On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:21:56 -0400, Steve Smith wrote: >My only point was the SET wasn't needed the way I used symbols. It's >hardly any big deal if it's needed for library PROCs. The fact that >there doesn't seem to be any obvious logical reason for it, is just one >of things you take for granted with JCL. > Not logical, but diachronic.
>Why don't we just skip the JCL, and write our jobs in REXX? The two >main things JCL does, EXEC and DD, are just as easy in REXX, (call, >alloc) with a ton more flexibility. EXPORT, SET, IF, and symbols are >lipstick for a pig. > (I use LINKMVS and BPXWDYN. No need for TSO.) What Rexx lacks is the multiple ENQ with S99WTDSN that prevents deadlocks. I could imagine this as an enhancement to BPXWDYN. >All you must keep in JCL is the JOB card, and a standard EXEC PGM=IRXJCL >+ SYSEXEC DD. Everything else you can code in an actual programming >language. > IRXJCL lacks support for //SYSEXEC DD *. You need at least an IEBUPDTE step to create a (temporary) SYSEXEC PDS. (There's an unsupported workaround.) >JCL is fun as a puzzle-solving activity (sometimes), but for busy people >trying to get their work done, it's been a black cloud since 1964. Even >Fred P. Brooks said he didn't like it. > Ipse dixit. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
