Re: Will IBM ever expand system object names?

On 5/29/24 8:26 AM, Jim Oberholtzer wrote:

I agree with Jon about IBM not spending a dime on this idea. First off it
would/might break quite a long list of software both commercial and private.

While I might like to see program names maybe a bit longer, I completely agree about longer names breaking an enormous amount of published software, in ways that would be absurdly expensive to fix, with very little benefit.

And we already have a place, in the QSYS.LIB file system, to put an explanation of the incomprehensibly short names sometimes necessary when you only have 10 characters. It's called "text."

I still remember high school, over five decades ago, on an IBM 370/135 running McGill University MUSIC 2.3. Where filenames could only be SIX characters long. And that namespace was common to *all* users, even for their *private* files. As I recall, user-IDS were limited to four characters, and passwords to six.

--
JHHL