Re: standard include files
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:48:25 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
>> >>>>>> zOS (IBM mainframe) C/C++ developers often use PDSs to store header
>> >>>>>> files - these make names longer than eight characters problematic,
>> >>>>>> at
>Well no, since very little C/C++ is done on the mainframe under z/OS. There
>is quite a lot of C/C++ done on the mainframe under z/Linux and there is no
>problem since the filesystem z/Linux uses are not PDS based. There is also
>support in z/OS natively for UNIX and that also uses a non-PDS based
>filesystem. C really doesn't have much purpose on mainframes. It's like
>criticizing PL/I because there aren't many PC compilers for it. Don't use C
>on a mainframe, it's that simple. There are much better choices.
Just because you aren't doing it doesn't mean some of us aren't.
>> > IBM Mainframes (the S/360 line, "System z" now), is not at all PPC
>> > based.
>Correc and more to the point, none of the IBM mainframes are based on POWER
>and they never were. PPC is used for what we mainframers call "toy
>computers" those things the PC guys call "servers". They run UNIX, Linux,
>Solaris and other toy OS.
>> > PPC (POWER) runs both of IBM's midrange lines, the *nix based System p
>> > (formerly RS/6000, pSeries, etc.), and now the System i (the old S/38,
>> > AS/400 minis). IIRC, IBM is rebranding both of those as "IBM Power
>> > Systems". The System i still has a fair bit of green screen support
>> > (5250's, rather than the 3270s seen on the mainframe systems).
>> >> doesn't mean it is necessarily old or slow, but more the sorts of things
>> >> which would likely make most "sane" computer users (assuming they know
>> >> enough to understand it) to be all like "WTF is this?!" (like the
>> >> computer equivalent of some strange/alien landscape or something...).
>> >> hence, "arcane"...
>Not arcane, you just missed all the interesting and correctly designed
>hardware and software if you think UNIX is a good OS or Intel makes good
>microprocessors. IBM kicks their ass. Yeah, they kick it good.
Between that and the "toy computers" comments above, you have an
excellent demonstration why most folks dismiss mainframers as a
hopelessly out of touch and insular, not to mention mindboggling
arrogant, group. To complete the effect, please be sure to toss out a
"squatty boxes" comment too.
zOS is certainly a highly reliable OS, but certain not nearly as
bulletproof as the mythology suggests. They tend to be *far* less
exposed to malicious activity than other systems.
On the flip side, zOS is burdened with 45 years of accumulated cruft,
including a bunch of stuff that was questionable on the day when
OS/360 was first shipped in 1964 (let's just mention the absurdly
exposed control blocks and CKD disk for two biggies).
Mainframes run some very important workloads, and run them well, but
as a fraction of the total computing universe, they are a very small,
and shrinking, segment.