RE: Re: Fullscreen application Specs

Mike & Mike
 
Slow down a bit ---
I'm sure he meant it in the nicest way -----
 
I have written a lot of "C" (not on the mainframe) and it was a lot of fun, 
I said in the previous Memo - My emulator is written in "C" , I wrote a
large chunk of it
And I love 8088 assembler - 
But there are certain things that you can do just as well in in old
fashioned "C".
 
I am not talking about the newer Object Oriented stuff where everything is
in black boxes.
And you are never sure what you are getting
 
But old fashioned "C" is a one to one language as well. Well almost.
 
This application is really  very much involved with the system -
Intercepting interrupts setting wait states etc, etc - lots of multitasking.
 
Being a progammer I know that its all doable in "C". Well almost all. But
some times "C" is not an improvement on assembler (forgetting about the
generated Code - which is of course less effecient) for the logic.
 
Setting bits on and off or using an  Execute instruction or loading a PSW is
not going to happen in "C" those are the instructions that you need the
assembler for. or you can change the logic..
 
Of course you can change the logic to match the tool --- but that is a
limitation that you don't want in this kind of an application.
Probably a combination of both "C" and assembler would be the proper mix.
But I just don't have the time to debug or learn the mainframe "C"
 
Also not sure how effecient it is without the new instruction sets - which
we don't have on VM6 - SRPT etc.
A main frame is not a byte oriented machine so are you going to move byte
byte until you get a binary 00.
That can't be more effecient than assembler.
 
Just the fact that "C" is almost portable means that a lot of the nitty
grittty system things can't be done. Or cant be done as effeciently as in
assembler. How do you do an LPSW instruction in "C" -- Maybe its possible
but I wouldn;t have the time to learn right now,
 
THe tools  you choose should match the application and in this case I
wouldn;t know how to start desiging this aplication to work in "C".
 
Certain routines I could have done in "C" but I didn' get the response when
I asked How I call "C" from assembler to do a subroutine,
And I am inventing enough wheels as it as with this app. I dont want to get
into uncharted waters with the "C".
 
But don't be so hard on him -
 Roc
 
 



  _____  

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Mike Stramba
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 23:34 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H390-VM] Re: Fullscreen application Specs


  

On 8/4/10, kerravon86 <kerravon86-/[email protected]
<mailto:kerravon86%40yahoo.com.au> > wrote:
> --- In [email protected] <mailto:H390-VM%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Rocky" <rocsystems@...> wrote:
>>
>> There is a lot of app logic involved here
>
> And you're still not tempted to write any of
> this in C?
>
> While you personally are clearly very productive
> in assembler, anyone else trying to debug a
> problem or make minor improvements is going to
> give up before they even start.

Speak for yourself, as you obviously love C.

I much prefer the 'native" language of 370 assembler, and reading
through the source has been like being in a "toy store".

>
> I see all assembler code on a dangerous road to
> an orphanage. It's a dying art (a fact hidden
> by the unusual nature of participants in these
> Herc groups), while C programmers are
> permanently available at a dime a dozen.

Well who cares? ..

This is an *ancient* / historical operating system, we're playing with.

Most of the fun (for me) is figuring out how things work, learning JCL
/ Assembler, and the other crpytic / different / old stuff.

If we're going to write it in C, then why not Visual Basic ?...
interpreted (well actuall Rexx is close to that :) .. and I *am* also
interested in Rexx.

/rant on

If you love C, so much, instead of continually bugging Rocky, to bend
to *your* preferred preferred language (you've mentioned C at least a
half dozen times in this thread), while he writes an AWESOME Editor /
"mini CICS", and is planning to GIVE it away, go ahead and convert it
to C.

/<rant off