Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The Design of Design
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 06:54:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <v1cj6p$341o4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v03uh5$gbd5$1@dont-email.me> <868r0xum1h.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v0tvvk$3a4e9$1@dont-email.me> <86edaetv8g.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 08:54:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5c2dcf50d821443b2cfb53eee3f1b14";
	logging-data="3278596"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YR+c41A77ByiGrDqkxBGve9zzGRCXZow="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iFRQCFYC97jzzTHML/daucpf01g=
Bytes: 1666

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:

> Like I said, I'm not a fan of JCL, not at all, I just
> think it wasn't as bad as the commentary in The Design of Design
> makes it out to be.

I think the point he made is subtly different.

The UNIX shells have demonstrated that a command interface is,
and should be, a programming language in its own right.  JCL has
the rudiments of a programming language with its COND parameter
(which ties my brain into knots every time I think about it) and
the possibility of iteration via submitting new jobs via INTRDR,
plus its macro facility (but with global variables only).

Viewed through that lens, I can't think of any (serious) programming
language that is worse than JCL.  Joke languages need not apply.