Talk:IBM High Level Assembler

HLASM usage on mainframes
HLASM is also the abbreviation for the IBM 390 High-Level Assembler Language. This is probably the most common use of the abbreviation HLASM, at least among mainframers. See e.g. []. BTW this HLASM doesn't have traditional HLL features, but it does have a powerful macro language, which is often used to create HLL-like functions, e.g. IF, WHILE, etc.

I suggest HLASM should have its own page, and reference High-level assembler as a "See also". Alternatively, we could have a HLASM disambiguation page. Jpaulm 16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Ray... and fast too! Jpaulm 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

IBM High Level Assembler (HLASM) → IBM High-Level Assembler —

I don't see why this article includes HLASM in the title, as it is redundant and unnecessary. I recommend moving this article to IBM High-Level Assembler or HLASM. 70.251.0.28 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggest move (again)
IBM High-Level Assembler -> IBM High Level Assembler. IBM documentation doesn't have the hyphen, for example 5696-234 IBM High Level Assembler for zOS/ z/VM, and z/VSE. Peter Flass (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

HLASM vs "high-level assembler"
I may have jumped the gun making this change without discussing it, but I don't think HLASM should really be classed as a "high-level assembler" in the generic sense. It doesn't have high level control structures like, for example PL360 or "High Level Assembly." It has improvements over Assembler H, but is not a radical departure. I'm not wedded to this opinion, however, and if people strongly disagree, change it back. Peter Flass (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)