Re: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion

[Steve Richter <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:53:09 -0600, Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Steve Richter
> >
> > as I understand it, the reason interactive jobs dont
> > allow threads is because the underlying OS400 code is too buggy to be
> > made threadsafe.
> 
> What exactly do you mean by buggy?  There are actual faults in the code
> today?  Or there are design issues that prevent making the code
> threadsafe?  (These are two completely different things, by the way.)
> Furthermore, who told you this?  Someone who worked on the code?  Or is
> currently working on the code?  Have you actually seen ANY of this first
> hand?  Have you written programs that fail?  Have you submitted PMRs to
> address specific issues?

http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200502/msg00626.html

"..The reason interactive jobs were not enabled to support multi-threaded
applications is that large pieces of the internal OS which they use are not
capable of handling multiple threads.  The cost to multi-thread enable the
whole system was huge.  Therefore the decision was made (way back when
this was orginally done) to support multiple threads in those
environments that did not require an entire rewrite of major portions
of the internals of the OS. ..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost may be huge to enable multi threading in OS400 but it has to
be done to keep the system competitive. Otherwise this marketing
windfall will not achieve what we hope it will.

Threads are just one of the improvements that have to be made to the
system.  IBM also needs a comprehensive approach to programming
languages that rivals the .NET CLI.   As things are now, code written
on the Windows .NET platform is completely reusable in all aspects of
.NET. From spreadsheets to web sites.  The same is not true on IBM
platforms.  There is no comprehensive CLI on IBM systems.

-Steve