Re: of COBOL and other languages [was: Definition of mainframe?]
Even a ghastly language may have good features, and there is nothing wrong with finding the few jewels in the much. On the flip side, even a good language has warts, and there is no virtue in ignoring them. As an example, I like PL/I and dislike COBOL, but COBOL had enumerations (the English-like level 88) from the beginning, while it took IBM decades to add them to PL/I. Another example is C; I intensely dislike it, but I found myself defending the for (;;) idiom as being perfectly clear. One of my convictions is that nobody that can't find flaws in a language truly understands it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Rick Troth [tro...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 7:14 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: of COBOL and other languages [was: Definition of mainframe?] We had an ... interesting ... conversation over on the assembler list a couple weeks ago. I knee-jerked against something PHSiii said. I sorta started some flaming. Not intentional. Yeah ... the author got me ticked off too. I'm actually not a COBOL fan, but I truly wish more of us knew it (and used it). It annoys me to the max when people reject things due to age or perceived obsolescence. FORTRAN is older but catches less crap than COBOL. As an industry, we need less allergies to languages outside our normal space. It's frustrating the Java has become such a requirement. Java itself is a great language, but nobody compiles it to native; they leave it as byte code requiring a JVM. That makes it difficult to work with other languages. (Java can call out to C, assembler, even COBOL, using the JNI, but those languages cannot call back "in" to Java inside the JVM.) COBOL does not require a mainframe and mainframes do not require COBOL. Jon, you should drop a note to the chief editor at ARS Technica. Tell him (or her) how far off the mark they were! -- R; <>< On 7/29/23 12:28, Jon Perryman wrote: > Can anyone provide the definition of MAINFRAME? The ARS Technica article is > complete nonsense because the mainframe is a state of mind and nothing to do > with reality. Can anyone prove me wrong? > https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/the-ibm-mainframe-how-it-runs-and-why-it-survives/. > > The IBM z16 is just 4 motherboards containing 16 CPU and many PCIe slots. > Linux will run on an IBM z16. Is a PC also mainframe? Forget zPDT because I > suspect it still uses a PCIe zCPU card. I can't say with any certainty, but I > suspect that z/OS will run on a PC by using Hercules. What is the definition > of MAINFRAME? > > 1. CPU does not make a mainframe: The smallest IBM z16 (39 user cores of the > 64 cores) is the same as an AMD Ryzen 4.2Ghz CPU (64 user cores of 64 cores). > The largest IBM z16 (200 user cores of the 256 cores) is the same as 4 AMD > Ryzen CPU on 1 motherboard (256 user cores of the 256 cores). Both are CISC > CPU (AMD uses X86 instructions versus IBM z instructions). IBM Telum (5.2Ghz) > has a slightly faster clock than AMD Ryzen (4.2Ghz) but is offset by the 25% > extra user cores. IBM z16 has 4 motherboards for 16 CPU and the same AMD > Ryzen would need 1 motherboard for 4 CPU. > > 2. Hardware does not make a mainframe. IBM z16 has PCIe and ram which are > also on every modern motherboard. IBM z16 chooses not to include other > hardware (e.g. SATA, IDE, WIFI and more). Motherboards choose not to have > 1,600 PCIe slots. IBM could allow PCIe graphics cards, mice, keyboards and > more. Essentially, IBM z16 and AMD Ryzen can implement the same hardware if > there was enough customer demand. > > 3. OS does not make a mainframe. Linux running on z16 doesn't make it > mainframe Linux. There's nothing stopping Linux from taking advantage of > every z16 hardware feature (e.g. 1,600 PCIe slots) but no one is willing to > build the Linux software. IBM hasn't duplicated z/OS software features in > Linux. > > 4. Software does not make a mainframe. IBM sells DB2 for Linux and DB2 for > z/OS. DB2 for Linux runs on all hardware including z16. With Linux, you can > still run DB2 on z16 but large customers choose DB2 for z/OS. > > ASK YOURSELF: Other than design philosophy, name 1 fundamental difference > between IBM z16, AMD Ryzen and the software. > > ASK YOURSELF: Since design philosophy is the only difference, name the > philosophy that makes a mainframe. > > Despite the story's false claims for z/OS relevance, it is ignorance in the > Linux community that makes IBM z/OS relevant. Specifically, it's the lack of > design in Linux. Consider DB2 for Linux and DB2 for z/OS which are the same > product both from IBM and available on an IBM z16. Linux people tell you they > provide the same results, but they ignore the intrinsic capabilities of z/OS > design. DB2 for Linux supports high availability and large databases but it >
of COBOL and other languages [was: Definition of mainframe?]
We had an ... interesting ... conversation over on the assembler list a couple weeks ago. I knee-jerked against something PHSiii said. I sorta started some flaming. Not intentional. Yeah ... the author got me ticked off too. I'm actually not a COBOL fan, but I truly wish more of us knew it (and used it). It annoys me to the max when people reject things due to age or perceived obsolescence. FORTRAN is older but catches less crap than COBOL. As an industry, we need less allergies to languages outside our normal space. It's frustrating the Java has become such a requirement. Java itself is a great language, but nobody compiles it to native; they leave it as byte code requiring a JVM. That makes it difficult to work with other languages. (Java can call out to C, assembler, even COBOL, using the JNI, but those languages cannot call back "in" to Java inside the JVM.) COBOL does not require a mainframe and mainframes do not require COBOL. Jon, you should drop a note to the chief editor at ARS Technica. Tell him (or her) how far off the mark they were! -- R; <>< On 7/29/23 12:28, Jon Perryman wrote: Can anyone provide the definition of MAINFRAME? The ARS Technica article is complete nonsense because the mainframe is a state of mind and nothing to do with reality. Can anyone prove me wrong? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/the-ibm-mainframe-how-it-runs-and-why-it-survives/. The IBM z16 is just 4 motherboards containing 16 CPU and many PCIe slots. Linux will run on an IBM z16. Is a PC also mainframe? Forget zPDT because I suspect it still uses a PCIe zCPU card. I can't say with any certainty, but I suspect that z/OS will run on a PC by using Hercules. What is the definition of MAINFRAME? 1. CPU does not make a mainframe: The smallest IBM z16 (39 user cores of the 64 cores) is the same as an AMD Ryzen 4.2Ghz CPU (64 user cores of 64 cores). The largest IBM z16 (200 user cores of the 256 cores) is the same as 4 AMD Ryzen CPU on 1 motherboard (256 user cores of the 256 cores). Both are CISC CPU (AMD uses X86 instructions versus IBM z instructions). IBM Telum (5.2Ghz) has a slightly faster clock than AMD Ryzen (4.2Ghz) but is offset by the 25% extra user cores. IBM z16 has 4 motherboards for 16 CPU and the same AMD Ryzen would need 1 motherboard for 4 CPU. 2. Hardware does not make a mainframe. IBM z16 has PCIe and ram which are also on every modern motherboard. IBM z16 chooses not to include other hardware (e.g. SATA, IDE, WIFI and more). Motherboards choose not to have 1,600 PCIe slots. IBM could allow PCIe graphics cards, mice, keyboards and more. Essentially, IBM z16 and AMD Ryzen can implement the same hardware if there was enough customer demand. 3. OS does not make a mainframe. Linux running on z16 doesn't make it mainframe Linux. There's nothing stopping Linux from taking advantage of every z16 hardware feature (e.g. 1,600 PCIe slots) but no one is willing to build the Linux software. IBM hasn't duplicated z/OS software features in Linux. 4. Software does not make a mainframe. IBM sells DB2 for Linux and DB2 for z/OS. DB2 for Linux runs on all hardware including z16. With Linux, you can still run DB2 on z16 but large customers choose DB2 for z/OS. ASK YOURSELF: Other than design philosophy, name 1 fundamental difference between IBM z16, AMD Ryzen and the software. ASK YOURSELF: Since design philosophy is the only difference, name the philosophy that makes a mainframe. Despite the story's false claims for z/OS relevance, it is ignorance in the Linux community that makes IBM z/OS relevant. Specifically, it's the lack of design in Linux. Consider DB2 for Linux and DB2 for z/OS which are the same product both from IBM and available on an IBM z16. Linux people tell you they provide the same results, but they ignore the intrinsic capabilities of z/OS design. DB2 for Linux supports high availability and large databases but it requires knowledge of big data solutions, Linux clustering solutions and more. Add a computer to the cluster and you must replicate the master disk. Take a computer offline from the cluster, then it must re-sync or replicate the master disk. DB2 on z/OS does not experience these problems because of z/OS shared dasd and dasd mirroring. ASK YOURSELF: Name 1 brilliant feature design that originated directly from Linux or Unix. Please don't use features that originated from IBM (e.g. databases, SQL, HTML, Cloud and more). Brilliant feature design exposes very little. For instance, does anyone know the problems solved by z/OS shared dasd and dasd mirroring. Linux people on the other hand can easily name those problems solved if you mention clustering solutions and big data solutions. I've personally seen one sysplex split between 2 sites 40 KM apart using line of site satellite dishes for communication, yet z/OS app programmers were informed. In other words, IBM designs for the 21st century. ASK
