|
> (Makes sense to me, a little. *ACTGRP, as implemented, doesn't always > make a lotta sense as it seems overly-complicated way of doing things, > and apparently was implemented this way to appease C developers without > a whole lotta thought about how it would effect non-C programmers, imo.) The idea of service programs, modules and subprocedures came from C. (albeit under different names) but not activation groups... Activation groups seem like a brand new invention that IBM came up with to add some more flexibility to the OS/400. I've never seen anything like it on any other platform. I've been told that COBOL has something called a "Run Unit" which is similar to activation groups -- but I'm not a COBOL programmer. At any rate, I think you're blaming C developers for something that has nothing to do with them. :)
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.
midrange.com
