Typical parts of the code (this is a simplified example) looked like

   call srch "\Doctor Finlay\"
   call hsepprog "Doctor Finlay: The Further Adventures of a Black Bag"
   call send

   call prog "Doctor Finlay: The Further Adventures of a Black Bag"
   call omit "\Series 1|\  &  \|1. The Catch|\"
   call omit "\Series 1|\  &  \|2. The Fever|\"
   call pend 

The lines between "call srch" and "call send" (ie the end of a search 
definition) stored parameters in stems which would later look for 
"\Doctor Finlay\" anywhere in the file, but ignore any of those finds 
if they contained "Doctor Finlay: The Further Adventures of a Black Bag"
because that ("call hsepprog") was the name of a programme that was
handled separately.  The macro did check that things that were stated
to be handled separately were actually handled separately.

The lines between a "call prog" and "call pend" also stored parms for 
a future search, but that search would only look at the parts of the 
data that listed programme names (so eg would ignore the free text
descriptions of episodes).  The "call omit" lines would make sure I'd
not get told when episodes I'd heard were retransmitted.

When the macro was run, all those function calls set up stems full of 
parms for searches and excludes.  The syntax of the arguments in the
functions was checked, as was the relationships between eg "call 
hsepprog" and whether there actually was a "call prog" that specified 
the same programme.  The macro also made sure that after a "call
srch" there were only calls of functions which made sense in a "srch"
body, followed by "call send".  LIkewise there are restrictions on the
functions I allowed between "call prog/pend". 

After that the process loop was run.  Some of the searches used 
regexes so the regex expressions would need to be constructed
from the plain text arguments in the search strings, escaping some
characters as required.

The macro would have been a lot smaller if I'd placed only the 
search and results

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Wayne Bickerdike

I've  seen blind people be very productive with a keyboard. Mouse? No.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 06:25 Bob Bridges  wrote:

> This is fascinating, and not a little disturbing.  I have long understood
> that keyboard shortcuts that save me immense quantities of time won't help
> a coworker who won't take the time to learn them deep down, simply because
> he has to stop and think about what key sequence is the next step, while I
> (who've been doing it longer) can "just do it".  (Actually this can be
> applied to almost any task, not just keyboard shortcuts.)  So if I want to
> eliminate all duplicate values in an Excel column, I can execute all the
> steps in ten or fifteen seconds; but once I've explained to my boss how to
> do it, and he understands it, it'll still take him 60 or 120 seconds until
> he's done it often enough.
>
> But this quotation would have me believe that the time I save by being
> familiar with the process is illusory.  Is that possible?  It seems to me
> that when I want to select a row in Excel, I don't have to think about
> which key sequence to find; my fingers hit  without conscious
> intervention.  But the horrible plausibility of the below claim lies in the
> fact that I DON'T THINK ABOUT DOING IT - which is just what your article
> said.
>
> ...Nah, I don't buy it anyway.  Any complicated task we learn, say driving
> a car or playing your favorite X-box action game, involves becoming
> familiar with commands and combinations of buttons that get us killed
> multiple times at first - I hope that doesn't apply to your driving, but it
> certainly does when learning to play EVE Online or Rainbow 6 - until you
> realize at some point that you're no longer thinking about the buttons as
> such:  You experience a strong impulse to dodge right and raise shields,
> and both events occur, by magic apparently.
>
> Come to think of it, this is how we notice we're finally learning a
> language, too:  I hear something and understand it without translating it,
> or realize that I've just said it without having to think out how.
>
> Still, you've got me a just a little worried
>
> ---
> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>
> /* ...in your bedchamber do not curse a king, and in your sleeping rooms
> do not curse a rich man, for a bird of the heavens will carry the sound,
> and the winged creature will make the matter known.  -Ecclesiastes 10:20 */
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Pew, Curtis G
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:24
>
> The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or
> selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as
> moving the mouse, but the brain doesn’t perceive the time passing while
> remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the
> mouse.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Pew, Curtis G
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:17
>
> The point is subjective time is heavily dependent on cognitive engagement:
>
> “People new to the mouse find the process of acquiring it every time they
> want to do anything other than type to be incredibly time-wasting. And
> therein lies the very advantage of the mouse: it is boring to find it
> because the two-second search does not require high-level cognitive
> engagement.
>
> “It takes two seconds to decide upon which special-function key to press.
> Deciding among abstract symbols is a high-level cognitive function. Not
> only is this decision not boring, the user actually experiences amnesia!
> Real amnesia! The time-slice spent making the decision simply ceases to
> exist.
>
> “While the keyboard users in this case feels as though they have gained
> two seconds over the mouse users, the opposite is really the case. Because
> while the keyboard users have been engaged in a process so fascinating that
> they have experienced amnesia, the mouse users have been so disengaged that
> they have been able to continue thinking about the task they are trying to
> accomplish. They have not had to set their task aside to think about or
> remember abstract symbols.
>
> “Hence, users achieve a significant productivity increase with the mouse
> in spite of their subjective experience.”
>
> --- On Jan 28, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> > What tasks were they measuring? I suspect that with a good interface the
> keyboard is more productive for some tasks and the mouse more productive
> for others.
>
> --
> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Bob Bridges

This is fascinating, and not a little disturbing.  I have long understood that 
keyboard shortcuts that save me immense quantities of time won't help a 
coworker who won't take the time to learn them deep down, simply because he has 
to stop and think about what key sequence is the next step, while I (who've 
been doing it longer) can "just do it".  (Actually this can be applied to 
almost any task, not just keyboard shortcuts.)  So if I want to eliminate all 
duplicate values in an Excel column, I can execute all the steps in ten or 
fifteen seconds; but once I've explained to my boss how to do it, and he 
understands it, it'll still take him 60 or 120 seconds until he's done it often 
enough.

But this quotation would have me believe that the time I save by being familiar 
with the process is illusory.  Is that possible?  It seems to me that when I 
want to select a row in Excel, I don't have to think about which key sequence 
to find; my fingers hit  without conscious intervention.  But the 
horrible plausibility of the below claim lies in the fact that I DON'T THINK 
ABOUT DOING IT - which is just what your article said.

...Nah, I don't buy it anyway.  Any complicated task we learn, say driving a 
car or playing your favorite X-box action game, involves becoming familiar with 
commands and combinations of buttons that get us killed multiple times at first 
- I hope that doesn't apply to your driving, but it certainly does when 
learning to play EVE Online or Rainbow 6 - until you realize at some point that 
you're no longer thinking about the buttons as such:  You experience a strong 
impulse to dodge right and raise shields, and both events occur, by magic 
apparently.

Come to think of it, this is how we notice we're finally learning a language, 
too:  I hear something and understand it without translating it, or realize 
that I've just said it without having to think out how.

Still, you've got me a just a little worried

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* ...in your bedchamber do not curse a king, and in your sleeping rooms do not 
curse a rich man, for a bird of the heavens will carry the sound, and the 
winged creature will make the matter known.  -Ecclesiastes 10:20 */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Pew, Curtis G
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:24

The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or 
selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as 
moving the mouse, but the brain doesn’t perceive the time passing while 
remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the 
mouse.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Pew, Curtis G
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:17

The point is subjective time is heavily dependent on cognitive engagement:

“People new to the mouse find the process of acquiring it every time they want 
to do anything other than type to be incredibly time-wasting. And therein lies 
the very advantage of the mouse: it is boring to find it because the two-second 
search does not require high-level cognitive engagement.

“It takes two seconds to decide upon which special-function key to press. 
Deciding among abstract symbols is a high-level cognitive function. Not only is 
this decision not boring, the user actually experiences amnesia! Real amnesia! 
The time-slice spent making the decision simply ceases to exist.

“While the keyboard users in this case feels as though they have gained two 
seconds over the mouse users, the opposite is really the case. Because while 
the keyboard users have been engaged in a process so fascinating that they have 
experienced amnesia, the mouse users have been so disengaged that they have 
been able to continue thinking about the task they are trying to accomplish. 
They have not had to set their task aside to think about or remember abstract 
symbols.

“Hence, users achieve a significant productivity increase with the mouse in 
spite of their subjective experience.”

--- On Jan 28, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> What tasks were they measuring? I suspect that with a good interface the 
> keyboard is more productive for some tasks and the mouse more productive for 
> others.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Bob Bridges

All this is reminding me repeatedly of the time I spent learning, and
eventually writing edit macros in, TECO, the singularly unintuitive text
editor on the DECsystem-10.  Not that I'm moaning for it to come back...but
it was unexpectedly handy once I learned its ins and outs.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.  -Ambrose Bierce */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:31

The first thing I look at in an editor is the macro language. ISPF has it
all over vi in that regard. While I don't like all those parentheses, emacs
is clearly better than vi in that regard.

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:44 AM

Doesn't everybody know that 'G' takes you to the bottom of the file and 'gg'
to the top ;)

I used to hate Vim and considered the learning curve too steep. First thing
I would do when I spun up a Linux VM was install nano. Then I bit the bullet
and invested the time to learn how to use it.
Now it's my favorite text editor. I use it all the time on z/OS as my
employer has ported it as part of the z/OS Open Source tools product.
Once you have an intermediate level of proficiency you can do amazing things
WRT navigation, searching/replacing, editing all with a ridiculously small
amount of keystrokes. To beautify source code indentation simply type
'gg=G'.

If you check out the neovim [1] fork contributors. They're all young guys!
These are web devs, devops, game developers all using a shell based TUI
editor and not a fancy GUI. 41K stars is just amazing!
To general consensus is that using a mouse is a productivity killer. How
times change! Nobody would consider writing an ISPF WSA these days.

Don't fight it, feel it. Watch a few YouTube tutorial videos and you'll be a
convert in no time.

[1]
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QgPCAFtLnqwmqEYF3MPtZYZENyxwzsFUV4xpSA38BYbBU_
QN4wbLZnTgYS8L82-nFWxMcG5Ms9jgKRGSr0Wpz6uh4TNOSsCXDCQTfA4phOymlCU0xnkhpLFK0G
FBmCZ1fiCsxUm0wkIwes12ehYbdliqwgCs3CKBSgG1attgYp1L6d6t1WxYDygW6cl9Fhw-hEn4Rr
5x7bKNKxmUEsQkA6NN3dbJW2pcPsx-CQKuZytIwb9_gvjvQakasLzqTGTQ8vGuSPWY3AYGDnW58o
eO25XyCiTBXVWU_B3_nVjj-WdbQSyvE90xAJba13Mhn31dG11FW9lVmEYa-uMUDObV6qyubWNMNu
12g9QBNIRI6dEVXSK-eqqH_qcimYrpQsFSZa5OB3e-GuVNhPYLGahpfFp9XEq69a2p4NyhEf62fj
oAv8cVB8eTzWGUqUPCKir7/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fneovim%2Fneovim

On 27/01/2021 1:57 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:
> On 1/26/2021 7:42 PM, David Crayford wrote:
>> I know the old adage that old dogs can't learn new tricks but why not 
>> just learn native Linux tools?
> Because somebody decided that "end save" would be ":wq" which of 
> course makes perfect sense :)
>
> Actually, I barely know enough of the vi editor to get by, and have to 
> google every time even for simple things like how to move to the 
> bottom of a file.  But other mainframe folks I work with are far worse 
> than me.
>
> Still, I agree with you.  Just learn what everybody else has already 
> found to work best in that environment.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I use TSPF for serious edits, but I use kate and notepad for trivial edits. 
I'll probably wind up learning emacs in Linux unless I find something I like 
better.

Under TSPF I copy rectangular blocks quite often, and find the trackball to be 
quite natural for that purpose. OTOH, I do a lot of changes using regexen with 
capture substituition.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Farley, Peter x23353 <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Depends heavily on the editor software.  One editor I remember trying (I don't 
remember which one now) used Ctrl-left-click to start and end a block copy.  
Quite easy to use, one hand for the mouse and one for the Ctrl key, then Ctrl-C 
or -X then Ctrl-V to copy/cut and paste.

Sometimes combinations of mouse and keyboard are more usable than either one 
alone.

OTOH, my day-to-day PC editor under Windows (EditPlus) uses Alt-C to start a 
block copy, then Ctrl-C or Ctrl-X to copy or cut and Ctrl-V to paste the block. 
 I hardly have to think about it -- it Just Works.

I've been tempted once or twice to pay for UltraEdit, but have not done so yet. 
 It looks pretty good, and UltraEdit is available for Windows, Mac and Linux, 
but it isn't cheap (though also not extraordinarily expensive for what you get).

There is also a free version of the MS Visual Code editor which I also haven't 
tried yet.

On Linux I often use the Midnight Commander view/edit programs (mcview/mcedit) 
for quick browses and edits, but not for serious coding.  "vi" and it's 
descendants are not intuitive to me, nor is emacs.  Nano is OK, but again not 
my cup of tea for serious writing (code or text).

Midnight Commander is awesome for file tree navigation from a console session 
in both Windows and Linux.  Highly recommended.  I just wish I could figure out 
how to tell it to STAY in the directory that I navigated to when I exit, rather 
than going back to the directory where I started.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

You have to carve the bird at the joints. How about a comparison of block copy 
using keyboard versus mouse?

--

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Pew, Curtis G 
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 28, 2021, at 10:04 AM, Joel C. Ewing  wrote:
>
> I would be willing to bet the the stopwatch studies cited were based
> on a highly restricted cases.

The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or 
selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as 
moving the mouse, but the brain doesn't perceive the time passing while 
remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the 
mouse.

--

--
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

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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:04:18 -0600, Joel C. Ewing  wrote:
>...
>The worst of both worlds is a process that can only be done by a
>combination of mouse clicks and keyboard entry where a good typist must
>continually shift mouse hand between mouse and keyboard.  Make that a
>repetitive process that is needed hundreds of times, and I find that a
>process that involves the entire hand and arm will become physically
>tiresome quicker than one that just requires finger movement.
> 
Reducing arm movement was probably a motivation for moving the
PF keys from a remote keypad to the top row.  And modal editors
favor less motion.  But the  key is too far away.

The behavior of  surprisingly time-dependent.  But it works
surprisingly well.

-- gil

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Farley, Peter x23353

Depends heavily on the editor software.  One editor I remember trying (I don't 
remember which one now) used Ctrl-left-click to start and end a block copy.  
Quite easy to use, one hand for the mouse and one for the Ctrl key, then Ctrl-C 
or -X then Ctrl-V to copy/cut and paste.

Sometimes combinations of mouse and keyboard are more usable than either one 
alone.

OTOH, my day-to-day PC editor under Windows (EditPlus) uses Alt-C to start a 
block copy, then Ctrl-C or Ctrl-X to copy or cut and Ctrl-V to paste the block. 
 I hardly have to think about it -- it Just Works.

I've been tempted once or twice to pay for UltraEdit, but have not done so yet. 
 It looks pretty good, and UltraEdit is available for Windows, Mac and Linux, 
but it isn't cheap (though also not extraordinarily expensive for what you get).

There is also a free version of the MS Visual Code editor which I also haven't 
tried yet.

On Linux I often use the Midnight Commander view/edit programs (mcview/mcedit) 
for quick browses and edits, but not for serious coding.  "vi" and it's 
descendants are not intuitive to me, nor is emacs.  Nano is OK, but again not 
my cup of tea for serious writing (code or text).

Midnight Commander is awesome for file tree navigation from a console session 
in both Windows and Linux.  Highly recommended.  I just wish I could figure out 
how to tell it to STAY in the directory that I navigated to when I exit, rather 
than going back to the directory where I started.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

You have to carve the bird at the joints. How about a comparison of block copy 
using keyboard versus mouse?

--

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Pew, Curtis G 
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 28, 2021, at 10:04 AM, Joel C. Ewing  wrote:
>
> I would be willing to bet the the stopwatch studies cited were based 
> on a highly restricted cases.

The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or 
selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as 
moving the mouse, but the brain doesn't perceive the time passing while 
remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the 
mouse.

--

--
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

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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

You have to carve the bird at the joints. How about a comparison of block copy 
using keyboard versus mouse?

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Pew, Curtis G 
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 28, 2021, at 10:04 AM, Joel C. Ewing  wrote:
>
> I would be willing to bet the the stopwatch studies cited were based on
> a highly restricted cases.

The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or 
selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as 
moving the mouse, but the brain doesn’t perceive the time passing while 
remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the 
mouse.

--
Pew, Curtis G
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 28, 2021, at 10:04 AM, Joel C. Ewing  wrote:
> 
> I would be willing to bet the the stopwatch studies cited were based on
> a highly restricted cases.

The context was comparing command-key sequences to clicking buttons or 
selecting menu items. Remembering the command-key sequence takes as long as 
moving the mouse, but the brain doesn’t perceive the time passing while 
remembering, while it does perceive the time passing while manipulating the 
mouse.

-- 
Pew, Curtis G
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 28, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> 
> What tasks were they measuring? I suspect that with a good interface the 
> keyboard is more productive for some tasks and the mouse more productive for 
> others.
> 

The linked article does include an exception:

“And, in fact, I find myself on the opposite side in at least one instance, 
namely editing. By using Command X, C, and V, the user can select with one hand 
and act with the other. Two-handed input. Two-handed input can result in solid 
productivity gains (Buxton 1986).”

The point is subjective time is heavily dependent on cognitive engagement:

“People new to the mouse find the process of acquiring it every time they want 
to do anything other than type to be incredibly time-wasting. And therein lies 
the very advantage of the mouse: it is boring to find it because the two-second 
search does not require high-level cognitive engagement.

“It takes two seconds to decide upon which special-function key to press. 
Deciding among abstract symbols is a high-level cognitive function. Not only is 
this decision not boring, the user actually experiences amnesia! Real amnesia! 
The time-slice spent making the decision simply ceases to exist.

“While the keyboard users in this case feels as though they have gained two 
seconds over the mouse users, the opposite is really the case. Because while 
the keyboard users have been engaged in a process so fascinating that they have 
experienced amnesia, the mouse users have been so disengaged that they have 
been able to continue thinking about the task they are trying to accomplish. 
They have not had to set their task aside to think about or remember abstract 
symbols.

“Hence, users achieve a significant productivity increase with the mouse in 
spite of their subjective experience.”

-- 
Pew, Curtis G
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread Joel C. Ewing

I would be willing to bet the the stopwatch studies cited were based on
a highly restricted cases.  A mouse is best where mouse movement is
limited to short moves with relatively large icons or menu selections as
a target,  and where no significant data entry is required.   Long mouse
moves requiring precise positioning at the end take more time and skill
than short moves to large icons or simple menu selections.  Particularly
annoying are multi-level menus where a slight error in mouse movement
can cause the needed sub menu to vanish, or slider controls that
required very precise positioning to get a specific value for consistent
behavior.  Ditto for clickable icons that are hidden so well you have to
do a Google search to identify the appearance and location of the icon.

"Typing" arbitrary data using a mouse keyboard is the equivalent of hunt
and peck one-finger typing and abysmally slow compared to keyboard entry
for anyone with even moderate touch-typing skills.  Editing invariably
requires some arbitrary data entry.

The worst of both worlds is a process that can only be done by a
combination of mouse clicks and keyboard entry where a good typist must
continually shift mouse hand between mouse and keyboard.  Make that a
repetitive process that is needed hundreds of times, and I find that a
process that involves the entire hand and arm will become physically
tiresome quicker than one that just requires finger movement.

There are definitely some activities for which the mouse is not the best
solution.   But, keyboard alternatives to mouse point-and-click are only
faster if you use them often enough to remember them and don't have to
look them up.

    Joel C. Ewing

On 1/28/21 8:12 AM, Pew, Curtis G wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2021, at 7:08 PM, David Crayford  wrote:
>> Because using a mouse is a productivity killer!
>>
> Is it?
>
> “We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We 
> discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts:
>
>   • Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than 
> mousing.
>   • The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.
>
> “This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms the 
> basis for many user/developers’ belief that the keyboard is faster.”
>
> https://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html
>
>

-- 
Joel C. Ewing

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

What tasks were they measuring? I suspect that with a good interface the 
keyboard is more productive for some tasks and the mouse more productive for 
others.


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



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Pew, Curtis G 
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 9:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 27, 2021, at 7:08 PM, David Crayford  wrote:
>
> Because using a mouse is a productivity killer!
>

Is it?

“We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We 
discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts:

• Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than 
mousing.
• The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.

“This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms the 
basis for many user/developers’ belief that the keyboard is faster.”

https://secure-web.cisco.com/1cg28rjBjR8dXRGyiH8zaCB2vbqlwVR3SYz62phnYzIiwWeaTwfupKCWrPTwhTF08pP5ujO7mnJmPfS1Z7Dh-xLVR5ODP0_IBgcR78AUXfiu_QZU3LJ6oSx2AZbozerfSaHLT1KdqI_z1W4z6bI0vyIVcYLR1y-NmJ3xRAiKBaOiK8QXYa-3acMM3bLf4ZC7UoycG8gpcDEKF3fICHxoC3ZfxZqgbNnENqiA7VBNN4sY6MLeXAuQ13G5aProJCflrfUXQxoG0sq9FZ7uAtAODc0qF40j4IjJbV9W6AcyxBVmnrHNZisaOrTcRhdTdA40e4WnHAcMe22oXRpupgJsvuMpcrPSZ1SEP2bBlSUeccgZiOf3cCGvhx6ycvdvVt4A6zg6V1AZyRp2hPy-QuajZz4eW1XvdwhdwV2d_0c56r9BIwoVIVY8ENhoLE2uLVXVK/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.asktog.com%2FTOI%2Ftoi06KeyboardVMouse1.html


--
Pew, Curtis G
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Do you always patronize those who disagree with you?


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



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Crayford 
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Do you do much coding these days? Or do you just pontificate on mailing lists ;)

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:01 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>
> What you believe has no relation to reallity. Maybe the built-in commands of 
> your editor are sufficient for your needs, or maybe you have more tolerance 
> for reptitive tasks than I, but others have more stringent requirements. No 
> editor has built-in commands for everything a user might want to do.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> David Crayford 
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 2:58 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> I think your the one missing the point. I can't remember the last time I
> had to write a macro as I can do the things I need just using commands.
>
>
>> On 28/01/2021 2:24 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>> You're missing the point. A good macro facility makes it easy to extend the 
>> editor and add feature that the designers never thought of. The edit macro 
>> that I posted was intended to be an example of that. Were I familiar with 
>> emacs I would have written an emacs macro in LISP, but the point would have 
>> been the same.  If I'm going to learn a *ix editor, why would I bother with 
>> an editor without the ability to write macros when editors like emacs are 
>> available? Why do you assume that an ISPF clone on a PC is limited to what 
>> is possible on a 3270?
>>
>> Just because you don't understand why people like ISPF doesn't mean that "It 
>> comes down to familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new 
>> things"; it doesn't. Maybe they know something you don't know.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:18 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>>
>> A REXX edit macro, that's great! In Vim I can position my cursor over a
>> function or keyword and press 'gd' to goto the defintion. It also has
>> plugins for code completion etc. All of this in a TUI. Intellij IDEA
>> is so advanced that it lints code while you type and flags problems. Use
>> a keyboard shortcut and it refactors the code. One of the most useful
>> features in modern editors is multiple cursors.
>> This is achieved in Vim using visual block mode. ISPF has no equivalent
>> and never will as 3270 is a half-duplex protocol. I'm not knocking ISPF.
>> I use it all the time. I would much rather use the
>> SDSF ISPF UI as opposed to of the z/OSMF GUI. The command line is more
>> efficient. But when it comes to editors, ISPF does not shine brightly.
>> It's incredibly limited which is why I don't understand
>> why people want to use the likes of SPF-PC to emulate ISPF on other
>> platforms when the native tools are so much better. It comes down to
>> familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things.
>> That's a fact and many of my colleagues openly admit it. They've reached
>> a stage in their career where they simply have no desire to change the
>> way they work.
>>
>>
>> On 28/01/2021 9:28 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>>> Isn't writing code macros a bit dated?
>>> No. Aren't editors that don't allow writing macros a bit dated? Trivial 
>>> example:
>>>
>>>   /* REXX from TSPF - not tested in ISPF */
>>>   address ISREDIT
>>>   "MACRO"
>>>   "CURSOR = 1 1"
>>>   "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>>   "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
>>>   "(NLINE) = LINE" NEW
>>>   do while NEW ¬= LAST
>>>  OLD  =NEW
>>>  OLINE=NLINE
>>>  "CURSOR =" OLD+1
>>>  "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>>  "(NLINE) = LINE "NEW
>>>  if NLINE=OLINE
>>>  then do
>>> 'DELETE' NEW
>>> 'CURSOR =' OLD
>>> "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>&g

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-28 Thread David Crayford

Do you do much coding these days? Or do you just pontificate on mailing lists ;)

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:01 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> 
> What you believe has no relation to reallity. Maybe the built-in commands of 
> your editor are sufficient for your needs, or maybe you have more tolerance 
> for reptitive tasks than I, but others have more stringent requirements. No 
> editor has built-in commands for everything a user might want to do.
> 
> 
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
> 
> 
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> David Crayford 
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 2:58 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
> 
> I think your the one missing the point. I can't remember the last time I
> had to write a macro as I can do the things I need just using commands.
> 
> 
>> On 28/01/2021 2:24 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>> You're missing the point. A good macro facility makes it easy to extend the 
>> editor and add feature that the designers never thought of. The edit macro 
>> that I posted was intended to be an example of that. Were I familiar with 
>> emacs I would have written an emacs macro in LISP, but the point would have 
>> been the same.  If I'm going to learn a *ix editor, why would I bother with 
>> an editor without the ability to write macros when editors like emacs are 
>> available? Why do you assume that an ISPF clone on a PC is limited to what 
>> is possible on a 3270?
>> 
>> Just because you don't understand why people like ISPF doesn't mean that "It 
>> comes down to familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new 
>> things"; it doesn't. Maybe they know something you don't know.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>> 
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:18 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>> 
>> A REXX edit macro, that's great! In Vim I can position my cursor over a
>> function or keyword and press 'gd' to goto the defintion. It also has
>> plugins for code completion etc. All of this in a TUI. Intellij IDEA
>> is so advanced that it lints code while you type and flags problems. Use
>> a keyboard shortcut and it refactors the code. One of the most useful
>> features in modern editors is multiple cursors.
>> This is achieved in Vim using visual block mode. ISPF has no equivalent
>> and never will as 3270 is a half-duplex protocol. I'm not knocking ISPF.
>> I use it all the time. I would much rather use the
>> SDSF ISPF UI as opposed to of the z/OSMF GUI. The command line is more
>> efficient. But when it comes to editors, ISPF does not shine brightly.
>> It's incredibly limited which is why I don't understand
>> why people want to use the likes of SPF-PC to emulate ISPF on other
>> platforms when the native tools are so much better. It comes down to
>> familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things.
>> That's a fact and many of my colleagues openly admit it. They've reached
>> a stage in their career where they simply have no desire to change the
>> way they work.
>> 
>> 
>> On 28/01/2021 9:28 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>>> Isn't writing code macros a bit dated?
>>> No. Aren't editors that don't allow writing macros a bit dated? Trivial 
>>> example:
>>> 
>>>   /* REXX from TSPF - not tested in ISPF */
>>>   address ISREDIT
>>>   "MACRO"
>>>   "CURSOR = 1 1"
>>>   "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>>   "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
>>>   "(NLINE) = LINE" NEW
>>>   do while NEW ¬= LAST
>>>  OLD  =NEW
>>>  OLINE=NLINE
>>>  "CURSOR =" OLD+1
>>>  "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>>  "(NLINE) = LINE "NEW
>>>  if NLINE=OLINE
>>>  then do
>>> 'DELETE' NEW
>>> 'CURSOR =' OLD
>>> "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>> end
>>>  "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
>>>  end
>>> 
>>>> In Vim I can record macros.
>>> In ISPF I don't need them.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

What you believe has no relation to reallity. Maybe the built-in commands of 
your editor are sufficient for your needs, or maybe you have more tolerance for 
reptitive tasks than I, but others have more stringent requirements. No editor 
has built-in commands for everything a user might want to do.


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



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Crayford 
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 2:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I think your the one missing the point. I can't remember the last time I
had to write a macro as I can do the things I need just using commands.


On 28/01/2021 2:24 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> You're missing the point. A good macro facility makes it easy to extend the 
> editor and add feature that the designers never thought of. The edit macro 
> that I posted was intended to be an example of that. Were I familiar with 
> emacs I would have written an emacs macro in LISP, but the point would have 
> been the same.  If I'm going to learn a *ix editor, why would I bother with 
> an editor without the ability to write macros when editors like emacs are 
> available? Why do you assume that an ISPF clone on a PC is limited to what is 
> possible on a 3270?
>
> Just because you don't understand why people like ISPF doesn't mean that "It 
> comes down to familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new 
> things"; it doesn't. Maybe they know something you don't know.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:18 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> A REXX edit macro, that's great! In Vim I can position my cursor over a
> function or keyword and press 'gd' to goto the defintion. It also has
> plugins for code completion etc. All of this in a TUI. Intellij IDEA
> is so advanced that it lints code while you type and flags problems. Use
> a keyboard shortcut and it refactors the code. One of the most useful
> features in modern editors is multiple cursors.
> This is achieved in Vim using visual block mode. ISPF has no equivalent
> and never will as 3270 is a half-duplex protocol. I'm not knocking ISPF.
> I use it all the time. I would much rather use the
> SDSF ISPF UI as opposed to of the z/OSMF GUI. The command line is more
> efficient. But when it comes to editors, ISPF does not shine brightly.
> It's incredibly limited which is why I don't understand
> why people want to use the likes of SPF-PC to emulate ISPF on other
> platforms when the native tools are so much better. It comes down to
> familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things.
> That's a fact and many of my colleagues openly admit it. They've reached
> a stage in their career where they simply have no desire to change the
> way they work.
>
>
> On 28/01/2021 9:28 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>> Isn't writing code macros a bit dated?
>> No. Aren't editors that don't allow writing macros a bit dated? Trivial 
>> example:
>>
>>/* REXX from TSPF - not tested in ISPF */
>>address ISREDIT
>>"MACRO"
>>"CURSOR = 1 1"
>>"(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>"(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
>>"(NLINE) = LINE" NEW
>>do while NEW ¬= LAST
>>   OLD  =NEW
>>   OLINE=NLINE
>>   "CURSOR =" OLD+1
>>   "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>   "(NLINE) = LINE "NEW
>>   if NLINE=OLINE
>>   then do
>>  'DELETE' NEW
>>  'CURSOR =' OLD
>>  "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>>  end
>>   "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
>>       end
>>
>>> In Vim I can record macros.
>> In ISPF I don't need them.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:18 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>>
>> On 28/01/2021 8:25 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>> Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
>>> there's little call to use TSO EDIT.
>> Isn't writing code macros a bit dated?

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Jan 27, 2021, at 7:08 PM, David Crayford  wrote:
> 
> Because using a mouse is a productivity killer!
> 

Is it?

“We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We 
discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts:

• Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than 
mousing.
• The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.

“This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms the 
basis for many user/developers’ belief that the keyboard is faster.”

https://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html

-- 
Pew, Curtis G
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I think your the one missing the point. I can't remember the last time I 
had to write a macro as I can do the things I need just using commands.



On 28/01/2021 2:24 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote:

You're missing the point. A good macro facility makes it easy to extend the 
editor and add feature that the designers never thought of. The edit macro that 
I posted was intended to be an example of that. Were I familiar with emacs I 
would have written an emacs macro in LISP, but the point would have been the 
same.  If I'm going to learn a *ix editor, why would I bother with an editor 
without the ability to write macros when editors like emacs are available? Why 
do you assume that an ISPF clone on a PC is limited to what is possible on a 
3270?

Just because you don't understand why people like ISPF doesn't mean that "It comes 
down to familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things"; it 
doesn't. Maybe they know something you don't know.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

A REXX edit macro, that's great! In Vim I can position my cursor over a
function or keyword and press 'gd' to goto the defintion. It also has
plugins for code completion etc. All of this in a TUI. Intellij IDEA
is so advanced that it lints code while you type and flags problems. Use
a keyboard shortcut and it refactors the code. One of the most useful
features in modern editors is multiple cursors.
This is achieved in Vim using visual block mode. ISPF has no equivalent
and never will as 3270 is a half-duplex protocol. I'm not knocking ISPF.
I use it all the time. I would much rather use the
SDSF ISPF UI as opposed to of the z/OSMF GUI. The command line is more
efficient. But when it comes to editors, ISPF does not shine brightly.
It's incredibly limited which is why I don't understand
why people want to use the likes of SPF-PC to emulate ISPF on other
platforms when the native tools are so much better. It comes down to
familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things.
That's a fact and many of my colleagues openly admit it. They've reached
a stage in their career where they simply have no desire to change the
way they work.


On 28/01/2021 9:28 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Isn't writing code macros a bit dated?

No. Aren't editors that don't allow writing macros a bit dated? Trivial example:

   /* REXX from TSPF - not tested in ISPF */
   address ISREDIT
   "MACRO"
   "CURSOR = 1 1"
   "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
   "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
   "(NLINE) = LINE" NEW
   do while NEW ¬= LAST
  OLD  =NEW
  OLINE=NLINE
  "CURSOR =" OLD+1
  "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
  "(NLINE) = LINE "NEW
  if NLINE=OLINE
  then do
 'DELETE' NEW
 'CURSOR =' OLD
 "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
 end
  "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
  end


In Vim I can record macros.

In ISPF I don't need them.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 28/01/2021 8:25 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
there's little call to use TSO EDIT.

Isn't writing code macros a bit dated? In Vim I can record macros.



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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:


That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

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

-

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

You're missing the point. A good macro facility makes it easy to extend the 
editor and add feature that the designers never thought of. The edit macro that 
I posted was intended to be an example of that. Were I familiar with emacs I 
would have written an emacs macro in LISP, but the point would have been the 
same.  If I'm going to learn a *ix editor, why would I bother with an editor 
without the ability to write macros when editors like emacs are available? Why 
do you assume that an ISPF clone on a PC is limited to what is possible on a 
3270?

Just because you don't understand why people like ISPF doesn't mean that "It 
comes down to familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things"; 
it doesn't. Maybe they know something you don't know.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

A REXX edit macro, that's great! In Vim I can position my cursor over a
function or keyword and press 'gd' to goto the defintion. It also has
plugins for code completion etc. All of this in a TUI. Intellij IDEA
is so advanced that it lints code while you type and flags problems. Use
a keyboard shortcut and it refactors the code. One of the most useful
features in modern editors is multiple cursors.
This is achieved in Vim using visual block mode. ISPF has no equivalent
and never will as 3270 is a half-duplex protocol. I'm not knocking ISPF.
I use it all the time. I would much rather use the
SDSF ISPF UI as opposed to of the z/OSMF GUI. The command line is more
efficient. But when it comes to editors, ISPF does not shine brightly.
It's incredibly limited which is why I don't understand
why people want to use the likes of SPF-PC to emulate ISPF on other
platforms when the native tools are so much better. It comes down to
familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things.
That's a fact and many of my colleagues openly admit it. They've reached
a stage in their career where they simply have no desire to change the
way they work.

On 28/01/2021 9:28 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>> Isn't writing code macros a bit dated?
> No. Aren't editors that don't allow writing macros a bit dated? Trivial 
> example:
>
>   /* REXX from TSPF - not tested in ISPF */
>   address ISREDIT
>   "MACRO"
>   "CURSOR = 1 1"
>   "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>   "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
>   "(NLINE) = LINE" NEW
>   do while NEW ¬= LAST
>  OLD  =NEW
>  OLINE=NLINE
>  "CURSOR =" OLD+1
>  "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
>  "(NLINE) = LINE "NEW
>  if NLINE=OLINE
>  then do
> 'DELETE' NEW
> 'CURSOR =' OLD
> "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
> end
>  "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
>  end
>
>> In Vim I can record macros.
> In ISPF I don't need them.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> ________
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:18 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> On 28/01/2021 8:25 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>> Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
>> there's little call to use TSO EDIT.
> Isn't writing code macros a bit dated? In Vim I can record macros.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>> Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
>>> work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
>>> Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
>>> working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
>>> remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
>>> world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
>>> default - no install needed.
>> TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!
>>
>>

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

A REXX edit macro, that's great! In Vim I can position my cursor over a 
function or keyword and press 'gd' to goto the defintion. It also has 
plugins for code completion etc. All of this in a TUI. Intellij IDEA
is so advanced that it lints code while you type and flags problems. Use 
a keyboard shortcut and it refactors the code. One of the most useful 
features in modern editors is multiple cursors.
This is achieved in Vim using visual block mode. ISPF has no equivalent 
and never will as 3270 is a half-duplex protocol. I'm not knocking ISPF. 
I use it all the time. I would much rather use the
SDSF ISPF UI as opposed to of the z/OSMF GUI. The command line is more 
efficient. But when it comes to editors, ISPF does not shine brightly. 
It's incredibly limited which is why I don't understand
why people want to use the likes of SPF-PC to emulate ISPF on other 
platforms when the native tools are so much better. It comes down to 
familiarity and a reluctance to invest time to learn new things.
That's a fact and many of my colleagues openly admit it. They've reached 
a stage in their career where they simply have no desire to change the 
way they work.



On 28/01/2021 9:28 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Isn't writing code macros a bit dated?

No. Aren't editors that don't allow writing macros a bit dated? Trivial example:

  /* REXX from TSPF - not tested in ISPF */
  address ISREDIT
  "MACRO"
  "CURSOR = 1 1"
  "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
  "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
  "(NLINE) = LINE" NEW
  do while NEW ¬= LAST
 OLD  =NEW
 OLINE=NLINE
 "CURSOR =" OLD+1
 "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
 "(NLINE) = LINE "NEW
 if NLINE=OLINE
 then do
'DELETE' NEW
'CURSOR =' OLD
"(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
end
 "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
 end


In Vim I can record macros.

In ISPF I don't need them.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 28/01/2021 8:25 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
there's little call to use TSO EDIT.

Isn't writing code macros a bit dated? In Vim I can record macros.




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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:


That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Chris Hoelscher

> Then why do so many people complain about vi outside of mainframers?

Inside of mainframers, vi would be difficult to access

Chris Hoelscher
Lead Sys DBA
IBM Global Technical Services on assignmemt to Humana Inc.
T 502.476.2538 or 502.407.7266

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed
and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this
material/information in error,
please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information.

Humana Inc. and its subsidiaries comply with applicable Federal civil rights
laws and
do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry,
age, disability, sex,
marital status, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion.
Humana Inc. and its subsidiaries do not
exclude people or treat them differently because of race, color, national
origin, ancestry, age,
disability, sex, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or religion.

English: ATTENTION: If you do not speak English, language assistance services,
free
of charge, are available to you. Call 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

Español (Spanish): ATENCIÓN: Si habla español, tiene a su disposición servicios
gratuitos de asistencia lingüística. Llame al 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

繁體中文(Chinese):注意:如果您使用繁體中文,您可以免費獲得語言援助
服務。請致電 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711)。

Kreyòl Ayisyen (Haitian Creole): ATANSION: Si w pale Kreyòl Ayisyen, gen sèvis
èd
pou lang ki disponib gratis pou ou. Rele 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

Polski (Polish): UWAGA: Jeżeli mówisz po polsku, możesz skorzystać z bezpłatnej
pomocy językowej. Zadzwoń pod numer 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711).

한국어 (Korean): 주의: 한국어를 사용하시는 경우, 언어 지원 서비스를 무료로
이용하실 수 있습니다. 1‐877‐320‐1235 (TTY: 711)번으로 전화해 주십시오.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread David Spiegel


Y E S ! (Could not use ISPF on floor system)
Also, sometimes (and this also happened to me) the ISPF Datasets are 
"not there" yet when the first wave of users LOGs ON after the first IPL.


On 2021-01-27 20:21, Seymour J Metz wrote:

If I have a working TSO logon proc then I can allocate the libraries that ISPF 
needs. It's only if someone clobbers those that I would need to resort to TSO 
EDIT.

Have you been at DRs where you couldn't use ISPF from the floor system?


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C0089bd432f1941a6f67408d8c32b0402%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473936810333538%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=Y%2FEsOgzYJuNG7pDHwhnkVENRBT1diEeecr3GPHNlbC0%3Dreserved=0


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH,
I meant that your LOGON PROC has a JCL Error and you're stuck using a
bare-bones TSO LOGON PROC with no ISPF ALLOCATions (JCL or Dynamically
ALLOCATEd).
I've done DRs where this has actually occurred. Consider yourself fortunate.

Regards,
David

On 2021-01-27 19:43, Seymour J Metz wrote:

If my LOGON proc has a JCL error then I can't use TSO EDIT.

Every DR site I've been at has allowed use of its floor system to adjust things 
and sometimes to do the restores.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C0089bd432f1941a6f67408d8c32b0402%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473936810333538%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=Y%2FEsOgzYJuNG7pDHwhnkVENRBT1diEeecr3GPHNlbC0%3Dreserved=0


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Sure ... unless ... your LOGON PROC got a JCL Error and you need to fix
it, or, possibly a DR.

On 2021-01-27 19:25, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
there's little call to use TSO EDIT.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7C0089bd432f1941a6f67408d8c32b0402%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473936810333538%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=Y%2FEsOgzYJuNG7pDHwhnkVENRBT1diEeecr3GPHNlbC0%3Dreserved=0


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:


That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

--
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...@listser

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

> Isn't writing code macros a bit dated? 

No. Aren't editors that don't allow writing macros a bit dated? Trivial example:

 /* REXX from TSPF - not tested in ISPF */
 address ISREDIT
 "MACRO"
 "CURSOR = 1 1"
 "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
 "(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
 "(NLINE) = LINE" NEW
 do while NEW ¬= LAST
OLD  =NEW
OLINE=NLINE
"CURSOR =" OLD+1
"(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
"(NLINE) = LINE "NEW
if NLINE=OLINE
then do
   'DELETE' NEW
   'CURSOR =' OLD
   "(NEW) = LINENUM .ZCSR"
   end
"(LAST) = LINENUM .ZLAST"
end

> In Vim I can record macros.

In ISPF I don't need them.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 28/01/2021 8:25 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
> there's little call to use TSO EDIT.

Isn't writing code macros a bit dated? In Vim I can record macros.


>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:
>
>> That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
>> work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
>> Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
>> working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
>> remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
>> world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
>> default - no install needed.
> TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!
>
> Tony H.
>
> --
> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

If I have a working TSO logon proc then I can allocate the libraries that ISPF 
needs. It's only if someone clobbers those that I would need to resort to TSO 
EDIT.

Have you been at DRs where you couldn't use ISPF from the floor system?


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH,
I meant that your LOGON PROC has a JCL Error and you're stuck using a
bare-bones TSO LOGON PROC with no ISPF ALLOCATions (JCL or Dynamically
ALLOCATEd).
I've done DRs where this has actually occurred. Consider yourself fortunate.

Regards,
David

On 2021-01-27 19:43, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> If my LOGON proc has a JCL error then I can't use TSO EDIT.
>
> Every DR site I've been at has allowed use of its floor system to adjust 
> things and sometimes to do the restores.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdeb9033561d54903b8c408d8c325dcc9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473914698372478%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=4vpjdBo2Xxnc%2Bc%2BQXxyBSaO9miYokXQfhqij3GiSXyE%3Dreserved=0
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:32 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> Sure ... unless ... your LOGON PROC got a JCL Error and you need to fix
> it, or, possibly a DR.
>
> On 2021-01-27 19:25, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>> Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
>> there's little call to use TSO EDIT.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdeb9033561d54903b8c408d8c325dcc9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473914698372478%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=4vpjdBo2Xxnc%2Bc%2BQXxyBSaO9miYokXQfhqij3GiSXyE%3Dreserved=0
>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>> Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
>>> work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
>>> Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
>>> working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
>>> remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
>>> world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
>>> default - no install needed.
>> TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!
>>
>> Tony H.
>>
>> --
>> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux


On 28/01/2021 8:25 am, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
there's little call to use TSO EDIT.


Isn't writing code macros a bit dated? In Vim I can record macros.





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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:


That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

What about Samba over TCP/IP?

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 28/01/2021 12:20 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
> The last time I had any major Linux editing to do (writing a
> relatively large system in C, multiple modules, etc.) I used the
> editor that comes with Microsoft Visual Studio on Win 10, with Samba
> setup to automatically save the files from Windows over to the Linux
> box.  Worked great and no vi or whatever needed.  Maybe that could be
> an alternative on the mainframe too, at least for a large project
> where it's worth setting up Samba.

Unfortunately, SMB is being phased out on z/OS. Apparently, this is not
for technical reasons it's because IBM don't have the resources to
maintain it!

Did you know that one of the most popular Vs Code plugins is Vim
emulation? 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1On3n1KAH2nPvgJ_UCNax9-pzLclSbZmh9tUFVpUwAlvqa_k35rgq2MK7rVB6nsn3VqSE9ZMASNrBM5KNfYY5sA4WH2Os0MoUR25iGjBhRQB4C537JnrY9rAMTKmzvSleVp6mdJhYR-xwviWTMshC_AemjPq4jJ0QYJAGiwwpnx6XqIm8iJpkpFd0sfa0S7drloZNDL40nqdK65lPoF_SvkH0V7hv-_73JxiDuvtPrnbQdl1Q5yXnJBn0yx4lOvx4J889vHAIVL-PkRLdEtzxDNGflpG1vSek_D1kkzMkooYfVjKQk4Sefw-IK-wpCXxB8YQXNA3tE8kpVVon0PBOx-wGCid6nK9aoTkNxqlWoVmQLanFJRTs3Fj-hWjmkDrj6NjjYrgdDB7c9v9JS8Pk8F9mrJWUmmynbH97QGnYYUj8iQo3epOo84x4tVozhM7JOtARI9Pr7NqbAXzjFw6Ebg/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FVSCodeVim%2FVim

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux


On 28/01/2021 12:20 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
The last time I had any major Linux editing to do (writing a 
relatively large system in C, multiple modules, etc.) I used the 
editor that comes with Microsoft Visual Studio on Win 10, with Samba 
setup to automatically save the files from Windows over to the Linux 
box.  Worked great and no vi or whatever needed.  Maybe that could be 
an alternative on the mainframe too, at least for a large project 
where it's worth setting up Samba. 


Unfortunately, SMB is being phased out on z/OS. Apparently, this is not 
for technical reasons it's because IBM don't have the resources to 
maintain it!


Did you know that one of the most popular Vs Code plugins is Vim 
emulation? https://github.com/VSCodeVim/Vim


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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread David Spiegel


Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH,
I meant that your LOGON PROC has a JCL Error and you're stuck using a 
bare-bones TSO LOGON PROC with no ISPF ALLOCATions (JCL or Dynamically 
ALLOCATEd).

I've done DRs where this has actually occurred. Consider yourself fortunate.

Regards,
David

On 2021-01-27 19:43, Seymour J Metz wrote:

If my LOGON proc has a JCL error then I can't use TSO EDIT.

Every DR site I've been at has allowed use of its floor system to adjust things 
and sometimes to do the restores.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdeb9033561d54903b8c408d8c325dcc9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473914698372478%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=4vpjdBo2Xxnc%2Bc%2BQXxyBSaO9miYokXQfhqij3GiSXyE%3Dreserved=0


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Sure ... unless ... your LOGON PROC got a JCL Error and you need to fix
it, or, possibly a DR.

On 2021-01-27 19:25, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
there's little call to use TSO EDIT.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7Cdeb9033561d54903b8c408d8c325dcc9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473914698372478%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=4vpjdBo2Xxnc%2Bc%2BQXxyBSaO9miYokXQfhqij3GiSXyE%3Dreserved=0


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:


That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux


On 28/01/2021 12:19 am, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

Doesn't everybody know that 'G' takes you to the bottom of the file and
'gg' to the top;)


I didn't.  I had been using '1G' for decades since I learned it.
Thanks for the hint.

Has Rocket ported Vim to z/OS?



Yes, and emacs. The terminfo  database is supported so you get all the 
colors if your terminal emulator supports them. I jumped ship from PuTTY 
to the excellent Windows Terminal early last year.



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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux


On 27/01/2021 10:43 pm, Steve Thompson wrote:

Then why do so many people complain about vi outside of mainframers?

Why are there other editors and even mods for vi if it is so wonderful?



Why does a modern GUI editor have key bindings for Vim? 
https://github.com/VSCodeVim/Vim?


Because using a mouse is a productivity killer!

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I have to deal with long lines, so I want cursor right to scroll. I can use 
HOME to get to the topp, and can scroll up from the command line to get to the 
bottom, so I'd prefer that cursor up and down from the entry fields wrap.

Is treating keystrokes different depending on the cursor location really modal? 
I certainly don't see it that way.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin [000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 5:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:03:50 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:

>On 1/27/2021 12:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
>> Nooo...! I use the cursor-down key all the time if I'm near the bottom
>> of the screen and want to be near the top. I would be seriously PO'd
>> if some ISPF-like program changed that to do any kinf of scroll down,
>> whether line or screen at a time.
>
>Ha ha!  Same here.  That's probably why he mentioned it should be an
>option setting, for folks like us who exploit the cursor wrap-around
>(both up/down and even left/right).
>
True, I did say "optional".  Oddly, I've relied on the left/right wrap
more than the up/down; particularly to add to the end of a line (with
nulls on.)  Probably because my files more often fit the screen horizontally
than vertically.  At times, I've put the function of vi's 'A' in a macro
on a PF key.

And/or I've set a "Home" key to memorize the cursor position so
after a command it moves back to that position.  I've seen complaints
about the modal behavior of vi, but ISPF Edit is likewise modal
according whether the cursor is on the command line.

Hmmm ... How about Shift/cursor down for scrolling; regular for
wrapping?  The command line gets in the way of scrolling; my (XEDIT)
"Home"  macro hid the command line and PF key legend when it placed ]
the cursor back in the file text -- a couple more lines visible on
an antique terminal.

-- 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

If my LOGON proc has a JCL error then I can't use TSO EDIT.

Every DR site I've been at has allowed use of its floor system to adjust things 
and sometimes to do the restores.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Sure ... unless ... your LOGON PROC got a JCL Error and you need to fix
it, or, possibly a DR.

On 2021-01-27 19:25, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
> there's little call to use TSO EDIT.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7Cb9eec9b65a244425e9e208d8c3234bdc%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473903652729815%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=z4%2FXkAG0fXehGam928xP58W3a9QE6X3biLzN3ZDEDPw%3Dreserved=0
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:
>
>> That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
>> work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
>> Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
>> working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
>> remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
>> world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
>> default - no install needed.
> TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!
>
> Tony H.
>
> --
> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw

Yes, I found I have Version 4.10 of this program. 
It took me quite a while to find the floppy disk it was on, about another 15 
minutes to find my USB attached floppy disk reader, then about 30 minutes to 
get it to work under vDOS under Windows 10 64-bit. But it still works.

Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
‘Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyone is.’

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of CM 
Poncelet
Sent: 27 January 2021 00:28
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I still have and use the last version of SPF/PC (4.0.7) from CTC. It's a DOS 
program with an in-built DOS extender. CTC stopped supporting it in the 1990's.

On 26/01/2021 15:21, PINION, RICHARD W. wrote:
> Does anybody remember an ISPF product that ran under mainframe Linux 
> from the early 2000's?  And, does anybody remember Command Technology 
> Corporation's SPF/PC?  Just walking down memory lane.
> Confidentiality notice: 
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally 
> privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
> recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this 
> message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any 
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly 
> prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately 
> notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
>
> --
> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread David Spiegel

Sure ... unless ... your LOGON PROC got a JCL Error and you need to fix 
it, or, possibly a DR.


On 2021-01-27 19:25, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
there's little call to use TSO EDIT.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fmason.gmu.edu%2F~smetz3data=04%7C01%7C%7Cb9eec9b65a244425e9e208d8c3234bdc%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637473903652729815%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=z4%2FXkAG0fXehGam928xP58W3a9QE6X3biLzN3ZDEDPw%3Dreserved=0


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:


That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I generally want scroll up and down, but a line at a time, not a page. I also 
want scroll right. However, for cursor left I want wrap; in TSPF I often use 
cursor left and END to get to the end of the previous line.

There's no "One size fits all."


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 3:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 14:03, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:41:42 -0800, Tom Brennan  wrote:
>
> >I haven't used SPF/PC in many years, but I do remember it doing things
> >that weren't possible via 3270, and those were sometimes a surprise.
> >For example, I think I remember it automatically scrolling down text
> >just by moving the cursor past the bottom of the screen.  Can't do that
> >on a real 3270 terminal.
> >
> Are you suggesting (below) that's undesirable?  I'd think it ideal.  A 3270
> emulator should (by configuration option) automatically send PF8 when
> the user moves the cursor past the bottom of the screen.

Nooo...! I use the cursor-down key all the time if I'm near the bottom
of the screen and want to be near the top. I would be seriously PO'd
if some ISPF-like program changed that to do any kinf of scroll down,
whether line or screen at a time.

Tony H.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Yes, and you can write macros for it. Still, when you have ISPF available 
there's little call to use TSO EDIT.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
> work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
> Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
> working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
> remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
> world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
> default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

No Linux.

No REXX.

No sale.

How much does Uni-SPF Extended cost and what is missing from it?


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Mike Schwab [mike.a.sch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

http://secure-web.cisco.com/1bANQKyHaiyIOvPp0u70GFcc-L4GI9L6al8rfbR1OpbiL-7twIJvxRTO9zy7R7fmCcQk0y22Q4slVkyiUnSCXlOYooLq8H4-fOhYml-dXRramrYVBnAZ-ChPK9B8ayk-LWVKJ9_Rboeyk7gwveGx1de66kKI5G1jceirJ77xi9xWPGvQu-Ni4MeBTuyWqKJdyPUY4YFgcLFxEffOpzt7zD_UudnjMmuUd7IihYnm0EOqoa0asVm4UpjdWCDocQuJl-qDBbbhGsONrtl4Pr_75aTPx1qZqoMKA-i8C4wiKkphdg9qAeE95KIwpdMRJF-o-AS7hTMojpNawsj-yyIIKia_cf-82nCtp2jRrYDCsnyOCsJLrmOwrXn5LoDhoH6yG5X6MfEMOxtaqehyQihCKG5S4nzc4hnYOI6MrjFo05psCkgrSobShPFJ_HEcuGZCo/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spflite.com%2F
  is still around.  Can it upload to z/Linux?

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:22 AM PINION, RICHARD W.
 wrote:
>
> Does anybody remember an ISPF product that ran under mainframe Linux from
> the early 2000's?  And, does anybody remember Command Technology Corporation's
> SPF/PC?  Just walking down memory lane.
> Confidentiality notice:
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally 
> privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
> recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this 
> message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any 
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly 
> prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately 
> notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
>
> --
> 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

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

That's a funny way to spell pico. GNU nano isn't remotely ISPF-like.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Tom 
Conley [pinnc...@rochester.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:35 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

NANO.  Easily the most ISPF-like of the Unix editors.  That is all.

Regards,
Tom Conley

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:03:50 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:

>On 1/27/2021 12:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
>> Nooo...! I use the cursor-down key all the time if I'm near the bottom
>> of the screen and want to be near the top. I would be seriously PO'd
>> if some ISPF-like program changed that to do any kinf of scroll down,
>> whether line or screen at a time.
>
>Ha ha!  Same here.  That's probably why he mentioned it should be an
>option setting, for folks like us who exploit the cursor wrap-around
>(both up/down and even left/right).
>
True, I did say "optional".  Oddly, I've relied on the left/right wrap
more than the up/down; particularly to add to the end of a line (with
nulls on.)  Probably because my files more often fit the screen horizontally
than vertically.  At times, I've put the function of vi's 'A' in a macro
on a PF key.

And/or I've set a "Home" key to memorize the cursor position so
after a command it moves back to that position.  I've seen complaints
about the modal behavior of vi, but ISPF Edit is likewise modal
according whether the cursor is on the command line.

Hmmm ... How about Shift/cursor down for scrolling; regular for
wrapping?  The command line gets in the way of scrolling; my (XEDIT)
"Home"  macro hid the command line and PF key legend when it placed ]
the cursor back in the file text -- a couple more lines visible on
an antique terminal.

-- gil

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Tom Conley


NANO.  Easily the most ISPF-like of the Unix editors.  That is all.

Regards,
Tom Conley

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux


On 1/27/2021 1:00 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:


TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!



Side story:  Before I knew what an IBM mainframe was, I worked with 
computer mapping on a PDP-something and there was a lady in the office 
who was a user of the (remote) company mainframe.  Apparently part of 
her job was working with tables of data using the TSO line editor, 
because one day she was just giddy with excitement, "Tom, come look at 
this, it's called FSE and I can edit the whole screen at once!!" I think 
that was around 1979.


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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Mike Schwab

http://www.spflite.com/  is still around.  Can it upload to z/Linux?

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:22 AM PINION, RICHARD W.
 wrote:
>
> Does anybody remember an ISPF product that ran under mainframe Linux from
> the early 2000's?  And, does anybody remember Command Technology Corporation's
> SPF/PC?  Just walking down memory lane.
> Confidentiality notice:
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally 
> privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
> recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this 
> message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any 
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly 
> prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately 
> notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
>
> --
> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux


On 1/27/2021 12:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:

Nooo...! I use the cursor-down key all the time if I'm near the bottom
of the screen and want to be near the top. I would be seriously PO'd
if some ISPF-like program changed that to do any kinf of scroll down,
whether line or screen at a time.


Ha ha!  Same here.  That's probably why he mentioned it should be an 
option setting, for folks like us who exploit the cursor wrap-around 
(both up/down and even left/right).


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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Tony Harminc

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:21, Tom Brennan  wrote:

> That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
> work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
> Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
> working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
> remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
> world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
> default - no install needed.

TSO "EDIT" is always available on z/OS... Doesn't even require a 3270!

Tony H.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Tony Harminc

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 14:03, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:41:42 -0800, Tom Brennan  wrote:
>
> >I haven't used SPF/PC in many years, but I do remember it doing things
> >that weren't possible via 3270, and those were sometimes a surprise.
> >For example, I think I remember it automatically scrolling down text
> >just by moving the cursor past the bottom of the screen.  Can't do that
> >on a real 3270 terminal.
> >
> Are you suggesting (below) that's undesirable?  I'd think it ideal.  A 3270
> emulator should (by configuration option) automatically send PF8 when
> the user moves the cursor past the bottom of the screen.

Nooo...! I use the cursor-down key all the time if I'm near the bottom
of the screen and want to be near the top. I would be seriously PO'd
if some ISPF-like program changed that to do any kinf of scroll down,
whether line or screen at a time.

Tony H.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux


On 1/27/2021 9:02 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote:

I did ask why (in the world) they used it, and they said because
it's always available by default - no install needed.


That is certainly a good reason for learning "The Editor From Hell". But isn't 
emacs almost as common?


It may be, but they never mentioned emacs and as far as I could tell 
they used nothing but vi.


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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

The first thing I look at in an editor is the macro language. ISPF has it all 
over vi in that regard. While I don't like all those parentheses, emacs is 
clearly better than vi in that regard.

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

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Doesn't everybody know that 'G' takes you to the bottom of the file and
'gg' to the top ;)

I used to hate Vim and considered the learning curve too steep. First
thing I would do when I spun up a Linux VM was install nano. Then I bit
the bullet and invested the time to learn how to use it.
Now it's my favorite text editor. I use it all the time on z/OS as my
employer has ported it as part of the z/OS Open Source tools product.
Once you have an intermediate level of proficiency you
can do amazing things WRT navigation, searching/replacing, editing all
with a ridiculously small amount of keystrokes. To beautify source code
indentation simply type 'gg=G'.

If you check out the neovim [1] fork contributors. They're all young
guys! These are web devs, devops, game developers all using a shell
based TUI editor and not a fancy GUI. 41K stars is just amazing!
To general consensus is that using a mouse is a productivity killer. How
times change! Nobody would consider writing an ISPF WSA these days.

Don't fight it, feel it. Watch a few YouTube tutorial videos and you'll
be a convert in no time.

[1] 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QgPCAFtLnqwmqEYF3MPtZYZENyxwzsFUV4xpSA38BYbBU_QN4wbLZnTgYS8L82-nFWxMcG5Ms9jgKRGSr0Wpz6uh4TNOSsCXDCQTfA4phOymlCU0xnkhpLFK0GFBmCZ1fiCsxUm0wkIwes12ehYbdliqwgCs3CKBSgG1attgYp1L6d6t1WxYDygW6cl9Fhw-hEn4Rr5x7bKNKxmUEsQkA6NN3dbJW2pcPsx-CQKuZytIwb9_gvjvQakasLzqTGTQ8vGuSPWY3AYGDnW58oeO25XyCiTBXVWU_B3_nVjj-WdbQSyvE90xAJba13Mhn31dG11FW9lVmEYa-uMUDObV6qyubWNMNu12g9QBNIRI6dEVXSK-eqqH_qcimYrpQsFSZa5OB3e-GuVNhPYLGahpfFp9XEq69a2p4NyhEf62fjoAv8cVB8eTzWGUqUPCKir7/https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fneovim%2Fneovim

On 27/01/2021 1:57 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:
> On 1/26/2021 7:42 PM, David Crayford wrote:
>> I know the old adage that old dogs can't learn new tricks but why not
>> just learn native Linux tools?
> Because somebody decided that "end save" would be ":wq" which of
> course makes perfect sense :)
>
> Actually, I barely know enough of the vi editor to get by, and have to
> google every time even for simple things like how to move to the
> bottom of a file.  But other mainframe folks I work with are far worse
> than me.
>
> Still, I agree with you.  Just learn what everybody else has already
> found to work best in that environment.
>
> --
> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Steve Thompson

And then there are the marketing types that are clueless as to what protecting 
the brand does to manual titles which also fouls up google and other search 
Engines. 

Sent from my iPhone — small keyboarf, fat fungrs, stupd spell manglr. Expct 
mistaks 


> On Jan 27, 2021, at 10:20 AM, Phil Smith III  wrote:
> 
> Dana Mitchell wrote:
> 
>> I believe the current official name is IBMi running on IBM Power Systems.
> It does make googling for technical information difficult at times
> 
> 
> 
> Right, with a space after "IBM". Stupid name (and of course un-googleable:
> "When I was at IBM, I used to." comes up instead), but it's the name. Not
> AS/400, not iSeries, not System i, any more than that laptop you're on is a
> Pentium (or a 386, or an 8086).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course many people still call it "AS/400"; a jobreq shouldn't. It might
> *also* mention it, as in: "IBM i (System i, iSeries, AS/400)".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being a purist here. But to me it just shows a lack of precision
> that would be concerning in an employer-again, same as a PC jobreq that said
> "Familiarity with Pentium computers".
> 
> 
> 
> Shmuel: No, different recruiting firms. Clearly some jobreq shows up on
> indeed.com or something and the bottom-feeders get trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...phsiii 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

I've also seen wonky questionnaires, e.g., asking both about experience with 
3168 and with 370/168, even though the 3168 is the processor for the 370/168.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Phil Smith III [li...@akphs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

Dana Mitchell wrote:

>I believe the current official name is IBMi running on IBM Power Systems.
It does make googling for technical information difficult at times



Right, with a space after "IBM". Stupid name (and of course un-googleable:
"When I was at IBM, I used to." comes up instead), but it's the name. Not
AS/400, not iSeries, not System i, any more than that laptop you're on is a
Pentium (or a 386, or an 8086).



Of course many people still call it "AS/400"; a jobreq shouldn't. It might
*also* mention it, as in: "IBM i (System i, iSeries, AS/400)".



Yes, I'm being a purist here. But to me it just shows a lack of precision
that would be concerning in an employer-again, same as a PC jobreq that said
"Familiarity with Pentium computers".



Shmuel: No, different recruiting firms. Clearly some jobreq shows up on
indeed.com or something and the bottom-feeders get trolling.



...phsiii


--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

> I did ask why (in the world) they used it, and they said because 
> it's always available by default - no install needed.

That is certainly a good reason for learning "The Editor From Hell". But isn't 
emacs almost as common?


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Tom 
Brennan [t...@tombrennansoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

On 1/27/2021 6:43 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> Then why do so many people complain about vi outside of mainframers?
> Why are there other editors and even mods for vi if it is so wonderful?
>
That's probably true, but around 2005 when I didn't have enough z/OS
work to do, I moved about half my time over to the dark side of AIX,
Linux, and at least a couple of other Unixes that I can't remember -
working with a bunch of folks who never touched a mainframe.  I don't
remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
default - no install needed.

The last time I had any major Linux editing to do (writing a relatively
large system in C, multiple modules, etc.) I used the editor that comes
with Microsoft Visual Studio on Win 10, with Samba setup to
automatically save the files from Windows over to the Linux box.  Worked
great and no vi or whatever needed.  Maybe that could be an alternative
on the mainframe too, at least for a large project where it's worth
setting up Samba.

--
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: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Styles, Andy (ITS zPlatform Services)

Classification: Public

Rocket has indeed ported vim to z/OS; I use it all the time. 

It took a while to getting used to, being unfamiliar with that kind of editor, 
but once I got the terminal file sorted, and the keyboard mappings worked out, 
it's good. The challenge is the extent of what it can do - I've barely 
scratched the surface and I'm sure I could be doing things more efficiently, 
but for what I need it for, it's fine.

Andy Styles
z/Series System Programmer

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: 27 January 2021 16:20
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

-- This email has reached the Bank via an external source --

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:44:46 +0800, David Crayford wrote:

>Doesn't everybody know that 'G' takes you to the bottom of the file and 
>'gg' to the top ;)
> 
I didn't.  I had been using '1G' for decades since I learned it.
Thanks for the hint.

Has Rocket ported Vim to z/OS?

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 06:05:05 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:

>> Linux ISPF clone
>
>No File Tailoring, among other issues
>
I never learned it.  I have relied on keeping my JCL in here-documents in shell 
scripts and relying on shell facilities for tailoring.  How much am I missing?

The glaring lack in ISPF Edit is Command Substitution such as in vi:
:r ! TZ=EST5EDT date
:w ! mutt e...@univie.ac.at

I've occasonaly dabbled in macros for that.  It should be built-in.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Lloyds Banking Group plc. Registered Office: The Mound, Edinburgh EH1 1YZ. 
Registered in Scotland no. SC95000. Telephone: 0131 225 4555.

Lloyds Bank plc. Registered Office: 25 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7HN. 
Registered in England and Wales no. 2065. Telephone 0207626 1500.

Bank of Scotland plc. Registered Office: The Mound, Edinburgh EH1 1YZ. 
Registered in Scotland no. SC327000. Telephone: 03457 801 801.

Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets plc. Registered office: 25 Gresham Street, London 
EC2V 7HN. Registered in England and Wales no. 10399850.

Scottish Widows Schroder Personal Wealth Limited. Registered Office: 25 Gresham 
Street, London EC2V 7HN. Registered in England and Wales no. 11722983.

Lloyds Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc and Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets plc are 
authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the 
Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority.

Scottish Widows Schroder Personal Wealth Limited is authorised and regulated by 
the Financial Conduct Authority.

Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets Wertpapierhandelsbank GmbH is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets plc. Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets 
Wertpapierhandelsbank GmbH has its registered office at Thurn-und-Taxis Platz 
6, 60313 Frankfurt, Germany. The company is registered with the Amtsgericht 
Frankfurt am Main, HRB 111650. Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets 
Wertpapierhandelsbank GmbH is supervised by the Bundesanstalt für 
Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht.

Halifax is a division of Bank of Scotland plc.

HBOS plc. Registered Office: The Mound, Edinburgh EH1 1YZ. Registered in 
Scotland no. SC218813.

This e-mail (including any attachments) is private and confidential and may 
contain privileged material. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender and delete it (including any attachments) immediately. You 
must not copy, distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it or any 
attachments. Telephone calls may be monitored or recorded.

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux

2021-01-27 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:20:50 -0800, Tom Brennan  wrote:

>...  I don't
>remember a single complaint about vi from them.  I did ask why (in the
>world) they used it, and they said because it's always available by
>default - no install needed.
> 
I have been cautioned by old-timers that I should master 'ex'
lest 'vi' be unavailable.

>... I used the editor that comes
>with Microsoft Visual Studio on Win 10, with Samba setup to
>automatically save the files from Windows over to the Linux box.  
>
Similarly, I've kept most of my data on a Solaris server with a
z/OS NFS client.  ISPF 3.17 or vi ad lib.  I set my Solaris
locale to ISO8859-1.  UTF-8 would have been a challenge.

-- gil

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

Re: ISPF for mainframe Linux