On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 10:18:13 +0100, Jonathan Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think any access would fall disappointingly far short of what I was used to. More than 1,000 free CBTTAPE contributions would indicate otherwise. Granted, it will take some effort and there will be differences, but it's very doable. I'm sure it's impressive what you built but do you think those using VSCODE would be impressed or find it acceptable? Each of us likes what we like and no one can change that. > and it is easy to write simple tools to automate them, > unlike on z/OS where the "standard" interactive interface is ISPF menus. ROTFLOL, ISPF MENUs? You ignore that every ISPF screen has a robust command line that can be tailored to your needs. At the very worst, you type in "TSO ????" because you don't know better. At best, you create your own commands to simplify the process. You want to use HLASM, IBM gave us a script but also provided access to that script in a menu. What do you think you can do that's complicated in ISPF? In many cases, the menu is exactly what you want. IPCS has menus that are great for beginners, but we had REXX that automated everything we needed in an address space that typically had 200 or more TCBs. > when I got involved I set up lots of useful tools (written in REXX and CMS > Pipelines) > to make it very simple and fast to code and test changes informally z/OS has named pipes and REXX. Those tools could have been implemented on z/OS. I'm not saying you should have but it was your choice (not requirement). >HLASM was developed under VM/CMS from the start (late 1980s), TSO overhead is expensive. Many companies used VM/CMS as their development environment. I too like VM but developing under TSO has great advantages. For me, I'm gaining a lot more than I'm losing. > I implemented a set of XEDIT macros to make XEDIT much more intelligent and > productive, > for example just press Enter with the cursor in the file area to set the > current line and column > and switch the cursor to the command line, You ignore what is missing from XEDIT. I like XEDIT but it's aggravating that it doesn't have the compare command. Compare next makes code reviews simple by inserting notes about changed, inserted and deleted lines. Recovering deleted and changed lines is simple with the MD line command. > I could also for example insert an assembler or PL/X box comment template > with a PF key > and split, join or reflow the text in it without affecting the box > delimiters. ISPF edit can do this using similar REXX with ISREDIT commands. > I could update a product source module, assemble and link it directly on CMS, > run a test and rename the output to save it in less than 20 seconds. What makes you think this is difficult in z/OS? We too had such capabilities. > CMS was also very useful for debugging, for example making it possible to >use CP TRACE to trap a store into a particular location to catch overwriting. Try z/XDC and you'll never go back! The savings in your time is well worth the price. No sane person would consider CP TRACE when z/XDC is available. > The ISPF editor is OK, but the way in which source files are managed is not, > and tools are far easier to create on CMS, Have you ever used correctly designed source maintenance on z/OS? z/OS and z/VM are completely different design strategies. > especially using CMS Pipelines and SFS directories. Named pipes and z/OS Unix filesystems have been around for decades. Are there any vendors jumping onto that bandwagon to maintain their source. I suspect they are happy with their current implementation where you concatenate PDS's (developer, current, release). For me, it's > And of course on VM/CMS there are standard commands provided > to invoke the assembler and other tools interactively You need to look at ISPF because it's all there. SuperCE, SearchFOR, various languages (e.g. HLASM), copy, dataset list, member list and much more. IBM provides scripts to HLASM interactively or batch. For beginners, they can be accessed through menus.
