> There is an old saying "C combines the power of assembly language
> with the flexibility of assembly language": the point being
> that C as a language is very close to assembly language.
LOL. We are discussing HLASM. Have you used the assemblers in the comparison.
> Both require the
I love the structured programming macro's (SPM). They make the code so much
more readable, logical and maintainable. My only suggestion would be logical
indentation (> and < in place of the label where >>> represents 3 indents).
As for C optimization, do you think IBM changes it as new
Thanks for correcting me on PL/X. I've never coded PL/1 so I was going by the
samples. Is there somewhere that compares PL/1 with C so that I can understand
the differences. I thought that the difference was mostly look and feel.
I dislike the C asm interface. Too bad we don't have access to
For some reason, the listserver is not changing the reply-to address for my
messages. I'm using yahoo mail web interface. Does anyone know if there is a
fix for this?
I assume that Assembler source and macros that contain PL/X comments are
generated by PL/X. I also assume that source and
> C has few of the powerful abstraction features found in modern programming
> languages
Agreed. C++ provides some of those.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Martin Ward
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018
There is an old saying "C combines the power of assembly language
with the flexibility of assembly language": the point being
that C as a language is very close to assembly language.
C has few of the powerful abstraction features found in modern
programming languages: automated memory allocation
On 1/22/2018 7:44 AM, Jon Perryman wrote:
If anyone tells you C is superior to HLASM, don't believe it.
I agree with a lot of what you've written. We use SPMs for our coding
(with FLOWASM of course) and a LOT of powerful macros for calling
services, building tables, etc.
One thing I do
PL/X is close to PL/I and not at all close to C. PL/X also includes imbedded
HLASM.
I have no idea what the percentages are, but MVS is written in a mixture of C,
HLASM, Pascal (probably gone) and PL/X (under various names).
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
"C has macros"
FSVO. Certainly anybody that has used the macro facilities of, e.g., HLASM,
PL/I, would find the C preprocessor to be a pitiable excuse for a macro
language.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe
Why do you direct replies to yourself rather than to the list?
On 2018-01-22, at 22:22:43, Jon Perryman wrote:
> I can't say for sure how much is written in PL/X but I suspect a good
> portion. But there is a substantial portion written in HLASM which would not
> be written in PL/X. Writing
Even IBM C is incomplete as far as MVS I/O techniques. There are multiple
area's that are not implemented such as CKD.
Yes, I agree that C struct is being used. What I was calling into question was
the frequency and consistency of it's use in writing files. I'm not an
application programmer,
On 2018-01-23 10:06, Jon Perryman wrote:
I'm not sure what RYO is.
RYO is a TLA for "roll your own".
On 2018-01-22 11:59, Gord Tomlin wrote:
Most programmers (whether C or Assembler) would not write their own XML
parser. They would call a pre-existing parser. FWIW, in the past, I've
done
I will put in my U.S. $0.02.
There is one place where doing something in C is definitely easier than
HLASM, IMO. That is in writing UNIX command processors. Why? The parameter
list coming into C is much easier to code and understand. Basically the C
prototype is: int main(int argc, char *argv[],
Many XML parsers are available for C. Surely C programmers could find one that
meet's their needs.
For assembler, it turns out you are far better off writing one. You eliminate
the need for implementing SCHEMA and greatly improve maintainability. For
product parms, you can easily specify the
14 matches
Mail list logo
