On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:44 PM Wayne Bickerdike <[email protected]> wrote:
> Many moons ago, when I was a trainee programmer I asked my senior
> programmer why IBM couldn't just get rid of JCL. He laughed. I was serious,
> still am 45 years later.
>
>
Why JCL even after all this time? Cost. Let's suppose IBM wanted to do
this. First, they'd need to design a new way to do batch work. That means
something like JCL2 or AJCL (Advanced JCL). Now, that needs to be
converted into internal text. Hum? That means either an entirely new
internal text, or more "types" (like adding new instructions to an ISA?).
But then the initiator needs to be updated. And, if new functions, that
means new things in the SWA (which I guess in an in-core version of
internal text). All of this takes time and money. So, how much are you (or
your company/employer) willing to pay for this? Perhaps it should be a
Program Product?
Oh, and last but not least. Will all Broadcom (nee CA) update CA-11 and
CA-7 (perhaps others) to support this new facility? I know in many shops,
if you took away CA-11, the production control staff would likely be
unable to do restarts correctly. Unless, of course, AJCL included an
automated way to restart a job. But that's even more cost. And would likely
really upset Broadcom.
IMO, you could replace all your JCL with REXX code. But then the programmer
needs to be a REXX expert. And the restart logic must be coded in every
REXX program, {shudder}
Hum, how do the Windows experts "restart" a "job" that fails? I really
don't now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
