|
>> 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
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.