3 ms·

> just doesn't understand mainframes and the contemporary environment they existed in and the problems they were solving? Yes, I am saying exactly that. He w

> just doesn't understand mainframes and the contemporary environment they existed in and the problems they were solving? Yes, I am saying exactly that. He was a hardware designer who essentially ended up on the OS/360 project as a manager. > so I'd think he knows what was actually going on during its development. Almost no one who uses JCL would describe it or think of it as a "language." Mr Brook's entire criticism is founded in his historical author's view and not in a practical end users point of view.

Jtsummers 2y ago
> Almost no one who uses JCL would describe it or think of it as a "language." That's an odd statement. JCL stands for "Job Control Language", why would it not be thought of as a language? I certainly did when I was using it (two decades ago or so, now). If you mean it's not a programming language, well, it is. It's just a particularly bad one. In the same way that YAML config files are not a good programming language, even if they're an effective description language. That doesn't stop Ansible and the rest from turning them into terrible programming languages.
- akira2501 2y ago
  Not in the context that this article is attempting to establish. It's a tool, with a syntax, do you think of command line programs and switches as "mini languages?" Would you write anything other than batch requests in JCL? It's playing fast and loose with what a "language" means and it's presented in such a way as to sell books and not inform an audience.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > It's a tool, with a syntax, do you think of command line programs and switches as "mini languages?" Some, certainly. find, for example, contains an awkward programming language in its set of command line arguments. Most others are simple enough I think a case could be made for treating them as mini languages but I wouldn't bother arguing for it. I probably wouldn't write anything other than batch requests in JCL but that's because that's its purpose, it's a scripting language for batch processing. That doesn't make it not a programming language, it makes it a specialized programming language. Is your issue that you are only considering things to be programming languages if they are general purpose programming languages? If so, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your view is too narrow for me, and mine too broad for you.

Jtsummers 2y ago

> Almost no one who uses JCL would describe it or think of it as a "language." That's an odd statement. JCL stands for "Job Control Language", why would it not be thought of as a language? I certainly did when I was using it (two decades ago or so, now). If you mean it's not a programming language, well, it is. It's just a particularly bad one. In the same way that YAML config files are not a good programming language, even if they're an effective description language. That doesn't stop Ansible and the rest from turning them into terrible programming languages.

akira2501 2y ago
Not in the context that this article is attempting to establish. It's a tool, with a syntax, do you think of command line programs and switches as "mini languages?" Would you write anything other than batch requests in JCL? It's playing fast and loose with what a "language" means and it's presented in such a way as to sell books and not inform an audience.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > It's a tool, with a syntax, do you think of command line programs and switches as "mini languages?" Some, certainly. find, for example, contains an awkward programming language in its set of command line arguments. Most others are simple enough I think a case could be made for treating them as mini languages but I wouldn't bother arguing for it. I probably wouldn't write anything other than batch requests in JCL but that's because that's its purpose, it's a scripting language for batch processing. That doesn't make it not a programming language, it makes it a specialized programming language. Is your issue that you are only considering things to be programming languages if they are general purpose programming languages? If so, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your view is too narrow for me, and mine too broad for you.