Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wrkgrp!ets From: ets@wrkgrp.COM (Edward T Spire) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Unix vs. Mainframe editors Message-ID: <1991Mar19.210035.2232@wrkgrp.COM> Date: 19 Mar 91 21:00:35 GMT Organization: The Workstation Group Lines: 177 Here are some comments on what I see as the most important issues in the current discussion regarding Unix editors compared to others... (A discussion that I find to be **very healthy**, I must say, especially since those that write editors for a living are probably listening in.) >>(Anil Joshi, University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL) >> >>I think that explanation is not necessary because you might have already seen >>some of the people who worked on IBM mainframes miss not only the ISPF editor >>but ISPF itself. It is more intuitive and user friendly. I have to agree though >>that the pattern matching facilities in the base ISPF editor are not good. But >>this problem is easily solved by resorting to macros which can be written in a >>full functional language like TSO/E CLIST or REXX languages. By the way, REXX >>has quite a few powerful features for doing pattern matching, building and >>executing arbitrary statements (it has interpret instruction), and recently >>pipes etc. It's syntax also is more intuitive than the UNIX shell languages. >(Tom Christiansen, CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX) > >This is religion here. Why don't you go back to IBM where you're obviously >so much happier and stop trying to foist your religion on those already >happy and productive with UNIX? IMHO, there is much more at stake here than personal preferences (i.e., religion.) We are all in the middle of a revolution in computing services, driven by rapidly falling price/performance curves. This revolution is going to drag all those folks who are currently using IBM proprietary software into the Unix arena over the next few years. No matter what you think about these folks, they are (for the most part) mature, productive data processing professionals who are probably more interested in solving application problems than learning a new computing environment, one so different from what they are used to that they can't even get started, 'cause the editor is so radically different from what they are used to. If the guy is used to ISPF or XEDIT or REXX or whatever, he should be able to continue using it in his new environment. That will certainly ease his transition, and the fear of costly transitions is one of the current factors holding commercial accounts back from using Unix. (I'm just amazed to be saying this to a guy who works for Convex! Don't you guys get a lot of business by replacing IBM mainframes?) > ...Do you think you will somehow make the >world a better place by making them all learn this editor you keep >referencing? I don't know it, so can't make comparisons, so I'll >leave that up to someone else. But I can't believe you'd make me >more productive by making me use it instead of my highly-tuned, >integrated environment I've worked up over years of tinkering. 1. I didn't hear anybody say they were going to MAKE anybody do anything. Sounds like the suggestion is that alternatives should exist for those who would like to avail themselves of them. 2. Perhaps the guy coming from the IBM world has a highly tuned integrated environment running under SPF edit (or more likely XEDIT, which is even more flexible) which he has worked up over years of tinkering. It could hurt his productivity a whole lot to give it up and go through another couple of years of such a learning curve! (I have seen mainframe editor environments that are just as heavily customized as any you find in Unix.) 3. The fact that it has taken you years of tinkering to get your edit enviroment the way you want it indicates (at least to me) that your environment is more complex (and probably has a higher learning curve) than the referenced mainframe editors. >>I thought that we are talking about program editors here. I do agree that >>word star/word perfect are brain-dead editors. But I am talking about other >>editors (ISPF/XEDIT) which I think a lot of users of this forum do like but >>afraid to say so because they will be ridiculed of liking something from the >>big blue. I'd be interested in hearing from others on the forum about that, especially now that mainframe tools like XEDIT and REXX are becoming available in Unix, from non-blue suppliers. ========================================================================== Ed Spire email: ets@wrkgrp.com (on uunet) The Workstation Group voice: 800-228-0255 6300 River Road, Suite 700 or 708-696-4800 Rosemont, Illinois 60018 fax: 708-696-2277 Newsgroups: Comp.editors Subject: Unix vs. Mainframe editors Here are some comments on what I see as the most important issues in the current discussion regarding Unix editors compared to others... (A discussion that I find to be **very healthy**, I must say, especially since those that write editors for a living are probably listening in.) >>(Anil Joshi, University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL) >> >>I think that explanation is not necessary because you might have already seen >>some of the people who worked on IBM mainframes miss not only the ISPF editor >>but ISPF itself. It is more intuitive and user friendly. I have to agree though >>that the pattern matching facilities in the base ISPF editor are not good. But >>this problem is easily solved by resorting to macros which can be written in a >>full functional language like TSO/E CLIST or REXX languages. By the way, REXX >>has quite a few powerful features for doing pattern matching, building and >>executing arbitrary statements (it has interpret instruction), and recently >>pipes etc. It's syntax also is more intuitive than the UNIX shell languages. >(Tom Christiansen, CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX) > >This is religion here. Why don't you go back to IBM where you're obviously >so much happier and stop trying to foist your religion on those already >happy and productive with UNIX? IMHO, there is much more at stake here than personal preferences (i.e., religion.) We are all in the middle of a revolution in computing services, driven by rapidly falling price/performance curves. This revolution is going to drag all those folks who are currently using IBM proprietary software into the Unix arena over the next few years. No matter what you think about these folks, they are (for the most part) mature, productive data processing professionals who are probably more interested in solving application problems than learning a new computing environment, one so different from what they are used to that they can't even get started, 'cause the editor is so radically different from what they are used to. If the guy is used to ISPF or XEDIT or REXX or whatever, he should be able to continue using it in his new environment. That will certainly ease his transition, and the fear of costly transitions is one of the current factors holding commercial accounts back from using Unix. (I'm just amazed to be saying this to a guy who works for Convex! Don't you guys get a lot of business by replacing IBM mainframes?) > ...Do you think you will somehow make the >world a better place by making them all learn this editor you keep >referencing? I don't know it, so can't make comparisons, so I'll >leave that up to someone else. But I can't believe you'd make me >more productive by making me use it instead of my highly-tuned, >integrated environment I've worked up over years of tinkering. 1. I didn't hear anybody say they were going to MAKE anybody do anything. Sounds like the suggestion is that alternatives should exist for those who would like to avail themselves of them. 2. Perhaps the guy coming from the IBM world has a highly tuned integrated environment running under SPF edit (or more likely XEDIT, which is even more flexible) which he has worked up over years of tinkering. It could hurt his productivity a whole lot to give it up and go through another couple of years of such a learning curve! (I have seen mainframe editor environments that are just as heavily customized as any you find in Unix.) 3. The fact that it has taken you years of tinkering to get your edit enviroment the way you want it indicates (at least to me) that your environment is more complex (and probably has a higher learning curve) than the referenced mainframe editors. >>I thought that we are talking about program editors here. I do agree that >>word star/word perfect are brain-dead editors. But I am talking about other >>editors (ISPF/XEDIT) which I think a lot of users of this forum do like but >>afraid to say so because they will be ridiculed of liking something from the >>big blue. I'd be interested in hearing from others on the forum about that, especially now that mainframe tools like XEDIT and REXX are becoming available in Unix, from non-blue suppliers. ========================================================================== Ed Spire email: ets@wrkgrp.com (on uunet) The Workstation Group voice: 800-228-0255 6300 River Road, Suite 700 or 708-696-4800 Rosemont, Illinois 60018 fax: 708-696-2277