Re: Utility

[John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Mark Murphy/STAR BASE Consulting Inc.
<mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The things that would cause a CLP to run differently, for example
> exporting a spool file into a PF and parsing it, will also cause the
> script to fail.  [...]  There is nothing magic about scripting languages
> that makes them more fail-proof.

I never asserted that (interpreted) scripting languages are more
fail-proof than CLPs.  I was merely saying that the following is both
untrue and antagonistic:

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM, TheBorg <sjl_abc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In other words:
> With this "antiquated" IBM midrange operating system [AFAIK, unlike
> ANY OTHER COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM (take that, Joel
> Stone)], objects created on a down-level version can ALWAYS be
> restored and executed on the current version.

My response boils down to

(1) sjl's assertion is untrue, because objects created on a down-level
version can *not* always be restored and executed on the current
version.  (The company I work for has dragged its feet on upgrading
from V5R4 until now precisely because we have plenty of objects that
won't work on V6R1.)

(2) If he's specifically talking only about CLPs (this interpretation
is based on other context) and using version compatibility of compiled
CLPs as an argument for the i's superiority over other platforms, then
my response is:  Folks on other platforms don't have anything that
really corresponds to "restoring a CLP object", because anything that
i folks use CLPs for, those on other platforms would use shell
scripts.  By analogy:

sjl:  Tim Duncan is superior to Michael Phelps because Phelps hasn't
won any NBA championships.  (Take THAT Duncan-haters!)

Swimming fans:  Um, we don't really care about the NBA.  (And who's Tim Duncan?)

John