Jerry Fochtman writes:
>At 11:27 AM 10/15/96 GMT, Dennis Handly wrote:
>>Stan Sieler ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>/SNIP
>>
>>No, COBOLII/iX only supports entry points for subprograms.
>>I never got around to doing it for the outer block.
>>
>>: Personally, I favor lobbying HP to enhance Pascal/iX to support
>>: entrypoints...but I doubt it will ever happen.
>>
>>Right. I've said many times for these SRs that program secondary entry
>>points are "an obsolete user interface technology". The new method is like
>>HP-UX and POSIX, using INFO and PARM.
>
>I agree with Stan, secondary entry points are indeed a useful programming
>technique. They are certainly more 'self-documenting' than PARM or INFO
>parameters. Perhaps it is HP-UX and POSIX which are missing the opportunity.
>Furthermore, this feature was missing from the RISK-based compilers *BEFORE*
>POSIX was considered for MPE! How can the lack of a feature that pre-dates
>POSIX now be explained away because of a technique in POSIX? Perhaps this
>is a simple way to have an excuse for either an unpopular decision or an
>oversight... Sorry, I don't buy it. The first response about why entry
>points never made it into COBOL/iX is probably the correct reason as oppose
>to blaming it on 'an obsolete user interface...'.
>
>Besides, when did HP ever stopped differentiating their product in the
>market place? Perhaps features such as this are considered 'obsolete' until
>the UNIX world 'discovers'/'wants' them...?
>
>Given that HP is the 'keeper of the keys' I guess we're still expected to
>graciously accept what we're given, for whatever reason, and be happy about
>the decisions that were made because someone else knows best.... Obviously
>no matter how many SRs are submitted, you've made your decision about
>supporting customers' needs on this issue.
I must echo Stan and Jerry's position here [as if anyone really cares ;-)]
Aren't the MPE/iX compilers supported from Roseville?
Isn't Roseville the 'Black hole of enhancement requests', or maybe
its the Hotel California of software enhancements...'it can check out,
but it can never leave'?
Let me paraphrase a manager from that outfit regarding at least one of the
languages: 'We have no plans or projects at this time for enhancement - we
are limited in resources'.
But this doesn't make sense. Let me explain, through an example, entirely
made up dialog (HP is HP, US is the customer):
[Start dialog]
HP: We seriously want to listen to our customers and their needs. By
addressing their stated needs we add lasting value. We don't waste our
resources working on things we want, but what the customers want.
US: Oooh thank you. We are really glad you are taking this position.
We have been waiting for years for HP to listen to our needs.
HP: We thought you would like it. Even though we are a big, for profit
corporation, we really care about our customers. Your investments
in our products are safe and secure.
US: So, I would like to point out that recent Interex surveys and ballot
initiatives for enhancements requests have placed language enhancement
at or near the very top of the stated requests.
HP: Unless there is a compelling business case for language enhancement, we
will have to defer those requests. Resources are limited and we are not
sure we have any available for these requests.
US: Oh thank you HP for listening to us. We really like your products and
are so glad you are now listening to our needs.
[End dialog]
Just because they listen doesn't mean they act. And just because we rank a
language enhancement high doesn't give it 'a business case'. A dialog is a
two-way street. What HP has been saying should be crystal clear.
Its our response that needs a little work.
So HP - I challenge you to listen to your customers needs regarding
languages for MPE/iX, and then act - in your customer's best interest,
not HP's bottom line.
Argh...why does this remind me of a Dilbert cartoon?
Duane Percox ([log in to unmask] v/415.306.1608 f/415.365.2706)
http://www.qss.com/ http://www.qss.com/qwebs
http://www.qss.com/faq3k http://www.qss.com/qsdk
|
