Re: [open-cobol-list] What do you think of JCL ?

[Dave Stratford]

On 19 Sep, Vincent Coen <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 Sep 2013 12:24:54 Patrick wrote:

> JCL as created, supplied & supported by IBM on O/S's that are NOT Linux 
> based Vms do not need to be replaced even if shops was prepared to do 
> so which is extremely unlikely. Why JCL has been around in one guise or 
> another since the late 60's. Sites do not change methodology in tools 
> unless it has a proven track record because it costs far too much to 
> implement let alone the risks involved in migrating

> If users wish to use OC they will use it in a Linux VM regardless of a
> batch or interactive application. There are technical reasons that
> prevents OC working in native mode and also not much point as IBM have
> very good Cobol compilers that have been available since the early 60's.

> You need to create a purpose for your suggestion along with a list of
> anticipated benefits before starting design or programming and let us
> see that, in order to give a more useful response however, as indicated
> from the above I do not think it is a flyer but if you want to do it as
> a learning experience project go for it.

> Vince

> [In IT since 1961 and programming 1963 using IBM (1401,7094, 360, 370 
> z/nn etc), ICT/ICL (1500,1900, 2900, 3900 series), Honeywell, Burroughs 
> and others I have purposely forgotten :).]

If you really have use 2900's and Series 39 (NOT 3900's!!!) then you'll
have used SCL, which is infinitely more flexible and extensible than JCL.
In fact while being a JCL it's also a full programing language in its own
right.

Now if you/someone/Patrick could get SCL running, I for one would love to
use it.

Dave

-- 
Hexagon Systems Ltd       Experts in VME solutions    www.hexagon-systems.co.uk
HSL Webz                  Experts in web design              www.hsl-webz.co.uk