Talk:GOFF

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GOFF. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160123064644/http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg243910.pdf to http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg243910.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

markup problem in cite book

I updated § Background to have a |section-url=) with the fragment #page=227 (for printed page 205) in a {{cite book}}. The fragment is showing up in the original URL rather than the section. Can anybody spot what I did wrong? Thanks. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Code page, nomenclature and cite?

The article does not indicate which EBCDIC code page is used.

Should there be a citation for the old object module format?

Should there be a footnote that the definition of module does not match that of IBM? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Response

I'll try to answer your questions.

1. The original IBM manuals I read the information from don't mention code pages. Since the information is all in binary the code pages probably don't matter. I'll guess it's the original 037. I'll mention that.

2 The very first line of the article is "The GOFF (Generalized Object File Format) specification was developed for IBM's MVS operating system to supersede the IBM OS/360 Object File Format", with "IBM OS/360 Object File Format" as a link to its page. I wrote that one, too

3 IBM does things different from everyone else. What do you call a document or program, stored on disk and given a name? In every place I've ever seen - except on IBM operating systems - it's called a file, IBM calls it a dataset. I wanted this article to be clear to ordinary readers, and a nodule would be a csect, dsect, or common. Since you have pointed out this, I will mention that my use is different from IBM's

I appreciate your comments as (except for #2) I hadn't thought of those.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The field Name at offset 72 is text, not binary. CP 037 sounds plausible.

in MVS, an executable program is a member of a PDS (load module) or PDSE (program object); AFAIK this usage of the term member is unique to IBM. Storing documents as members of a PDS{bracket|E}} is very common in MVS, especially source and object modules. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

TMI

Wikipedia:Too much detail. Wikipedia is not a reference manual. Peter Flass (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)