On 2022-01-06 20:40 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:
Other things may have seemed reasonable to the inventors of JCL, but later usage proved there were better ways. Tough; it is what it is, now, and very few improvements can be made to it without invalidating bazillions of lines of existing JCL code
On 2022-01-06 21:20 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
..., and very few improvements can be made to it without invalidating bazillions of lines of existing JCL code, ...That's a fallacy akin to asserting that Rexx or Python could not be adopted without invalidating bazillions of lines of existing Assembler code. JCL could coexist with its successor.
Quoting a slightly larger part of Bob's statement, it's clear that he was talking about obstacles to making improvements in JCL, not about some replacement. Apples and oranges.
-- Regards, Gord Tomlin Action Software International (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 Support:https://actionsoftware.com/support/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
