MI as the MI language of the as400.

 >> And then there is the added complexity of the ILE model which I could
accept, but I would like the lead designers at IBM to explain the need for.

Steve - I won't get into a technical debate with you - for one I don't have
the in-depth knowledge of MI that you do - as Simon has correctly pointed
out, those of us who wrote compilers and tools for a living didn't need to
know that much about MI.  Secondly, it's pointless.  The decisions made over
ILE for good or bad won't change, and it is unlikely in the extreme that any
significant re-architecting of the nature you describe will ever be done.

That said - I was party to many _years_ (not hours, not days, not months) of
debate on these issue with some of the greatest OS engineers, designers and
compiler writers it has ever been my privilege to work with.  All of them
were highly experienced in S/38 and OS/400 architecture.  I find it really
hard to believe that if it was all as simple as you want to make it sound,
that nobody thought of it?  Long before ILE itself took shape there was a
protracted period when everything was done to make C and similar languages
function efficiently on the box without the need for spending the millions
of $ that ILE cost.  That effort is one of the reasons why basic program
calls are much more efficient than they used to be.  I never met anybody who
wanted to make it more complex and expensive - but I did work with many who
tried their damnedest to keep it as simple as possible.

Just my 5 cents worth.

Jon Paris
Partner400