Cobol - Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Author

Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Robert Wagner

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:18:17 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>What positive impact on any given company's balance sheet does forcing that
>company to rewrite existing programs so that they will continue to compile
>provide? One person's stylistic evangelism is another's stylistic
>extremism. Why *must* they rewrite a program just because it violates
>*style* conventions, and how much more money will they make as a direct
>result of having done so?
>
>Programs are *corporate assets*, and I believe the standards committees
>should not *require* the revision of existing, running programs solely on
>the grounds that they are written in a style somebody decided was yucky.

I've described here what happened at one typical company where I
rewrote all Cobol, several thousand programs, from yucky to good
style. As a direct result, total IT budget was 80% less than the
industry norm. Net Profit was higher by more than $4M per year for
eight years.

After I left, new IT management reinstated traditional IBM mainframe
practices. As a direct result, total IT budget returned to the
industry norm. Net Profit decreased by $6M per year for four years ..
until the company went bankrupt.

That happened in the '80s. Potential savings today is greater because
payroll now consumes a larger percentage of the IT budget.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 06:26:52 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:cudoo0lshrbe9uamfcgfbrrl3cb1ufbii2@
4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>So, now we have an MVS shop that had ONLY 1800 to 2200 programs (around 2K).

I said I had not worked at an MVS shop. It was a VSE shop that did all
processing for a $2B/yr supermarket company, including general ledger,
AP, AR, fixed assets, payroll, retirement, warehouse operation (the
largest system), truck fleet maintenance and a few that slipped my
memory.

>If we were playing the game "I doubt you" - you can guess my reaction to that
>one. (Also, this implies - or maybe I am infering - that this was an MVS shop
>with only 6 - or 7 - programmers. Again, that is HIGHLY unlikely.)

As I said, similar-sized supermarket companies, running MVS, had about
50 programmers.

>Question:
> Has anyone else in this forum worked in an MVS shop that had only 1800 to
>2200 prorams (even if they were all HUGE monolothic programs)

I don't doubt they had 10K programs, which seems to demonstrate that
'work expands to fill the available computer resources'.

Posters here like to talk pragmatism using phrases like 'it works' and
'meets the requirements'. I've not seen anyone admit that his goal was
building a bigger empire. I'd like to see someone explain why 10K
programs exist when another shop accomplished the same work with 2K.

[I will lack internet access for 2-5 days due to moving.]

Richard

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote

> I was the team manager. When a magazine article says 'CEO Bob Bighead
> revamped the company's manufacturing system', it is understood Bob
> didn't personally do all the work.

But you were more emphatic than that:

RW>> at one typical company where I rewrote all Cobol, several
thousand programs,

You didn't claim you 'oversaw the redevelopment', you claimed that you
"rewrote _all_ Cobol". Several thousnd is also a wild escalasion
from:

RW 1>> At one shop, I rewrote more than 1,000 COBOL programs in the
first year.

RW>> Six programmers working on 2,000 programs

RW 2>> I rewrote all Cobol, several thousand programs,

And there is still the anomoly:

RW>> [of the 1000+] a programming staff of six did about half.

The numbers seem to dance around. Did a team of six rewrite 'more
than half of 1000' or was it 2000 ? Were you one of the six ? or was
it six other programmers that actually did the rewrites ?

>
> Which makes us question your other assessments of reality.

It may make _you_ question this, but who are the anonymous, or
fictitious, 'us' that you pretend to gather around you. Who else do
you think would question those ?

My assessment was of your credability. You present conflicting and
dubious 'facts' in ways that indicate you are to be taken
non-literally.

My disbelief in your ever being a 'manager' is based on several
observations, including attempting to take sole credit for other's
work, as here, which is not a characteristic of any actual management
or of team leadership.

Whether you were given any such title is neither here nor there, it is
simply that I wouldn't take your word for it.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <217e491a.0411041528.4473cabd@posting.google.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>My disbelief in your ever being a 'manager' is based on several
>observations, including attempting to take sole credit for other's
>work, as here, which is not a characteristic of any actual management
>or of team leadership.

With all due respect, Mr Plinston, taking sole credit for the work done by
others and attempting to dodge when called on points of fact are
characteristics of more than a few managers I have met.

DD

Howard Brazee

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

On 4-Nov-2004, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

> My disbelief in your ever being a 'manager' is based on several
> observations, including attempting to take sole credit for other's
> work, as here, which is not a characteristic of any actual management
> or of team leadership.

I suspect we've all been team leaders. Few of us take credit for writing code
that others in the team wrote though. Some of us have been managers - who
typically don't write code at all.

William M. Klein

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:cudoo0lshrbe9uamfcgfbrrl3cb1ufbii2@
4ax.com...
> On 4 Nov 2004 15:28:52 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
<snip>
> They are not conflicting. It matters little whether the exact number
> of programs was 1,800 or 2,200. The point is they were ALL the shop's
> programs.
>

So, now we have an MVS shop that had ONLY 1800 to 2200 programs (around Y2K).

If we were playing the game "I doubt you" - you can guess my reaction to that
one. (Also, this implies - or maybe I am infering - that this was an MVS shop
with only 6 - or 7 - programmers. Again, that is HIGHLY unlikely.)

Question:
Has anyone else in this forum worked in an MVS shop that had only 1800 to
2200 prorams (even if they were all HUGE monolothic programs)

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Robert Wagner

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

On 3 Nov 2004 14:46:47 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

>When challenged on this before he admitted that while he claims to
>have done it all (as in _I_ rewrote), the actual truth is that he was
>just one of a whole team:
>
>"""I did not personally do all the rewrites, a programming staff of
>six did about half. The work day was 12 hours."""
>
>Even this is ambiguous between 'RW did half and a team of six did
>half' and 'RW was one of a team of six that did half - other half
>unspecified'.

I was the team manager. When a magazine article says 'CEO Bob Bighead
revamped the company's manufacturing system', it is understood Bob
didn't personally do all the work.

>I have great difficulty in believing any of what Robert says in his
>self-promotional articles, especially that he was ever a manager of
>anything.

Which makes us question your other assessments of reality.

Sponsored Links