Some of us would like to see IBM "open source" other stuff, like OS, VSE, VM. Heck, they can keep the source, just give us a hobby, or a "not for profit" license...
And they can keep the current stuff, the stuff they make money on today - like z and ESA. I'ld be more than happy if I could run something like the 20+ year old VSE/SP on my PC at home, under Hercules...
But no, we're stuck with 40 year old "public domain" software, stuff like DOS 26.2 from the System/360 days. Hey, it was fun, I was the "Sysgen Kid" back then. But it only remotely relates to what an, even 20 year old mainframe, is all about today, stuff like CICS...
CICS is a perfect example. Back in the 1.x days, you had 100% of the CICS source code, as long as you had a license. Today "transactiuon server" is a big secret...
Sorry for the OT rant, but it ticks me off. IBM has dumped billions into Linux, but us old greybeards, those of us that wrote those countless lines of Assembly and COBOL and RPG, and yes, CICS code, custom code, without which IBM would have a great OS and nothing else. Those of us that worked shift after shift of unpaid OT, tweaking that demo, making it perfect for the guy that will be spending the IT budget. Those of us that helped make IBM what it is. Those of us that truly enjoy what we do, as a job and hobby...
We can't play with our toys at home, legally that is...
I'm going to retire in a few years. I won't be a licensed user any longer. And I surely can't afford the 4 figure monthly "commercial" software license fee, let alone the 6 figures to "buy" it...
Come on IBM, great "open source" promoter that you have become lately. Do it for us original geeks, we need something to do in our old age...
To me, what makes it a mainframe is the fact that it is designed from the ground up to be a multi-programming, multi-user system. Things like multiple CPUs, multiple channels running at the same time while the CPUs continue to execute instructions of other programs, interrupts, storage protection, all these were part of the original System/360 architecture.
I get a kick out of some of the newbies. You guys like your fancy new 64-bit x86 PC? Well, everything from the 360/65 up all had 8-byte storage access and 8-byte channels, 40 years ago!:)
I've been programming since 1969. Started with Fortran, moved to Cobol soon after, then Assembly around 1971, all on a System/360 mainframe. Today I still do a fair amount of Asm on the big iron System/390. I've been doing x86 Asm since the original IBM 8088. I also spent several years doing 6502 Asm.
I haven't read this entire thread yet, but one thing I did notice was someone saying that Assembly is more than just machine instructions. Boy, is he right! For example the MACRO facalities on the mainframe are very powerful. The programmer can access the type, length, number of "sub operands", and assorted other information for each macro operand. He can also do "sub string" processing on the operand (or each sub-operand). This means a single macro can generate different code, sometimes radically different code, depending on the operands. The mainframe assembler also has "global variable symbols". These are used to pass all sorts of information between macros, which can again result in the macro generating different code, etc.
Another point, just bacause I write in Asm doesn't mean that my code can't be reused. I've accumulated quite a library of source code after all these years. A good part of that "library" has been tweaked, optimized, well debuged, and other wise fine tuned over time. There are certain applications where I can dance circles around even the best "hi level" programmer, as far as development time goes.
One last thing, for now. Like I ssaid I haven't read the thread, but if you're interested in playing with 32-bit Windows programming in Assembly, check out this site:
Here you can download a package that contains a free version of Microsoft MASM, LINK, RC etc, as well as copy books and.LIB files that define most of the WIN32API, example programs, and so on. And be sure to check out the forum.
I can program in more languages than I can remember. But Assembly, on any platform, is still my favorite by far. For many, many reasons...:)
You must have had a pretty crappy saleman. IBM has always been one of the largest publishers in the world. They publish everything you'ld ever need to know. Language specs, programming guides, even program logic manuals.
Today it's all on the web. Take a look at the bookshelves page on their library server:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS3 90/Shelves?FS=TRUE
"The stereotypical image of Linux (smelly, overweight nerds wearing Star Trek T-shirts) compared to Microsoft (suit-wearing shmoozers with lunch budgets to burn) explains all this.":):):)
That's pretty funny. Would you consider IBM a bunch of "smelly, overweight nerds"? You do know that IBM invested ANOTHER $100,000,000.00 in Linux recently, don't you???:)
I wonder if this article considers IBM mainframes as "webservers"... IBM is making a huge Linux push on big iron. Traditional S/3x0 OS'es like OS/390 (aka z/OS), VM and VSE have taken a back seat to Linux at IBM today...
Hi, I'm new here. This thread was posted on the Win32Asm forum, where I spend a little time.
http://board.win32asmcommunity.net/index.php
I've been a professional programmer for about 35 years. I "worked" on the IBM 1130 "mini" at my high school, in my senior year, 1968-1969. I already knew Fortran, having taken an "adult school" class the previous year. I also had a second shift job after school, as an IBM System/360 operator. When I graduated, the company hired me as a junior programmer, and I started using Cobol.
Cobol at the time didn't have much built-in error processing. Things like alpha data in a numeric field often resulted in a "core dump", a printed listing, showing the machine language and data in memory at the time. In order to debug the problem, you needed to know at least some machine language. Everyone had a "green card" that listed the instruction opcodes, formats, etc.
When I did discover assembly language, around 1970, I already knew what was going on, from looking at Cobol dumps. Assembly was way cool. I could do what I wanted directly, without having to deal with all the overhead generated by Cobol. Even the "optimizing" Cobol compiler that came out a few years later still generated a ton of overhead, simply because it's such a generalized language.
I instantly fell in love with assembly language, and it's still my favorite language by far, no matter if it's on the current IBM System/390 mainframe, the x86, or the 6502. It just seems like the "natural" way to program, a least for me.
I tend to agree with a previous poster, people that put down assembly language really don't have much real world experience with it. I don't think they know much about things like Macros. I'm not talking about simple "text replacement" facilities, like in MASM, but a true front end pre-processor, like on the System/360/370/390. Things like Global Variable Symbols are very powerful.
I've developed a couple of Macro assembly based
"languages" over the years. They had the usual verbs, like ADD, IF, MOVE and so on. They also had application specific verbs, like INPUT and OUTPUT, for the 3270 terminal system that I worte. An entire source program was 100% macros, without a "native" line of assembly code in sight. Sure, it took quite a while to write all those macros. But once they were done, an "end user" program could be written very quickly. As the macro code matured, new programs were virtually bug free.
Sure, it takes a while to write assembly code, and it takes even longer to write good, optimized code. But those of us that have been doing it for a while don't start from scratch every time. We've got a "library" of "reusable" code, that's been beaten up and fine tuned over the years.
I get a kick out of comments like "you can't write a big application in assembly language". The IBM mainframe MVS operating system was once described as the most complex software project ever designed. Guess what it's written in. 100% Assembly Language.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us would like to see IBM "open source" other stuff, like OS, VSE, VM. Heck, they can keep the source, just give us a hobby, or a "not for profit" license...
And they can keep the current stuff, the stuff they make money on today - like z and ESA. I'ld be more than happy if I could run something like the 20+ year old VSE/SP on my PC at home, under Hercules...
But no, we're stuck with 40 year old "public domain" software, stuff like DOS 26.2 from the System/360 days. Hey, it was fun, I was the "Sysgen Kid" back then. But it only remotely relates to what an, even 20 year old mainframe, is all about today, stuff like CICS...
CICS is a perfect example. Back in the 1.x days, you had 100% of the CICS source code, as long as you had a license. Today "transactiuon server" is a big secret...
Sorry for the OT rant, but it ticks me off. IBM has dumped billions into Linux, but us old greybeards, those of us that wrote those countless lines of Assembly and COBOL and RPG, and yes, CICS code, custom code, without which IBM would have a great OS and nothing else. Those of us that worked shift after shift of unpaid OT, tweaking that demo, making it perfect for the guy that will be spending the IT budget. Those of us that helped make IBM what it is. Those of us that truly enjoy what we do, as a job and hobby...
We can't play with our toys at home, legally that is...
I'm going to retire in a few years. I won't be a licensed user any longer. And I surely can't afford the 4 figure monthly "commercial" software license fee, let alone the 6 figures to "buy" it...
Come on IBM, great "open source" promoter that you have become lately. Do it for us original geeks, we need something to do in our old age...
Open source this - VSE/SP 3.1
To me, what makes it a mainframe is the fact that it is designed from the ground up to be a multi-programming, multi-user system. Things like multiple CPUs, multiple channels running at the same time while the CPUs continue to execute instructions of other programs, interrupts, storage protection, all these were part of the original System/360 architecture.
:)
I get a kick out of some of the newbies. You guys like your fancy new 64-bit x86 PC? Well, everything from the 360/65 up all had 8-byte storage access and 8-byte channels, 40 years ago!
I've got to make this pretty quick. :)
.LIB files that define most of the WIN32API, example programs, and so on. And be sure to check out the forum.
:)
I've been programming since 1969. Started with Fortran, moved to Cobol soon after, then Assembly around 1971, all on a System/360 mainframe. Today I still do a fair amount of Asm on the big iron System/390. I've been doing x86 Asm since the original IBM 8088. I also spent several years doing 6502 Asm.
I haven't read this entire thread yet, but one thing I did notice was someone saying that Assembly is more than just machine instructions. Boy, is he right! For example the MACRO facalities on the mainframe are very powerful. The programmer can access the type, length, number of "sub operands", and assorted other information for each macro operand. He can also do "sub string" processing on the operand (or each sub-operand). This means a single macro can generate different code, sometimes radically different code, depending on the operands. The mainframe assembler also has "global variable symbols". These are used to pass all sorts of information between macros, which can again result in the macro generating different code, etc.
Another point, just bacause I write in Asm doesn't mean that my code can't be reused. I've accumulated quite a library of source code after all these years. A good part of that "library" has been tweaked, optimized, well debuged, and other wise fine tuned over time. There are certain applications where I can dance circles around even the best "hi level" programmer, as far as development time goes.
One last thing, for now. Like I ssaid I haven't read the thread, but if you're interested in playing with 32-bit Windows programming in Assembly, check out this site:
http://www.masm32.com/
Here you can download a package that contains a free version of Microsoft MASM, LINK, RC etc, as well as copy books and
I can program in more languages than I can remember. But Assembly, on any platform, is still my favorite by far. For many, many reasons...
You must have had a pretty crappy saleman. IBM has always been one of the largest publishers in the world. They publish everything you'ld ever need to know. Language specs, programming guides, even program logic manuals. Today it's all on the web. Take a look at the bookshelves page on their library server: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS3 90/Shelves?FS=TRUE
"The stereotypical image of Linux (smelly, overweight nerds wearing Star Trek T-shirts) compared to Microsoft (suit-wearing shmoozers with lunch budgets to burn) explains all this." :) :) :)
That's pretty funny. Would you consider IBM a bunch of "smelly, overweight nerds"? You do know that IBM invested ANOTHER $100,000,000.00 in Linux recently, don't you??? :)
I wonder if this article considers IBM mainframes as "webservers"... IBM is making a huge Linux push on big iron. Traditional S/3x0 OS'es like OS/390 (aka z/OS), VM and VSE have taken a back seat to Linux at IBM today...
Excuse me? Tell that the 12 Assembly language programmers that I work with every day. :)
Sorry that the above came out as 1 giant paragraph. Like I said, I'm new here... ... ...
Hi, I'm new here. This thread was posted on the Win32Asm forum, where I spend a little time. http://board.win32asmcommunity.net/index.php I've been a professional programmer for about 35 years. I "worked" on the IBM 1130 "mini" at my high school, in my senior year, 1968-1969. I already knew Fortran, having taken an "adult school" class the previous year. I also had a second shift job after school, as an IBM System/360 operator. When I graduated, the company hired me as a junior programmer, and I started using Cobol. Cobol at the time didn't have much built-in error processing. Things like alpha data in a numeric field often resulted in a "core dump", a printed listing, showing the machine language and data in memory at the time. In order to debug the problem, you needed to know at least some machine language. Everyone had a "green card" that listed the instruction opcodes, formats, etc. When I did discover assembly language, around 1970, I already knew what was going on, from looking at Cobol dumps. Assembly was way cool. I could do what I wanted directly, without having to deal with all the overhead generated by Cobol. Even the "optimizing" Cobol compiler that came out a few years later still generated a ton of overhead, simply because it's such a generalized language. I instantly fell in love with assembly language, and it's still my favorite language by far, no matter if it's on the current IBM System/390 mainframe, the x86, or the 6502. It just seems like the "natural" way to program, a least for me. I tend to agree with a previous poster, people that put down assembly language really don't have much real world experience with it. I don't think they know much about things like Macros. I'm not talking about simple "text replacement" facilities, like in MASM, but a true front end pre-processor, like on the System/360/370/390. Things like Global Variable Symbols are very powerful. I've developed a couple of Macro assembly based "languages" over the years. They had the usual verbs, like ADD, IF, MOVE and so on. They also had application specific verbs, like INPUT and OUTPUT, for the 3270 terminal system that I worte. An entire source program was 100% macros, without a "native" line of assembly code in sight. Sure, it took quite a while to write all those macros. But once they were done, an "end user" program could be written very quickly. As the macro code matured, new programs were virtually bug free. Sure, it takes a while to write assembly code, and it takes even longer to write good, optimized code. But those of us that have been doing it for a while don't start from scratch every time. We've got a "library" of "reusable" code, that's been beaten up and fine tuned over the years. I get a kick out of comments like "you can't write a big application in assembly language". The IBM mainframe MVS operating system was once described as the most complex software project ever designed. Guess what it's written in. 100% Assembly Language. :)