NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/bit/listserv/ibmmain/1761

Text File | 1992-07-21 | 5.3 KB | 115 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!NYUCCVM.BITNET!URARC
Organization: New York University - University Computer Center
X-Acknowledge-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:52:32 GMT
Sender:       IBM Mainframe Discussion list <[e-mail]>
From:         "Alina R. Chu" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wylbur
In-Reply-To:  Message of Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:15:00 PDT from <LDW@USCMVSA>
Lines: 101

On Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:15:00 PDT Leonard D Woren said:
>On Wed, 15 Jul 1992 11:22:00 EST,
>   "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <[e-mail]> said:
>> Leonard
>> I am replying to the list, rather than to you indivdually,
>> because perhaps I can get some usefull feedback in spite
>> of the gasoline and lighted match of your "a corpse is a
>> corpse" posting.
>
>Credit where credit is due.  I got that line from someone at Stanford
>University Hospital (who will remain nameless here, but he's probably
>laughing his head off at what's going on here), who was more than
>happy to get TSO running so he wouldn't have to use Wylbur.
>
>> One of the things people seem to like about WYLBUR is its
>> editor.
>
>Wylbur has something besides an editor?
>
>> ... Instead I solicit any pointers to a WYLBUR editor to ISPF editor
>> conversion manual, MACRO library, etc.
>
>It's been 15 years since I used Wylbur for more than a minute at a
>time, and it's been 12 years since I've seen Wylbur.  I don't miss it.
>This is a long way of saying that I personally don't know of any such
>conversion aids.
>
>> The second requirement is for a WYLBUR EXEC to CLIST or REXX
>> EXEC converter.
>
>I suspect that such a beast would be painful to write, since the
>editor commands are so different between Wylbur and ISPF.
>
>> Another is for something to take the place of ACTIVE files for
>> saving the file currently being edited in case of a disconnect,
>
>Finally something I can answer.  The ISPF edit command "RECOVERY ON"
>will create backup datasets to accomplish exactly what you want.
>In ISPF/PDF V3, they also support the edit UNDO command.  Does Wylbur
>have that?
>
>> and QUICK? files.
>
>I don't know what that is.
>
>
>As with any change, and as I think someone else touched on, some
>people will be interested in learning the new stuff quickly, and
>others will bitch and moan, need to be dragged kicking and screaming
>into newer stuff, and then want to be spoon fed.  ISPF has very
>comprehensive online help.  The editor is such that you can know only
>a small amount about it and get your editing done.  You can learn more
>and more capabilities as you go, and they're easy to find in the
>online help.  When I learned ISPF and ISPF edit, I had nobody to teach
>me.  I read the tutorial and the online help.
>
>> P.S. Oh, oh I forgot one big requirement. $$$$ for more hardware.
>
>This is partially a straw man.  The reason that utilization goes up is
>that ISPF allows people to get their work done faster, so they run
>more jobs and do more interactive processing.  (Can you split screen
>in Wylbur and view your output while editing your source program?)
>(In 1977, I said that Wylbur might be reasonable when it got some
>trivial functions like the ability to rename a dataset without having
>to submit a batch job.  It was many years before I heard of this being
>added to Wylbur.)  Since people costs are high and rising, and
>hardware costs are decreasing, it makes sense to me to invest a bit
>more in hardware to save more in other areas.  If you can have your
>application programmers get their work done faster, either you don't
>have to expand the staff as fast, or the users get their applications
>faster, resulting in happier users.
>
>
>/Leonard

Leonard,
   There are quite a few things that have changed with WYLBUR since you
used it.
   We use OBS/WYLBUR currently and use TSO/ISPF for specific applications
which require it.  WYLBUR is still our primary editting and job submission
environment.  With WYLBUR like TSO/ISPF you can split your screen and look
at your source and your output at the same time.  In addition, the qwik file
facility allows you to have multiple "active" areas that you can bounce
between.  These are saved for you automatically if the system crashes like
the ACTIVE file.  They allow you to work on multiple programs simultaneously
and check the results of your batch jobs.  I like to have multiple copies of
the same program with different changes and test each one.  I save these files
less frequently than I would with one active area.  Each of these qwik files
fill your screen which I prefer to trying to split multiple times in ISPF.
The editor is full screen with ISPF-like line commands as well.
  The flexibility of the "change" command, the ability to submit a batch
job from a file or library member without editting it, the online help, the
tutorial (LEARN), and finally the ability to efficiently share resources
among hundreds of users.
  I like TSO/ISPF for some things but for editting and job submission I prefer
WYLBUR.  TSO/ISPF has quite alot of flexibility as well and I have seen
some people very experienced with the bells and whistles do some neat editting
tricks.  I feel they both have their merits and should be used effectively
together.

            ALINA    (URARC@NYUCCVM)