Hi Paul,
Yes, as you well know, it was used at Shell for decades, and Amoco, etc
etc. All the companies that used it (some really major ones such as
Amoco, Chicago) were taken over, or had the Computing systems moved back
to headquarters, and converted back to Type 1 JCL.
Had IBM supported
On 5 Jan 2010 14:08:59 -0800, pgil...@pc-link.com.au (Paul Gillis)
wrote:
I used Jol from 1970 through 1988 and was very happy with it, then
when I changed jobs I had to relearn JCL. Jol certainly provided much
of what has been discussed here since the early 70s.
Never tried a parm greater
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 01:09 -0500, Clement Clarke wrote:
And that IBM haven't supported
I imagine that's unlikely as long as you require that Jol not be used
for war activities.
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david.andr...@duda.com
Possibly right. That was only a very recent restriction, which I now
remove. Pity people want to kill each other, though...
Clem
David Andrews wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 01:09 -0500, Clement Clarke wrote:
And that IBM haven't supported
I imagine that's unlikely as long as you
I used Jol from 1970 through 1988 and was very happy with it, then
when I changed jobs I had to relearn JCL. Jol certainly provided much
of what has been discussed here since the early 70s.
Never tried a parm greater than 100 bytes, wonder if that would work.
Probably no reason why it
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
The tragedy is that in 40 years no one undertook to fix it.
-- gil
I did fix it. In 1969 (40 years ago), there was a prototype of a JCL
replacement language called Jol. By 1973, it was re-written in
Assembler, and ran in 60K, just like the then JCL processor.
6 matches
Mail list logo
