Re: The Design of Design

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c arch 
Sujet : Re: The Design of Design
De : tr.17687 (at) *nospam* z991.linuxsc.com (Tim Rentsch)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 30. May 2024, 06:52:15
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <86ikyvrgmo.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
"Stephen Fuld" <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:

Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
"Stephen Fuld" <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:
>
snip
>
>
The biggest fault of JCL is that it
is trying to solve the wrong problem.
>
What problem was it trying to solve and what was the "right"
problem?
>
The problem it was trying to solve is contained in its name:  Job
Control Language.  It tacitly accepted the non-interactive batch
model for what it needed to address.
>
You may be right, but correct me if I am wrong, there was no
non-interactive model in the mid 1960s

I'm having trouble making sense of this question.  Did you mean
there was no interactive model?  Certainly there was a
non-interactive model, which is in the batch approach to the
world.

when JCL was devised.

OS/360 was announced in April 1964, at the same time as System/360.
Surely there had been significant thought put into what JCL would
look like by that time, which puts it in the early 1960s.

They didn't address it because they couldn't forcast
(obviouslyincorrectly), that it would be a problem to solve.

Talking about System/360 and OS/360 in The Design of Design, Brooks
distinguishes between teleprocessing and interactive use, aka
time-sharing.  Teleprocessing is for remote submission of batch jobs
and for fixed applications such as airline reservation systems.  He
doesn't say why time-sharing was given short shrift but there is
this interesting statement:  "There was no conscious decision to
cater to two use modes [namely, batch and interactive];  it merely
reflected subgroups holding differing use models."  It seems clear
that the design team, including Brooks himself, expected that the
primary use mode would be batch-like (which includes teleprocessing
applications such as airline reservation systems).

The problem that was in need of addressing is interactive use.  I
think there are two reasons why JCL was so poor at that.  One is
that they knew that teleprocessing would be important, but they
tried to cram it into the batch processing model, rather than
understanding a more interactive work style.  The second reason is
that the culture at IBM, at least at that time, never understood the
idea that using computers can be (and should be) easy and fun.  The
B in IBM is Business, and Business isn't supposed to be fun.  And I
think that's part of why JCL was not viewed (at IBM) as a failure,
because their Business customers didn't mind.  Needless to say, I am
speculating, but for what it's worth those are my speculations.
>
Fair enough.  A couple of comments.  By the time TSO/360 came out,in
IIRC the early 1970s, they were already committed to JCL.  TSO ran as a
batch job on top of the OS, and handled swapping, etc.itself within the
region allocated to TSO within the OS.  It was a disaster.  Of course
this was later addressed by unifying TSO into the OS, but that couldn't
happen until the S/370s (except the 155 and 165) and virtual memory.
But the legacy of two control languages was already set by then.

To me this sounds like another manifestation of the business
mindset.  IBM didn't understand interactive computing because
business users, their primary market, spend their time "working" and
not "goofing off".  Interactive use was seen as catering to people
who aren't serious about getting work done.  Here again I am of
course speculating, although the speculations are consistent with
what I remember from that time.

By the way I used TSO and also supported CICS for a while in the
1970s.  So my speculations have at least some foundation in real
experience.

As for "fun".  I agree that IBM didn't think of computers as fun, but
there were plenty of reasons to support interactive terminals for
purely business reasons, a major one being programmer productivity in
developing business applications.

I don't disagree.  I conjecture that there was an unconscious
attitude at IBM at that time that interfered with them giving
interactive use serious consideration.  Furthermore it isn't obvious
that they made a bad decision, considering the environment of the
marketplace of the time.  Real interactive use was just not very
important for IBM's primary market at that time, and investing
effort in supporting interactive computing might very well have
cost them sales in their primary market.  After all, IBM was in
business to make money;  they weren't in business to advance the
state of the art in new computing technologies.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 Apr 24 * The Design of Design128Thomas Koenig
21 Apr 24 +* Re: The Design of Design67John Levine
25 Apr 24 i`* Re: The Design of Design66Thomas Koenig
25 Apr 24 i `* Re: The Design of Design65Stephen Fuld
26 Apr 24 i  +* Re: The Design of Design56John Levine
26 Apr 24 i  i+* Re: The Design of Design2MitchAlsup1
26 Apr 24 i  ii`- Re: The Design of Design1John Levine
26 Apr 24 i  i+* Re: The Design of Design50Thomas Koenig
26 Apr 24 i  ii+- Re: The Design of Design1Stephen Fuld
26 Apr 24 i  ii+* Re: The Design of Design47John Levine
27 Apr 24 i  iii+* Re: The Design of Design4Thomas Koenig
27 Apr 24 i  iiii`* Re: PDP-10 addressing, was The Design of Design3John Levine
27 Apr 24 i  iiii `* Re: PDP-10 addressing, was The Design of Design2MitchAlsup1
27 Apr 24 i  iiii  `- Re: PDP-10 addressing, was The Design of Design1John Levine
30 Apr 24 i  iii`* Re: The Design of Design42MitchAlsup1
30 Apr 24 i  iii +* Re: The Design of Design40John Levine
1 May 24 i  iii i`* Re: The Design of Design39Tim Rentsch
1 May 24 i  iii i `* Re: architecture, The Design of Design38John Levine
2 May 24 i  iii i  +- Re: index architecture, The Design of Design1John Levine
2 May 24 i  iii i  +* Re: architecture, The Design of Design4Thomas Koenig
3 May 24 i  iii i  i+- Re: architecture, The Design of Design1MitchAlsup1
5 May 24 i  iii i  i`* Re: architecture, The Design of Design2Thomas Koenig
5 May 24 i  iii i  i `- Re: ancient 704 architecture, The Design of Design1John Levine
7 May 24 i  iii i  `* Re: architecture, The Design of Design32Tim Rentsch
7 May 24 i  iii i   +- Re: architecture, The Design of Design1Thomas Koenig
7 May 24 i  iii i   +* Re: architecture, The Design of Design28Michael S
7 May 24 i  iii i   i+* Re: architecture, The Design of Design2John Levine
8 May 24 i  iii i   ii`- Re: architecture, The Design of Design1John Levine
8 May 24 i  iii i   i+* Re: architecture, The Design of Design2Tim Rentsch
9 May 24 i  iii i   ii`- Re: architecture, The Design of Design1John Levine
8 May 24 i  iii i   i`* Re: architecture, The Design of Design23Thomas Koenig
8 May 24 i  iii i   i `* Re: architecture, The Design of Design22Michael S
8 May 24 i  iii i   i  `* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design21John Levine
9 May 24 i  iii i   i   +* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design2Lynn Wheeler
10 May 24 i  iii i   i   i`- Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design1Lynn Wheeler
9 May 24 i  iii i   i   `* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design18Michael S
9 May 24 i  iii i   i    +* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design14Thomas Koenig
9 May 24 i  iii i   i    i`* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design13Michael S
9 May 24 i  iii i   i    i +* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design2Anton Ertl
9 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i`- Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design1Anton Ertl
9 May 24 i  iii i   i    i +* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design9Stephen Fuld
9 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i+* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design2Michael S
9 May 24 i  iii i   i    i ii`- Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design1John Dallman
10 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i`* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design6Tim Rentsch
10 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i `* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design5Stephen Fuld
30 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i  `* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design4Tim Rentsch
30 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i   `* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design3Stephen Fuld
30 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i    `* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design2Tim Rentsch
31 May 24 i  iii i   i    i i     `- Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design1John Levine
10 May 24 i  iii i   i    i `- Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design1Tim Rentsch
10 May 24 i  iii i   i    +- Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design1John Levine
10 May 24 i  iii i   i    `* Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design2Tim Rentsch
10 May 24 i  iii i   i     `- Re: backward architecture, The Design of Design1John Levine
7 May 24 i  iii i   `* Re: architecture, The Design of Design2Anton Ertl
8 May 24 i  iii i    `- Re: architecture, The Design of Design1Tim Rentsch
30 Apr 24 i  iii `- Re: The Design of Design1MitchAlsup1
30 Apr 24 i  ii`- Re: what's a register, The Design of Design1John Levine
26 Apr 24 i  i`* Re: The Design of Design3Stephen Fuld
26 Apr 24 i  i `* Re: The Design of Design2John Levine
26 Apr 24 i  i  `- Re: The Design of Design1Stephen Fuld
27 Apr 24 i  +* Re: The Design of Design7Thomas Koenig
27 Apr 24 i  i+- Re: The Design of Design1Stephen Fuld
27 Apr 24 i  i+* Re: The Design of Design2John Levine
27 Apr 24 i  ii`- Re: The Design of Design1Thomas Koenig
28 Apr 24 i  i`* Re: The Design of Design3Tim Rentsch
29 Apr 24 i  i `* Re: antitrust history, The Design of Design2John Levine
1 May 24 i  i  `- Re: antitrust history, The Design of Design1Tim Rentsch
29 Apr 24 i  `- Re: The Design of Design1Tim Rentsch
29 Apr 24 `* Re: The Design of Design60Tim Rentsch
1 May 24  `* Re: The Design of Design59Stephen Fuld
1 May 24   +* Re: JCL, The Design of Design3John Levine
1 May 24   i`* Re: JCL, The Design of Design2Stephen Fuld
1 May 24   i `- Re: JCL, The Design of Design1Stephen Fuld
1 May 24   +- Re: The Design of Design1MitchAlsup1
1 May 24   +- Re: The Design of Design1Thomas Koenig
7 May 24   `* Re: The Design of Design53Tim Rentsch
7 May 24    +* Re: The Design of Design45Stephen Fuld
7 May 24    i+- Re: The Design of Design1Thomas Koenig
7 May 24    i+* Re: The Design of Design33Stephen Fuld
7 May 24    ii+* Re: The Design of Design29Thomas Koenig
7 May 24    iii`* Re: The Design of Design28Stephen Fuld
7 May 24    iii +* Re: interative use, The Design of Design25John Levine
7 May 24    iii i+* Re: interative use, The Design of Design4MitchAlsup1
8 May 24    iii ii`* Re: third system syndrome, interactive use, The Design of Design3John Levine
8 May 24    iii ii `* Re: third system syndrome, interactive use, The Design of Design2Lynn Wheeler
9 May 24    iii ii  `- Re: third system syndrome, interactive use, The Design of Design1Lynn Wheeler
8 May 24    iii i`* Re: interative use, The Design of Design20Stephen Fuld
8 May 24    iii i `* Re: interative use, The Design of Design19John Levine
9 May 24    iii i  `* Re: interative use, The Design of Design18Stephen Fuld
10 May 24    iii i   `* Re: address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design17John Levine
10 May 24    iii i    +- Re: address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design1Stephen Fuld
11 May 24    iii i    `* Re: address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design15Thomas Koenig
11 May 24    iii i     +* Re: address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design3MitchAlsup1
12 May 24    iii i     i`* Re: address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design2Thomas Koenig
13 May 24    iii i     i `- Re: address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design1MitchAlsup1
11 May 24    iii i     `* Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design11John Levine
12 May 24    iii i      `* Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design10Thomas Koenig
13 May 24    iii i       `* Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design9John Levine
13 May 24    iii i        `* Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design8Thomas Koenig
13 May 24    iii i         `* Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design7John Levine
13 May 24    iii i          +* Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design4MitchAlsup1
14 May 24    iii i          +- Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design1Thomas Koenig
25 May 24    iii i          `- Re: branch address architecture, not interactive use, The Design of Design1Anton Ertl
8 May 24    iii `* Re: The Design of Design2Thomas Koenig
10 May 24    ii`* Re: The Design of Design3Tim Rentsch
30 May 24    i`* Re: The Design of Design10Tim Rentsch
7 May 24    `* Re: The Design of Design7Thomas Koenig

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal