From: doug.bryce{at}sympatico.ca (Doug Bryce)

We were using macro because we understood it *very* well, it worked, and we
didn't change things very often.  .    It did exactly what
we needed it to do.



On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 01:33:52 -0500, "Randy H"
 wrote:

>Someone ought to bitch-slap those CICS folks in that old shop
>for staying on macro for so long. Sheesh.
>
>"Doug Bryce"  wrote in message
>news:3f04d5ed.15221618{at}news.barkto.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:33:07 -0500, Bill Lucy 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Out of darkness, Doug Bryce says...
>> >> Why the    ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:26:41 -0500, Bill Lucy

>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Out of darkness, adam flinton says...
>> >> >> I get the willies just thinking about CICS period.
>> >> >
>> >> >Some of the payroll for the State of Illinois is done
under CICS.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Although it's quite reliable, changing anything under it has
proven to be
>a PITA.
>> >There are so many "manual" entries, it becomes
unworkable sometimes.
>> >
>>
>>
>> The CICS configuration of the payroll system components?    I
>> agree....depending on how things are done it can be cumbersome at best
>> .   We still used the old assembly language macro tables for most
>> of our CICS stuff at my last place - but we were starting to get some
>> stuff enabled under RDO as well.
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4