Re: lack of usable new OS features

From: Steve Richter <srichter@autocoder.com>
> >Steve Richter wrote, among many fine suggestions:
> > scrap ile
> > and all those who proposed it
> >I half think this was a joke, tucked in there to see whether we were
> >paying attention.  If not, what's wrong with ILE?
>
> No joking on this list Martin.
>
> ILE is too complicated.  One of the advances of the s38 over all other
> systems was the simplicity of the pgm call model.  No link edit needed.
> Easy to modularize your appl, very good facilities for seeing your code in
> action.

I agree with Steve here. The funny (actually: sad) thing is that
the boilerplate argument FOR ILE is that your programs become
more modular (I think some RPG-guy discovered subroutines here).
The conceptual overhead of service programs and the physical
overhead of huge service programs for tiny apps are just too much.
Now, I can really make it easy and modular by having each of my
service programs containing just one module, then I'm sort of back
to the OPM model anyway.