Cobol - Re: Program templates as Object Classes

Author

Re: Program templates as Object Classes

James J. Gavan

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Lueko Willms wrote:

>JJG> You are no doubt well versed in other OO languages,
>
> unfortunately not
>
>
>
That's a real bummer. I was sure you made some reference to using Ada
(?). It would appear that your ideas with regard to OO are
conceptual/abstract. Unfortunately when you go for a particular language
and how it is structured then you design/code within the constraints of
that language - but the objective is common to all OO languages.

Not much point in my pursuing Exception Handling here, you are
conceptualizing in a general sense, and Pete Dashwod is no longer
interested. The only other I can think of directly is Donald using both
F/J and M/F - and we'd probably get more out of it if we communicated
privately. Although not into OO specifics as regards COBOL, there are
probably others who could have contributed with general and sensible
observations.

Here's the problem with OO COBOL - it is still very incomplete.. Back
around '93 the earliest OO Compilers were released, based on the
general format for OO COBOL syntax that J4 had determined - there have
been minor changes since, one such is REPOSITORY used to identify the
classes you will be invoking from your current program as opposed to the
Micro Focus syntax CLASS-CONTROL. There were three, IBM (Visual Age),
Hitachi and Micro Focus - some while later Fujitsu joined the fray so
their very first version included the syntax REPOSITORY.

The latter three, realized that OO was incomplete without support
classes (utilities), so each in their own way introduced varying
degrees of support utilities, string handling for objects, arrays,
collections etc. Each of the three introduced their own versions of GUI
tools. All their creations were *extensions* to COBOL, plus the COBOL
Standard does not acknowledge different operating systems - so any
GUI/Webbing features are 'alien', not universal to COBOL - and yet it is
really difficult to perceive any PC application that doesn't need, as a
minimum, some form of GUIs, plus a link to the Internet if you get into
Webbing.

It's about two years ago a former, retired M/F Manager, (not Bill Klein
;-) ), said any OO language without support classes was doomed to
failure. He was well aware of what I spell out for Fujitsu, Hitachi and
Micro Focus above - but he was referring to the fact that Standard
COBOL, (COBOL 2002) does not have the above. He *was* excluding GUIs
from his comments. He didn't spell it out but was probably also
contemplating things like Open Source routines - we are all aware of
third-party routines written for other languages and the availability
through the Internet.

Bearing in mind OO COBOL was formulated back in '93, it is only now that
J4 are seriously looking at Collections ONLY - and the initial objective
appears to have been KISS, (Keep it simple), tentatively at this time
going for three collection types Ordered, Unordered and KeyedCollection,
(the latter being a Java Map, or in Smalltalk/Net Express parlance -
Dictionary). I wont hide the fact that I was *extremely* annoyed the
above doesn't include SortedCollection - which is at least 80% of my
usage - and I've said so to J4. Remains to be seen what happens.

This whole biz is a topic first tackled by a Russell Clarke in Australia
- an ENORMOUS effort put in - and the damn thing went into a cryogenic
state until resurrected by Bill Klein, then a J4 member. Bill is not
enamoured of OO but just wanted the *best* for COBOL. Russell's paper
title "Standard Classes". First crack at the resurrected topic the title
became "Standard Collections" - jaundiced maybe but I felt we were being
handed the Fujitsu format - when I had stressed back in 2000 - we should
have 'horse-trading' between F/J, Hitachi and M/F to take the best from
all three - Pete may recall my phrase 'horse trading'. I specifically
made that same point to J4 back in 2000.. (Subsequent to the
'resurrection' event Fujitsu drops out of J4 - I can only make the
wildest guess - they have put their eggs into the dotNet basket ? Just
introduce, as necessary, their own non-Standard syntax to handle
dotNet. M/F have done exactly the same with features like TRY...,
CATCH...., END-TRY. But at this stage I believe M/F are still very
committed to non-dotNet COBOL - there's a whole slew of of us that fit
in that category).

I'm not sure about Fujitsu, but both Hitachi and M/F introduced support
utilities which changes our title from 'Standard Collections' back to
'Standard Classes'. The reason - both based their initial design on the
Smalltalk model which has in excess of 1,000 support classes. I've never
checked but some of the Smalltalk classes may possibly be no bigger than
one method - a parallel in COBOL, and still not yet introduced by any
vendor - our UDFs (User Defined Functions). Trouble with that - "Which
class has methods that I feel are appropriate ?" - requires a lot of
searching.

(Note for Pete - having read Will Price on M/F and dotNet - I'm
inclined to think F/J dotNet would be overkill for you, as you just want
components. However, and I'm sure it is dotNet based, as you start to
type in a class name the IDE gives you a treeview of all methods
applicable to that class - nice feature. Via dotNet you get 'overload'
on the amount of detail for Exceptions - but you can select what you want).

Well aware of the M/F support class structure, and how it applies to
collections, I initially went with the abbreviated 'Standard
Collections' approach, because I got the feeling J4 wanted KISS.

OK guys recall Alain Reymond, Belgium wanting to produce some Open
Source with Postscript ?. Commendable idea, and I waved a few warning
flags about being 'neutral'. In subsequent private e-mail, Alain wrote,
"No I wont be using any GUIs but I do want to use the M/F Class
CharacterArray, and *hope* there is some F/J equivalent, say like String
class).

Frankly I think Alain is scuppered - the M/F class CharacterArray is a
SUPPORT Class.
The M/F Collection classes draw off this support class as necessary. In
addition when you look at the start of the source code for Class
CharacterArray there are a whole daffy of other M/F support classes
which are invoked, dependent upon the methods you use in CharacterArray.
Unless Alain is a wizard - to my mind - game over ! (I'm not going to
write Alain off - he may well be a wizard from le Pays Bas !).

Clicking into Alain's problem - the very probable difficulty of
producing portable, 'universal code' I've suggested to J4 they have a
think about 'Standard Classes'. In reference to something I wrote it was
Robert who commented, "Why should vendors provide you portability, allowing
you to easily switch compilers ?" Cynical if you like, but deadly accurate !

I feel no need to impress others, wrapping my thoughts and comments in
a false 'academic' style, nor do I s

out Thesaurus for a nice
alternate word - so as a developer, plugging away at this stuff on a
daily basis, I just tell it like it is - hopefully without insulting
anybody. So quoting Robert anonymously, I wrote to J4 suggesting they
had two options :-

(a) Go for just Standard COLLECTIONS - ignoring support classes, (which
are then implementer defined) - and I wrote, "no criticism of vendors -
you are not non-profit charitable organizations", or

(b) Acknowledge/Agree that we need a set of Standard CLASSES, (which
would include Collections), which are portable across different compilers.

Bearing in mind J4 is now down to 6 members, four of whom are vendor
reps, IBM. HP, M/F and Unisys - whether they go (a) or (b) above remains
to be seen. It's their decision - and unless somebody is a real
muck-raker and visionary on ISO (the WG4 Committee), I think the ball
on a decision will remain with J4. Anyway I'm reasonably certain Team
USA for ISO = WG4, consists of the 'producers', the the four J4 vendors
= ANSI = USA :-). Germany may or may not include Artur Reimann, (active
as a J4 member until an illness in 2000), and Karl Kistler, Chief
Architect for Fujitsu-Siemens, (a corporate partnership between the two,
not directly associated with the Fujitsu we are more familiar with).
Other than Japan, (Hitachi), any other countries producing compilers ?.

If they go with 'implementer defined' - there wont ever be OO COBOL
Open Source. One more nail in COBOL's coffin. Can you seriously perceive
"Java/C++ kids" - jumping for joy at having access to Open Source for
Procedural COBOL ? Meanwhile as COBOLers we can access their Open
Source, when available, including picking-up on GUI techniques/routines
- funny thing though, the developers who advocate this approach are the
same people who are adamant that COBOL should *never ever* have GUIs.

All the above aside, having read up Will Price on M/F and dotNet - I
have a clearer picture on Exception Handling. Doesn't quite fit what I
would like but I think I can do a mock-up using the existing M/F
Exception Handler class (primarily used for Validation checks as
described in M/F on-line). So I think I'm now able to make a suggestion
to J4 on how Exceptions could work in Standard OO COBOL - doesn't
compete with dotNet, and no reason it should - dotNet is unique to ONE
O/S - Windows.

Regardless of whether J4 goes for Standard CLASSES or Standard
COLLECTIONS - I feel in my bones we do need an Exception class for OO.
Whether the same techniques could be rolled-over to be be used with
Procedural code - I just don't know.

One thing I should add - I'm acutely aware of my own limitations and I
am extremely embarrassed that I'm the only one to raise this issue with
J4 - it is a large topic, which should benefit from more than one
person's input.

Still - would have been real nice if I could have generated a think-tank
here first to test my ideas.
/
/Jimmy

Karl Kiesel

2004-12-02, 3:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" schrieb:

> Bearing in mind OO COBOL was formulated back in '93, it is only now that
> J4 are seriously looking at Collections ONLY - and the initial objective
> appears to have been KISS, (Keep it simple), tentatively at this time
> going for three collection types Ordered, Unordered and KeyedCollection,
> (the latter being a Java Map, or in Smalltalk/Net Express parlance -
> Dictionary). I wont hide the fact that I was *extremely* annoyed the
> above doesn't include SortedCollection - which is at least 80% of my
> usage - and I've said so to J4. Remains to be seen what happens.

see J4/04-0206, new chapter 5!

> Germany may or may not include Artur Reimann, (active
> as a J4 member until an illness in 2000), and Karl Kistler,
?????

Karl Kiesel
Fujitsu Siemens Computers, München

James J. Gavan

2004-12-02, 8:55 pm

Karl Kiesel wrote:

>"James J. Gavan" schrieb:
>
>
>
>
>see J4/04-0206, new chapter 5!
>
>
>
Thanks for the heads-up Karl. Don't check on a daily basis, but would
have gotten around to it.
Nice to know, perhaps, that one's two cents worth may have contributed.
As a current UK saying goes, "It's sorted" :-)

*LOTS* of changes, plus the addition of the new Exception Handling
class. Will have to print-out to digest.

As 'Chief Scribe', clarification from Chuck please. From the J4 minutes,
you were forwarding the predecessor document to ISO/WG4 for
consideration (October ?). Obviously some reaction at WG4, and the
minutes indicated you were going to take WG4 comments into account at a
J4 meeting (December ?). Did this result in a quick update from Bob
producing J4/04-0206, and is that document more or less a reasonably
final conclusion of both WG4 and J4 thoughts. (Haven't yet looked at it
in detail) . Or as one can comment, is the topic still up for grabs ?

Really don't want to flog myself to death, putting in a lot of thought
and writing into it, (been there, done that), if J4/04-0206 is a done deal.

Jimmy

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-02, 8:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:44Lrd.411007$nl.399672@pd7tw3no...

> As 'Chief Scribe', clarification from Chuck please. From the J4 minutes,
> you were forwarding the predecessor document to ISO/WG4 for
> consideration (October ?). Obviously some reaction at WG4, and the
> minutes indicated you were going to take WG4 comments into account at a
> J4 meeting (December ?). Did this result in a quick update from Bob
> producing J4/04-0206, and is that document more or less a reasonably
> final conclusion of both WG4 and J4 thoughts. (Haven't yet looked at it
> in detail) . Or as one can comment, is the topic still up for grabs ?

The Collection Class Library and XML Syntax proposals aren't final and
aspects of them are still being discussed, and they were brought to WG4 by
J4 with the sense "This is the direction we're planning to go. Is that OK?
Have you any major or minor complaints with the direction? How about the
details?", not "We think this is done; is this OK with you?" (there were a
few of those).

"J4/04-0207, Collection classes -- historical discussion" is intended to
capture the history of this proposal (keeps from cluttering up the actual
proposal), and Bob has updated it to include the outcomes of both of the
teleconferences on the subject as well as the WG4 discussion; I suggest you
check it out.

Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*, As both XML and Collection
Classes are Technical Reports (rather than proposals for the next standard)
that can apply to the 2002 standard as well, they precede the discussion of
the other 2008 changes in the agenda (J4/04-0205) for the meeting
(dynamic-capacity tables, any-length items, date/time formats, structured
constants, etc.) For that reason, preliminary comments at your earliest
convenience would be appropriate if you want your suggestions discussed at
that meeting! The next one is in February, and J4 is working really hard to
get the first draft out for international review by next summer in order to
meet WG4's request that the next standard be published no later than 2008.

-Chuck Stevens

James J. Gavan

2004-12-03, 8:55 pm

Chuck Stevens wrote:

Hmm....

>The Collection Class Library and XML Syntax proposals aren't final and
>aspects of them are still being discussed, and they were brought to WG4 by
>J4 with the sense "This is the direction we're planning to go. Is that OK?
>Have you any major or minor complaints with the direction? How about the
>details?", not "We think this is done; is this OK with you?" (there were a
>few of those).
>
>"J4/04-0207, Collection classes -- historical discussion" is intended to
>capture the history of this proposal (keeps from cluttering up the actual
>proposal), and Bob has updated it to include the outcomes of both of the
>teleconferences on the subject as well as the WG4 discussion; I suggest you
>check it out.
>
>
>
Not sure Bob's 04-0207 helped much as background. A lot was a rehash and
as I stepped through, it initially indicated the old class structure.
Wasn't until I read further on that SortedCollections are spelled out.,
My view at least is, that the re-hash as a history only needed to make
reference to UnorderedCollecitons by stating that this feature was
dropped in favour of SortedCollections.

Now not being in the loop - suddenly confronted with something new -
"Exception Class" - and that is entirely restricted for use with
Collections, at the moment.

Then there is the reference in the agenda for the meeting you refer to
below, "take into account comments from WG4....". Again, playing it in
the dark - what was commented upon. In Russell's case, which Bill
resurrected, there was a document showing you where WG4 took kicks at
Russell's proposal.

>Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*, As both XML and Collection
>Classes are Technical Reports (rather than proposals for the next standard)
>that can apply to the 2002 standard as well, they precede the discussion of
>the other 2008 changes in the agenda (J4/04-0205) for the meeting
>(dynamic-capacity tables, any-length items, date/time formats, structured
>constants, etc.) For that reason, preliminary comments at your earliest
>convenience would be appropriate if you want your suggestions discussed at
>that meeting! The next one is in February, and J4 is working really hard to
>get the first draft out for international review by next summer in order to
>meet WG4's request that the next standard be published no later than 2008.
>
>
>
Here we go again -

"Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*...". Rough guess, took me about three months back in 2000. The recent ones, rushed like mad to get as near to your J4 meeting date as possible - didn't make it. The rush resulted in a lot of repetition which
I didn't have time to delete editorially.

There's no way I can beat the clock, nor do I have an overall handle on
your direction; then throw in Karl's latest editorial comments for
consideration. I would really like to*actually* do some programming.

I don't hear any change clinking. OK so apart from J4 you have other
duties at Unisys. But there's a difference - imagine a visual cash
register on each of our desks. In Chuck's case that cash register is
merrily pinging away, regardless of what duties he is performing ,
getting all set-up to post entries to Payroll so that Chuck gets his
bank direct credit. Even with Christmas coming up, I wont get one single
jingle on mine :-) .

I'll take a look, to see if I think there are any bloopers, but without
some *detailed* background, the major part of 04-0206 still looks
comparatively much like the original. Haven't looked yet, but Bob's
example methods under 'Concepts' would appear to clarify it somewhat.

On a practical note - and *assume* you had the TR ready for Jan 2006 -
as an M/F user, how long before M/F implement. There's an awful lot of
code out there already written using their existing Collections. Even
if they provide the feature, M/F users are not going to fall over
themselves to implement the new J4 syntax. There's another problem - I
get the feeling that both F/J and M/F would very much like their
developers to jump to dotNet. Money, whether Pete on F/J or me with M/F,
roughly about $3,500 each to get up-to-date.

OK so J4 Collections are *not* about F/J and M/F - but which other
compilers are up and running with this feature.

Jimmy

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-04, 3:55 am

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Zc5sd.405645$Pl.340771@pd7tw1no...

> Not sure Bob's 04-0207 helped much as background. A lot was a rehash and
> as I stepped through, it initially indicated the old class structure.
> Wasn't until I read further on that SortedCollections are spelled out.,
> My view at least is, that the re-hash as a history only needed to make
> reference to UnorderedCollecitons by stating that this feature was
> dropped in favour of SortedCollections.

J4/04-0207 is intended as a *chronological* history reflecting, in the order
in which they occurred, the additions, improvements, amendments and changes
in direction that took place during the course of the development of the
proposal whose current instantiation is J4/04-0206. That you had to look
somewhere other than the *beginning* of this document to find discussions
about what took place *subsequent* to the beginning of the development
process should not be a surprise!

> Here we go again -

Who be "we"? The meeting schedule is well publicized. It is also well
known that WG4 wanted these Technical Reports all done and in the 2008 draft
by *this month*; we've delayed the process quite a bit as it is!

> "Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*...". Rough guess, took me
about three months back in 2000. The recent ones, rushed like mad to get as
near to your J4 meeting date as possible - didn't make it. The rush resulted
in a lot of repetition which I didn't have time to delete editorially.

I wasn't on the committee back then, and there's not much I can do about it
now.

> There's no way I can beat the clock, nor do I have an overall handle on
> your direction; then throw in Karl's latest editorial comments for
> consideration. I would really like to*actually* do some programming.

Bob Karlin is producing the document. I have repeatedly suggested you
*talk* to him. It is certainly not clear *to me* what your specific
objections *to the proposal are*. We *have* studied your papers, and I for
one can't figure out *precisely* what it is you think Bob needs to change in
his proposal to satisfy your requests, nor can I figure out how to apply the
suggestions you have made to the current documents to come up with a legible
standard. I've tried.

> I don't hear any change clinking. OK so apart from J4 you have other
> duties at Unisys. But there's a difference - imagine a visual cash
> register on each of our desks. In Chuck's case that cash register is
> merrily pinging away, regardless of what duties he is performing ,
> getting all set-up to post entries to Payroll so that Chuck gets his
> bank direct credit. Even with Christmas coming up, I wont get one single
> jingle on mine :-) .

I don't know what I, as a Unisys employee or as a member of J4 am expected
to do about this. I have repeatedly suggested you *talk* to the author of
the Collection Class document. His contact information is available from
the J4 website. I am not in a position to act as an intermediary.

As to the fact that I am indeed employed, although I survived the most
recent round of voluntary and involuntary layoffs at Unisys, I have not all
that much confidence that that will continue to be the case indefinitely.
I'm not sure what involvement in, or responsibility for, your current
employment situation I have!

> I'll take a look, to see if I think there are any bloopers, but without
> some *detailed* background, the major part of 04-0206 still looks
> comparatively much like the original. Haven't looked yet, but Bob's
> example methods under 'Concepts' would appear to clarify it somewhat.

Well, I hope that's progress! I suggest you *call* Bob with any questions
or comments!

> On a practical note - and *assume* you had the TR ready for Jan 2006 -
> as an M/F user, how long before M/F implement.

I can't address that, Jimmy; I don't work for Micro Focus nor am I privy to
their corporate strategies. Heck, I'm not even privy to *Unisys'* corporate
strategies.

> There's an awful lot of
> code out there already written using their existing Collections. Even
> if they provide the feature, M/F users are not going to fall over
> themselves to implement the new J4 syntax.

This isn't new syntax, it's more like a support library as I see it.

> There's another problem - I
> get the feeling that both F/J and M/F would very much like their
> developers to jump to dotNet. Money, whether Pete on F/J or me with M/F,
> roughly about $3,500 each to get up-to-date.

And what exactly do you expect me, as a Unisys employee or as a J4 member,
to do about this?

> OK so J4 Collections are *not* about F/J and M/F - but which other
> compilers are up and running with this feature.

I can't address this. But as I see it the standard collection class
*library* isn't a part of the compiler itself, it's intended as a basic
standard set of *support* software adjunct to it.

Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, in a position to act as an
intermediary between you and the folks who wrote J4/04-0206 and its
predecessors. I strongly recommend you talk to the authors and see if you
can clarify *to them* what your objections are. If you don't choose to do
that, don't blame *me* for their failure to rewrite the proposal to suit
your desires!

-Chuck Stevens

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-04, 3:55 am

Chuck,

a very fair, reasoned, and valid response. It's a pity you weren't on J4
earlier. They were

ly lacking in judgement, decision making, and
leadership. If you had been there ten years ago it might have made a
difference. I wish you luck with your current endeavour, even though I
cannot support it.

I considered putting in some comments about the XML additions but I realised
it would be pointless, and I honestly don't have time to waste. J4 will go
wherever J4 thinks it ought to go. COBOL has already been dismembered by
attempts to keep up with the Joneses, and pointless additions to the
language do not improve the situation.

Adding OO to it was a fantastic achievement (a far from pointless adition
(unlike intrinsic XML and Collections)) and it still leaves me gasping at
the people who did it, but look at the reaction: Nothing. The user base
simply didn't DESERVE to have what was produced. Their resistance to change
and entrenched conservatism shot it down before it could ever fly. Why spend
time adding collections as part of the standard, when all they have to do is
go OO, and they can have all the collections they could ever want, of
whatever type they want?

Same with XML. The external free facilities to handle XML are more than
adequate (if you use OO). In fact they are totally rich, and they are free,
for ANY language that implements a COM/CORBA interface, including OO COBOL.
I can't see the point in using valuable resources to provide people with
something that is already provided, if they were prepared to invest in some
training and re-thinking their attitude. How much time, effort, and money is
being spent by J4 to provide these facilities through a standard that will
be far too late, for a language that will be virtually dead by the time this
standard is ready?

If that time and effort was spent in getting the 2000 standard fully
implemented NOW, (maybe even a joint development project between
J4/ANSI/ISO/whatever and a vendor) and promoting the fact that COBOL was
made viable for future development by the addition of these facilities, you
wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

Jimmy,

how long does it take to realise you are flogging a dead horse?

Let it go.

Pete.
(Top Post no more.)

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:cor13k$117m$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Zc5sd.405645$Pl.340771@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> J4/04-0207 is intended as a *chronological* history reflecting, in the
order
> in which they occurred, the additions, improvements, amendments and
changes
> in direction that took place during the course of the development of the
> proposal whose current instantiation is J4/04-0206. That you had to look
> somewhere other than the *beginning* of this document to find discussions
> about what took place *subsequent* to the beginning of the development
> process should not be a surprise!
>
>
> Who be "we"? The meeting schedule is well publicized. It is also well
> known that WG4 wanted these Technical Reports all done and in the 2008
draft
> by *this month*; we've delayed the process quite a bit as it is!
>
> about three months back in 2000. The recent ones, rushed like mad to get
as
> near to your J4 meeting date as possible - didn't make it. The rush
resulted
> in a lot of repetition which I didn't have time to delete editorially.
>
> I wasn't on the committee back then, and there's not much I can do about
it
> now.
>
>
> Bob Karlin is producing the document. I have repeatedly suggested you
> *talk* to him. It is certainly not clear *to me* what your specific
> objections *to the proposal are*. We *have* studied your papers, and I
for
> one can't figure out *precisely* what it is you think Bob needs to change
in
> his proposal to satisfy your requests, nor can I figure out how to apply
the
> suggestions you have made to the current documents to come up with a
legible
> standard. I've tried.
>
>
> I don't know what I, as a Unisys employee or as a member of J4 am expected
> to do about this. I have repeatedly suggested you *talk* to the author of
> the Collection Class document. His contact information is available from
> the J4 website. I am not in a position to act as an intermediary.
>
> As to the fact that I am indeed employed, although I survived the most
> recent round of voluntary and involuntary layoffs at Unisys, I have not
all
> that much confidence that that will continue to be the case indefinitely.
> I'm not sure what involvement in, or responsibility for, your current
> employment situation I have!
>
>
> Well, I hope that's progress! I suggest you *call* Bob with any questions
> or comments!
>
>
> I can't address that, Jimmy; I don't work for Micro Focus nor am I privy
to
> their corporate strategies. Heck, I'm not even privy to *Unisys'*
corporate
> strategies.
>
>
> This isn't new syntax, it's more like a support library as I see it.
>
>
> And what exactly do you expect me, as a Unisys employee or as a J4 member,
> to do about this?
>
>
> I can't address this. But as I see it the standard collection class
> *library* isn't a part of the compiler itself, it's intended as a basic
> standard set of *support* software adjunct to it.
>
> Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, in a position to act as an
> intermediary between you and the folks who wrote J4/04-0206 and its
> predecessors. I strongly recommend you talk to the authors and see if you
> can clarify *to them* what your objections are. If you don't choose to
do
> that, don't blame *me* for their failure to rewrite the proposal to suit
> your desires!
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>

James J. Gavan

2004-12-04, 3:55 am

Pete Dashwood wrote:

Chuck,

Although frustrated with the whole shebang, I tried to keep that Irish
temper in check - hope I was reasonably successful. Let me remind you I
first got into this game as a SYSTEMS ANALYST - i.e., being analytical.
This (still primarily) analyst is not satisfied with the lack of
information, i.e. what led up to the creation of the document to date
and some indication, in summary at least, where you are heading - AS AN
EXTERNAL READER - not in the know.

So one of your agenda items for this current w

is to review current
recipients on your circulation list. The list currently includes Bill
Klein - fair enough. It also includes Russell Clarke. Russell Who ? He
gave up down in Ozzie after his magnificent effort to produce a
collection paper - and now merrily codes away in Java.

Similarly, you have Ray Obin on the list - one of the 'originals' on the
OCTG. Can't be sure - but I think he got dumped at M/F Newbury as a
result of the Merant fiasco. I can only imagine how enthused he might
be about COBOL as a topic.

From Newbury days, (Summer 2000), some ten J4 members now down to six.
The leavers :-

- Bill Klein (self) - financial/health
- Artur for F/J - health
- EDS - they've taken a financial whack - what "change" were they
getting by contributing.
- Wim (self) Netherlands - retired
*********
- Fujitsu - why ?
- Hitachi - (ITSCJ - Watara Takagi) - why ?
- John Piggott (self) - why ?
- Stephen Spiro (self) - why ?

I may well be wrong, but I have the deepest suspicion that the latter
group didn't like the concept of "The bureaucrats are in charge".

Let me remind you I HAVE written to Bob Karlin TWICE and you were cc'd
on one of the e-mails - replies ZILCH !

>Jimmy,
>
>how long does it take to realise you are flogging a dead horse?
>
>Let it go.
>
>
>
As the saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". And as I once
wrote to you, "Like it or not, they are the only game in town". In a
mood of, "the cup is half full", I reluctantly went along with current
set-up. Oh I "realised", quite some time back it probably was futile. I
regrettably now see the 'cup as only a 1/4 full', and in the long-run,
empty.

Let's put the dead horse in the bone yard - requiescant in pace.

Positively the *LAST* from me on Standards - I'll see if I can convince
myself that threads here with "Infinite Loops" are worth following, (I
somehow don't think so). Added first item on agenda next Monday, with a
sip from a cup of coffee, "Whoopee-do! We've disposed of the two
J4-Bashers, Dashwood and Gavan".

Yes I *was* enthused about Open Source, just like you observed. I can
say it now - had Open Source been viable, rather than a hobby - it was
my hope that a sophisticated and developer heavily-supported
compiler/standard would eventually replace the current carnival.

(Just think we could have had two Open Source documentation standards,
(1) The Biggie - the version which would have allowed the 'contest'
between Richard and Robert to continue ad nauseum, and (2) The Short
version - say 100 pages, that the rest of us could use).

Jimmy.

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-04, 3:55 am

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DAasd.425603$nl.186843@pd7tw3no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> Although frustrated with the whole shebang, I tried to keep that Irish
> temper in check - hope I was reasonably successful.

It is commendable. Pleased to see it. You will now enjoy your time here
more, without endangering your health, and without finding yourself painted
into corners you never really intended to be in <G>.

> Let me remind you I
> first got into this game as a SYSTEMS ANALYST - i.e., being analytical.
> This (still primarily) analyst is not satisfied with the lack of
> information, i.e. what led up to the creation of the document to date
> and some indication, in summary at least, where you are heading - AS AN
> EXTERNAL READER - not in the know.
>

Don't be too hard on Chuck. He is not he enemy here. As he pointed out, what
can you reasonably expect him to do about it?

If I were in your position (and I could easily have been, except that I
chose some years back not to be <G> ) I would address your concerns to the
person who IS responsible. That would be the award accepting current Chair.
He is quite OK with accepting awards for the non-performance of this group
so maybe it is time he did something to let the rest of see that he is
capable of doing something. (I'm not suggesting that Don is the "enemy"
either, but he should never have accepted an award for being years late and
contributing to the death of COBOL. It isn't personal; I've never met him,
but his doing that made me (as a COBOL user) feel like my nose was being
rubbed in the dirt by J4 and I've never gotten over it.) Anyway, my personal
feelings aside, you would do well to at least give Don a chance to do
something about your concerns. He has the authority to do so. (Well, he had
the authority to accept the award, so I guess he does...)

> So one of your agenda items for this current w

is to review current
> recipients on your circulation list. The list currently includes Bill
> Klein - fair enough. It also includes Russell Clarke. Russell Who ? He
> gave up down in Ozzie after his magnificent effort to produce a
> collection paper - and now merrily codes away in Java.
>
See, not all Ozzies are dumb kangaroos...some are wombats... <G>

> Similarly, you have Ray Obin on the list - one of the 'originals' on the
> OCTG. Can't be sure - but I think he got dumped at M/F Newbury as a
> result of the Merant fiasco. I can only imagine how enthused he might
> be about COBOL as a topic.
>
> From Newbury days, (Summer 2000), some ten J4 members now down to six.
> The leavers :-
>
> - Bill Klein (self) - financial/health
> - Artur for F/J - health
> - EDS - they've taken a financial whack - what "change" were they
> getting by contributing.
> - Wim (self) Netherlands - retired
> *********
> - Fujitsu - why ?
> - Hitachi - (ITSCJ - Watara Takagi) - why ?
> - John Piggott (self) - why ?
> - Stephen Spiro (self) - why ?
>
> I may well be wrong, but I have the deepest suspicion that the latter
> group didn't like the concept of "The bureaucrats are in charge".
>
Speculation, Jimmy. It could have been any number of reasons. Part of the
problem seems to be that NOBODY was "in charge"...the whole thing was
plagued by red tape and committees.

> Let me remind you I HAVE written to Bob Karlin TWICE and you were cc'd
> on one of the e-mails - replies ZILCH !
>
Chuck's suggestion was that you call him (Bob). Maybe he isn't good with
e-mail...

> As the saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". And as I once
> wrote to you, "Like it or not, they are the only game in town". In a
> mood of, "the cup is half full", I reluctantly went along with current
> set-up.

Optimism is by far the most useful attitude to attain to. It enables
achievement. There may be no guarantee of success in a given enterprise, but
there is always a guarantee of failure if you do not believe you can achieve
what you are attempting. However, it is also important to "pick your
battles". I considered this one was unwinnable, (no matter how optimistic I
may be by nature), and I cannot subscribe to "if you can't beat 'em, join
'em" when they represent things I really cannot endure.

They are the "only game in town" as long as vendors empower that position.
Vendors are not stupid, and the COBOL marketplace is hard and getting
harder... Think again about why some household name vendors have withdrawn
from the committee... Why would you spend big bucks to empower a committee
that has lost all credibility, consistently underperformed, and is
answerable to no-one?You are better off spending the money on retention
(and, hopefully, expansion) of your existing customer base, listening to
what THEY want, and then providing it.

> Oh I "realised", quite some time back it probably was futile. I
> regrettably now see the 'cup as only a 1/4 full', and in the long-run,
> empty.
>
> Let's put the dead horse in the bone yard - requiescant in pace.
>
> Positively the *LAST* from me on Standards - I'll see if I can convince
> myself that threads here with "Infinite Loops" are worth following, (I
> somehow don't think so).

Fortunately, it is not the only thread here... <G>

>Added first item on agenda next Monday, with a
> sip from a cup of coffee, "Whoopee-do! We've disposed of the two
> J4-Bashers, Dashwood and Gavan".
>
It never gives me any pleasure to bash anything. I have always tried to
explain why my attitude to the COBOL standards has been consistently
negative.

> Yes I *was* enthused about Open Source, just like you observed. I can
> say it now - had Open Source been viable, rather than a hobby - it was
> my hope that a sophisticated and developer heavily-supported
> compiler/standard would eventually replace the current carnival.
>

It would be nice if ANYTHING replaced the current carnival, however,
eventually the carnival is over, and we can all go home. Usually with
lighter pockets...

> (Just think we could have had two Open Source documentation standards,
> (1) The Biggie - the version which would have allowed the 'contest'
> between Richard and Robert to continue ad nauseum, and (2) The Short
> version - say 100 pages, that the rest of us could use).
>
And both would no doubt have proved valuable in one way or another... <G>

Pete.

James J. Gavan

2004-12-07, 3:55 am

Pete Dashwood wrote:

>It is commendable. Pleased to see it. You will now enjoy your time here
>more, without endangering your health, and without finding yourself painted
>into corners you never really intended to be in <G>.
>
>
Not going to go through the whole damn thing again, but it is
communication - that's what EDP is about. Take the following *truly*
hypothetical. :-

Yours truly decides he would like to be a member of J4 - pay my
membership dues and cough up $200 for the coming w

's attendance. I
arrive ( ouch - air fare, taxi, hotel ) and show up at the meeting.
Pleasantries all round but Don looks a bit sombre. Then he drops a
bombshell, Bob's wife phoned him the previous night - Bob Karlin dropped
dead. They sort of muddle through, but Don eventually poses the question -

"Jimmy, you've shown interest in Collections, do you want to head it up
?". I'm delighted of course, a topic I like.

"Sure, I'd be delighted, but what do I need from you folks by way of
background ?'

"Nothing, you already have it. It's in Bob's 04-0205 and 04-0206, plus
you can look at the preceding documents".

"That's it - just the latest interim drafts ? What about original ideas.
Where did Thane start this, which other languages were looked at. Did
you look at the three COBOL compilers currently providing collections.
What was the reasoning to have UnorderedCollections but ignore Sorted, (
*** which they have now swapped, by the way ***). What was the reaction
you got from WG4 when you submitted your draft to them. etc...... etc.....".

Pete - am I getting it across ? Another B-I-G bloody hypothetical -
it's not me at that meeting but *Pete Dashwood*. Would you accept the
above - no way. With lack of information you would tell 'em, "I'll do it
but I'll start the bloody thing from scratch ".

Most certainly wasn't expecting Chuck to be an intermediary merely
trying to convey the sense of me and the hypothetical above.. As to your
various suggestions, no names no pack drill, but I *have* written to
various people - with a complete lack of success.

Balls to Mr. Bangelstein, Bangelstein, Bangelstein
da, da, da ,da
etc.....

Nope - I'll stick with what I've got. If and when a revised Collection
format was available - I have *exactly* the same problem as you with
upgrading to F/J dotNet - a small item like $3.5K. I've said it before.
I see no advantage to you considering F/J dotNet, particularly as you
are focused on Components. The dotNet represents a Microsoft 'easy in'
to other languages, with them in charge of course - but that is already
achievable for you. Anyway if you did get stuck, Richard , from his
vast inventory of "stuff", could suggest either free or cheap
alternatives :-)

Screw this thread - let's get back to the real world - your passing
parameters in OO and your latest intriguing response to Leuko. I'll
stick with your Christmas tree concept. BTW, just down the hill from me
at a local, small, Deer Valley Shopping Centre - roughly a w

ago,
fenced off some of the parking area with chain link, and put in the
fresh trees. As you can imagine, firs are not a rare item in the Great
White North. The site has a sign, "XMAS TREES. SCROOGE APPROVED".

As president, CEO, chief cook and bottle washer, I now have to nip off
and get my wife's lunch before she goes to her job at the Bay (retail).
Nothing exotic like you did with that porker (?) on a spit - but with a
mother who was an excellent cook and a father who was a chef - I'm a
pretty dab hand in the cooking arena.

Jimmy

Robert Wagner

2004-12-07, 3:55 am

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:54:41 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
> I'm a pretty dab hand in the cooking arena.

Please translate "dab hand" into English.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-07, 3:55 am

In article <vsn4r0942op5po2l9cechlq4qrleddd6hl@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:54:41 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
>
>Please translate "dab hand" into English.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dab&db=* and
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...ary&va=dab+hand both
appear to indicate that it alreay *is* in English, Mr Wagner; please do
your own homework.

DD

James J. Gavan

2004-12-07, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:54:41 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
>
>
>
>Please translate "dab hand" into English.
>
>
I'm not going to call you "clueless" like somebody else we know. As it's
you, I am gong to be real nice. "dab" = nifty,

, good or whatever.
Didn't think I'd find it there but in the Oxford Concise :-

dab (4) a & n (colloq). Adept (at games etc., doing); he is a ---hand
(at) (f. 1690, of unkwn. org.).

So I'm a dab hand at making shortcrust pastry - dead easy for me.
Various quiche, fruit pies, pork chops a l'orange ('porkies' in orange
juice).

When I've finished this - and I always say I'm gong to do it in the
early Spring, but never do - I'm off to the kitchen to be a dab hand,
firstly at mixing the ingredients for Christmas puddings and mince pies.
(Interesting point - current traditional English mince meat does *not*
contain ground beef like the original recipes. Ours is dried fruits,
nuts, some flour, nutmeg, allspice, ginger, etc..). Traditionally both
recipes also call for ground suet. We use it for mince pies but consider
it makes the Xmas puds too heavy. Naturally you add booze to both, dark
rum, whiskey, scotch - your choice.

Steam each of the individual puds in a Pyrex (?) glass bowl covered with
grease wrap for about an initial 6 hours. Then re-steam on day used for
abut two hours. Back when it was pounds, shillings and pence, a silver
3d threepenny (thru'pney) coin was added to each pudding. You were
supposedly lucky if you got the coin. (About as much 'good' luck as you
are likely to get 'bad' luck walking under a ladder).

The mincemeat finishes up in mince pies of course - the shortcrust
pastry. However we found a recipe over here making 'squares'. Top and
bottom layer of oatmeal, butter and sugar, with the mince ground down
for 'flatness'. Sift icing sugar on top and bake.

Serving the Christmas puds. You can use brandy - what a waste ! Just
prior to bringing it to the dining table, pour some brandy over it and
set a match to it, which gives you a very short temporary blue flame. We
like it served with alternates, custard using Bird's Custard powder,
(which I think is now owned by General Foods). A white sauce, basic
butter and flour base, then add milk stirring into a cream and add a
good slosh of booze of your choice. Personally like brandy butter - you
could make same with dark rum. Mix Berry rather than Icing sugar with
butter until well creamed together, then add a good swipe of brandy and
mix in. Refrigerate. Nice served on both puds and mince pies.

Germany with NATO and RAF, ('59-'61) - never spent Christmas there,
flying home to my wife. Only two days ago I reminisced. As I took the
train from Gütersloh in Nord Westfalen down through the Ruhr to
Düsseldorf airport - all the 'real' fir Christmas trees en route, a
mass of white lights. Truly, Christmas is my favourite time of the year.
It to my mind, is a 'family association' day - but I'll be honest, I'm
glad my twin grandsons wont be around. Both good looking with beautiful
blue eyes from their mother - but friggin monsters ! I used the F-word
at least 6 times with them the last Christmas we had together !

Just remembered - so I''ll throw this one in for good measure . Twelfth
Night Jan 6. Dates from Middle Ages and seems to be still celebrated in
the north of England. My last year at that de la Salle school near
Bournemouth. Brothers and pupils we had a Twelfth Night celebration.
Somebody cooks up a big plain cake and one uncooked Haricot bean is put
in the cake. The person getting the slice of cake with the bean is
designated King Bean, or master of ceremonies for the evening games. I
don't know any other details related to the event.

There - look what you get for asking an innocent question. As an
advanced wish to everyone, taking the very last line from Dickens's
'Christmas Carol' and uttered by Tiny Tim :-

"God bless us every one".

Note back during the Dickensian era, 'everyone' was two words.

Jimmy

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-07, 3:55 am

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:vsn4r0942op5po2l9cechlq4qrleddd6hl@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:54:41 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
>
> Please translate "dab hand" into English.
>

Er... that would be into ""American", Robert... <G>

"I am pretty good at this..."

dab= clever or skilled (According to Brewer's... possibly contracted from
the latin: "adeptus". "Dabster" is another form.)

(must admit, I have never heard "dabster" but "dab hand" is in common
English usage.

Pete.

Lueko Willms

2004-12-07, 3:55 am

.. Am 05.12.04
schrieb jjgavan@shaw.ca (James J. Gavan)
bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 4cusd.436040$%k.349358@pd7tw2no
ueber Re: Program templates as Object Classes
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]

JJG> I'm not going to call you "clueless" like somebody else we know. As
JJG> it's you, I am gong to be real nice. "dab" = nifty,

, good or
JJG> whatever. Didn't think I'd find it there but in the Oxford Concise
JJG>
JJG> dab (4) a & n (colloq). Adept (at games etc., doing); he is a
JJG> ---hand (at) (f. 1690, of unkwn. org.).

Thank you for expanding my knowledge of english. Reading the word
"dab" isolated from its context, as in Robert Wagner's question, I
would have thought it means the opposite, looking back to the
paragraph where you used it, I would be

because the context
suggests a rather apt kitchen-hand or cook.

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Die Interessen der Nation lassen sich nicht anders formulieren als unter
dem Gesichtspunkt der herrschenden Klasse oder der Klasse, die die
Herrschaft anstrebt." - Leo Trotzki (27. Januar 1932)

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-07, 8:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Oi3td.426845$Pl.318807@pd7tw1no...
<snip>> >
> Is this one of your dozen ? Lettuce soup. Not kidding, rather nice.

Yes, I was introduced to this some years ago by a Chinese friend. I like
stuffed lettuce leaves also. (that doesn't mean pick them and leave them for
a few days until they are stuffed...)

> And the rest is truly hilarious :-)
>
Don't encourage me; I'll only do more... <G>

Pete.

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-08, 8:55 am

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-10, 3:55 pm

James J. Gavan

2004-12-11, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner

2004-12-11, 8:55 am

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:15:58 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>To my mind, your written English is excellent, and I see you easily
>dropping into colloquialisms.
>Just curious, spoken English; any feedback on how good your 'accent' is
>? By that I don't mean it has to 'prefect English' type. I find it
>interesting to hear non-Anglos, with a good command of the language,
>indicating their origins. Mixture of German and Austrian, but -
>Maximilian Schell, Maria something B....... (I think he was a 007
>villain) and played opposite Halley Berry in the life of Dorothy
>Dandrige, a whole host of other good actors, but I can't bring their
>names to mind.
>Max von Sydow - name implies he is German, but is he Scandanavian ?
>
>Now Arnie down there in California - his accent is about as pleasing as
>Sylvester Stalllone's,"Are dese fur sale ?".

Joseph Conrad, who knew nothing but Polish until he was
twenty-something, wrote some of the best English literature.

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-13, 8:55 pm

Thanks, Pete.

Now that I have a *bit* more time to comment: The following is my opinion
and my opinion alone, based on my observations. I do not speak either for
J4 or for Unisys on this.

What I see as a problem (and the problem I think J4 had) with many of the
earlier proposals relating to a class library for COBOL is that the
proposals were too broad in scope, and that included some of the things
Jimmy suggested in his papers. What J4 was directed to produce was
specifically and precisely limited to those classes *that directly support
collections*.

As an example of how limited J4 wants this scope to be: During the
discussions at the most recent meeting, it was realized that the exception
object proposed for the collection object needed to inherit from the base
class rather than from the collection class, and this change is being
made -- even though it means the development of a feature *outside* the
strictest understanding of what is in the "collection class library". J4
has (probably justifiably) in the past been accused of, and criticized for,
allowing "feature creep", and approached adding that requirement of
exception handling *in the base class* with much trepidation accordingly.
The committee is trying to do the *absolute minimum* to provide the features
required and requested by WG4, and had to satisfy itself that any "feature
creep" involved in adding an exception object in the *base* class as part of
the project was *worthwhile* feature creep as a significant part of the
decision!

Are there other things that would be nice to have beyond that which is
already on the list (for OO support and otherwise)? Of course. Is it worth
further delay in the next standard? J4 doesn't think so, nor does WG4.

James Gavan proposed much of value, much that would be of value for the
"complete" COBOL Standard Class Library. And if that were what we were
trying to develop, we'd consider it much more deeply and carefully. But
what WG4 directed J4 to do was the *minimum* required underpinnings for the
COBOL *Collection* Class Library -- that which was necessary for
*collections*, not that which would be useful for standardization for all
aspects of OO.

-Chuck Stevens

William M. Klein

2004-12-13, 8:55 pm

Should anyone care, the "PROPOSAL FOR A NEW WORK ITEM" which was "approved" and
under which J4 is doing this development (and which is - as Chuck indicates -
VERY restricted) can be read at:

http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/files/03-0171.htm

Interestingly enough, I couldn't (quickly?) find the "related" document for the
full revision itself (03-0171 is JUST for the 'technical report' limited to
Collection Classes). However, it is my MEMORY that this was also restricted (as
far as any class library goes) to what was proposed in the TR.

The scope (limitations AND freedom) included in these proposals is developed by
WG4 (the ISO-ish COBOL working group) *but* is voted upon by all the relevant
(P) National Standards Bodies, i.e. if there is debate (at the international
level about what should and should not be included) then "you" can communicate
your views (as usual) via your OWN National Standards Body.

If you want to be "informed" about when they are considering COBOL-related
issues, I would suggest you contact them directly. For a list of such bodies
(and how to contact them), see:

http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/aboutiso/i...ERCODE=10--Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in messagenews:cpl5t3$hko$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...> Thanks, Pete.>> Now that I h
ave a *bit* more time to comment: The following is my opinion> and my opinion alone, based on my observations. I do not speak either for> J4 or for Unisys on this.>> What I see as a problem (and the problem I think J4 had) with many of the> earlier prop
osals relating to a class library for COBOL is that the> proposals were too broad in scope, and that included some of the things> Jimmy suggested in his papers. What J4 was directed to produce was> specifically and precisely limited to those classes *tha
t directly support> collections*.>> As an example of how limited J4 wants this scope to be: During the> discussions at the most recent meeting, it was realized that the exception> object proposed for the collection object needed to inherit from the base>
class rather than from the collection class, and this change is being> made -- even though it means the development of a feature *outside* the> strictest understanding of what is in the "collection class library". J4> has (probably justifiably) in the p
ast been accused of, and criticized for,> allowing "feature creep", and approached adding that requirement of> exception handling *in the base class* with much trepidation accordingly.> The committee is trying to do the *absolute minimum* to provide the f
eatures> required and requested by WG4, and had to satisfy itself that any "feature> creep" involved in adding an exception object in the *base* class as part of> the project was *worthwhile* feature creep as a significant part of the> decision!>> Are the
re other things that would be nice to have beyond that which is> already on the list (for OO support and otherwise)? Of course. Is it worth> further delay in the next standard? J4 doesn't think so, nor does WG4.>> James Gavan proposed much of value, mu
ch that would be of value for the> "complete" COBOL Standard Class Library. And if that were what we were> trying to develop, we'd consider it much more deeply and carefully. But> what WG4 directed J4 to do was the *minimum* required underpinnings for t
he> COBOL *Collection* Class Library -- that which was necessary for> *collections*, not that which would be useful for standardization for all> aspects of OO.>> -Chuck Stevens>>

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-13, 8:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DAasd.425603$nl.186843@pd7tw3no...

> Similarly, you have Ray Obin on the list - one of the 'originals' on the
> OCTG. Can't be sure - but I think he got dumped at M/F Newbury as a
> result of the Merant fiasco. I can only imagine how enthused he might
> be about COBOL as a topic.

There are a number of people who are on the J4 mailing list because they
have contributed to the COBOL process in the past and have asked at some
point to be retained on it. I can't speak to Mr. Obin. There are some
that probably don't need to be on the J4 mailing list these days, and there
are others -- including you -- that aren't and that I think should be.

> From Newbury days, (Summer 2000), some ten J4 members now down to six.
> The leavers :-

> - Bill Klein (self) - financial/health
> - Artur for F/J - health
> - EDS - they've taken a financial whack - what "change" were they
> getting by contributing.

Probably true, but I am not privy to that information.

> - Wim (self) Netherlands - retired

He's been on the COBOL committee for several decades. Upon his retirement
he was awarded Knighthood in the Order of Oranje-Nassau by the Dutch
government for his contributions. His last work -- a two-volume textbook in
Dutch on COBOL 2002 has just been published; an English translation is in
the works. We will miss Wim's contributions.

> *********
> - Fujitsu - why ?

I don't know, and I've asked. Artur Reimann and Thane Hubbell were
alternating as the Fujitsu representative, but for reasons that have not
been disclosed to J4, Fujitsu has decided they don't want to participate.
As Artur was ill at the time, this primarily affected Thane. The reasons
could be as simple as they don't want to spend the $800/year for INCITS
membership plus all the travel costs.

> - Hitachi - (ITSCJ - Watara Takagi) - why ?

I believe Wataru Takagi is planning to rejoin J4 as ITSCJ's representative
next year; such were his plans earlier, and such was his affiliation on J4
when he was active.

Hitachi is Takagi-san's employer, and Hitachi is his affiliation as listed
for WG4, but his *J4* membership was/will be, I'm certain, on behalf of the
International Technological Standards Committee of Japan, as that's been his
affiliation ever since I've been on J4. I mentioned that to you in a
private E-mail message on that topic dated 8/23/2004. Certainly he has
expressed a desire to rejoin and participate, and we hope to see him in
Ontario (CA) in February. His alternate was planning to be at the
December meeting of J4, thus beginning the reinstatement process, but a
family illness prevented that.

> - John Piggott (self) - why ?

He wasn't then, and isn't now, a member of J4. That strikes me as a
pretty good reason he hasn't been attending.

WG4 meeting #21 was in Newbury in May 2000, specifically, May 21, 22 and 23.
John Piggott was a member of the UK delegation to the WG4 meeting. J4
meeting #225 meeting was also in Newbury in May 2000, specifically, May 17,
18, 19, 24 and 25. Note that the WG4 meeting occurred between two "halves"
of the J4 meeting.

John Piggot was one of several members of the UK WG4 delegation attending
the J4 meeting *as guests* (the others being Robert Jones, Robert Sales,
Roger Strickland and Brian Watts. Jeannette Nutsford, also of the UK
delegation attended the J4 meeting as Bob Karlin's alternate (a post she
continues to hold), and Ken Nutsford attended as Interex SIG liaison. Both
attended the WG4 meeting as part of the UK delegation, and at other WG4
meetings they have done "double service" as the New Zealand delegation.

> - Stephen Spiro (self) - why ?

Retired. So far as I know, retired *altogether*, not just from the
committee.

> I may well be wrong, but I have the deepest suspicion that the latter
> group didn't like the concept of "The bureaucrats are in charge".

I don't think you can legitimately describe or characterize this as a
"group".

John Piggott in particular was a *significant* recent contributor to the
Dynamic-Capacity Tables and Variable-Length Elementary Items proposals. He
also bore significant responsibility for the semantics and design of the
VALIDATE feature of the 2002 standard. J4 is *very* grateful for his
*continued* contributions to the quality of the standard and the draft.

> Let me remind you I HAVE written to Bob Karlin TWICE and you were cc'd
> on one of the e-mails - +replies ZILCH !

Yes, I find in my archives an E-mail dated 8/18/2004 to him, with copies to
various folk, and another to Don Schricker ten days later with CC's to
various folk including Bob Karlin.

Bob's direction from J4 was to get the proposal *as it was* in a state
suitable for presentation at the October WG4 meeting, not to design it
afresh and present a whole new direction there.

Did you attempt to *telephone* him as I suggested on numerous occasions?

Note also that WG4 specifically discussed, and agreed to, your suggestion in
J4/04-0169 to add a SortedCollection class, and subsequent versions of the
proposal being developed by Bob Karlin include this class. And the minutes
of Meeting #248 (J4/04-0232) specifically record the discussion of, and J4's
response to, your proposal to use the term "callback" instead of "iterator"
as described in your document J4/04-0075. Did you not receive a specific
response to this proposal? This part of the minutes hasn't been changed
since the draft, J4/04-0115, was posted on the J4 on August 15.

> Positively the *LAST* from me on Standards

Well, I for one think that's a bit of a shame; I think one of the reasons
your communications might not have gotten the full and immediate attention
of the committee is because they really didn't understand why it was
necessary to change the entire direction of the COBOL Collection Class
Library in August 2004 when (at that time) the first version of the Working
Draft was supposed to be done by December 2004! And I still don't. That
doesn't leave a lot of time for fleshing out the details, and WG4 was
*adamant* at the June 2003 meeting that J4 should *sacrifice* feature
content if that's what it took to meet the schedule. The design *as it
was* was discussed at J4 in late July, and it was decided that that be
presented at WG4 in October.

We haven't ignored your suggestions, Jimmy. At this point, however, we're
not in a position to spend a year or more sorting them all out and
prioritizing them, particularly if we're supposed to have a Working Draft
with all proposals "integrated" and with the entire document ready for
international ballot in six months. Neither WG4 nor J4 seems to feel its
current direction is incorrect, and neither WG4 nor J4 seems to be willing
to delay the process for the next standard to change direction even if the
suggestion to do so might have technical merit. Neither WG4 nor J4 feels
the current proposals are *substantially broken*.

-Chuck Stevens

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-14, 3:55 am

Thanks for that, Chuck.

Given that resources are limited and time is pressing, I have to say again I
cannot see justification for EITHER Collection Classes OR Embedded XML. The
people who are likely to use these facilities are already using them through
third parties and public domain software. Others who might want to use them
would need to go OO (OK, not for XML, perhaps) and once they do that, they
don't need the intrinsic capability. There is therefore no pressing need for
them.

Why not focus on getting COBOL 2002 implemented by SOMEBODY? The action of
doing this would regain a bit of credibility.

Some further comments below...

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:cpl5t3$hko$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> Thanks, Pete.
>
> Now that I have a *bit* more time to comment: The following is my opinion
> and my opinion alone, based on my observations. I do not speak either for
> J4 or for Unisys on this.
>
> What I see as a problem (and the problem I think J4 had) with many of the
> earlier proposals relating to a class library for COBOL is that the
> proposals were too broad in scope, and that included some of the things
> Jimmy suggested in his papers. What J4 was directed to produce was
> specifically and precisely limited to those classes *that directly support
> collections*.
>
And nobody asked "Why?". Is nobody on this committee using OO? Are they not
aware there are free components available to implement both of these
functions?

If they are aware, then why are they entertaining it?

> As an example of how limited J4 wants this scope to be: During the
> discussions at the most recent meeting, it was realized that the exception
> object proposed for the collection object needed to inherit from the base
> class rather than from the collection class, and this change is being
> made -- even though it means the development of a feature *outside* the
> strictest understanding of what is in the "collection class library". J4
> has (probably justifiably) in the past been accused of, and criticized
for,
> allowing "feature creep", and approached adding that requirement of
> exception handling *in the base class* with much trepidation accordingly.
> The committee is trying to do the *absolute minimum* to provide the
features
> required and requested by WG4, and had to satisfy itself that any "feature
> creep" involved in adding an exception object in the *base* class as part
of
> the project was *worthwhile* feature creep as a significant part of the
> decision!
>
I understand they are trying to do their best here. It is suffering from
lack of guidance, leadership, and answerability, as I mentioned before.
Someone needs to call a few shots and demand some justifications.

> Are there other things that would be nice to have beyond that which is
> already on the list (for OO support and otherwise)? Of course. Is it
worth
> further delay in the next standard? J4 doesn't think so, nor does WG4.

OK.
>
> James Gavan proposed much of value, much that would be of value for the
> "complete" COBOL Standard Class Library. And if that were what we were
> trying to develop, we'd consider it much more deeply and carefully. But
> what WG4 directed J4 to do was the *minimum* required underpinnings for
the
> COBOL *Collection* Class Library -- that which was necessary for
> *collections*, not that which would be useful for standardization for all
> aspects of OO.
>
And, in my opinion, THAT was too much... (sorry, Jimmy, have to call it like
I see it...)

Pete.

William M. Klein

2004-12-14, 3:55 am

For what it's worth, IBM felt sufficient "customer demand" to add "native" XML
support to their COBOL compiler to do so at a time that there were MANY other
features that they also heard customers asking for. It is my impression (from
SHARE comments) that the Enterprise COBOL
XML PARSE
and
XML GENERATE

support has been of sufficient interest to cause some customers to upgrade
compilers JUST to get this support (while I have yet to hear of any growing or
serious demand for their OO support).

For those not yet familiar with this support (TOTALLY incompatible with what J4
and WG4 are doing) see:

http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-...KS/igy3pg20/5.0

and following.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:327bp2F3jnnn7U1@individual.net...
> Thanks for that, Chuck.
>
> Given that resources are limited and time is pressing, I have to say again I
> cannot see justification for EITHER Collection Classes OR Embedded XML. The
> people who are likely to use these facilities are already using them through
> third parties and public domain software. Others who might want to use them
> would need to go OO (OK, not for XML, perhaps) and once they do that, they
> don't need the intrinsic capability. There is therefore no pressing need for
> them.
>
> Why not focus on getting COBOL 2002 implemented by SOMEBODY? The action of
> doing this would regain a bit of credibility.
>
> Some further comments below...
>
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:cpl5t3$hko$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> And nobody asked "Why?". Is nobody on this committee using OO? Are they not
> aware there are free components available to implement both of these
> functions?
>
> If they are aware, then why are they entertaining it?
>
> for,
> features
> of
> I understand they are trying to do their best here. It is suffering from
> lack of guidance, leadership, and answerability, as I mentioned before.
> Someone needs to call a few shots and demand some justifications.
>
> worth
>
> OK.
> the
> And, in my opinion, THAT was too much... (sorry, Jimmy, have to call it like
> I see it...)
>
> Pete.
>
>
>
>

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-14, 3:55 am

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:rqvvd.6745616$6p.1057949@news.easynews.com...
> For what it's worth, IBM felt sufficient "customer demand" to add "native"
XML
> support to their COBOL compiler to do so at a time that there were MANY
other
> features that they also heard customers asking for. It is my impression
(from
> SHARE comments) that the Enterprise COBOL
> XML PARSE
> and
> XML GENERATE
>
> support has been of sufficient interest to cause some customers to upgrade
> compilers JUST to get this support (while I have yet to hear of any
growing or
> serious demand for their OO support).
>
Yes, they want XML but they don't want OO. So IBM tries to satisfy them.
They have the resources to do so and you can't really blame them; it is good
customer relations.

Any personal insights on customers using Websphere, Bill? Comments,
feedback...?

If you hear of anyone using COM or CORBA with their mainframe I'd be
interested to know about that, too. It must happen at some point...

Pete.

> For those not yet familiar with this support (TOTALLY incompatible with
what J4
> and WG4 are doing) see:
>
> http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-...KS/igy3pg20/5.0
>
> and following.
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:327bp2F3jnnn7U1@individual.net...
again I[color=darkred]
The[color=darkred]
through[color=darkred]
them[color=darkred]
they[color=darkred]
for[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
opinion[color=darkred]
for[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
support[color=darkred]
not[color=darkred]
exception[color=darkred]
base[color=darkred]
J4[color=darkred]
accordingly.[color=darkred]
"feature[color=darkred]
part[color=darkred]
But[color=darkred]
all[color=darkred]
like[color=darkred]
>
>
>

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-14, 3:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:327bp2F3jnnn7U1@individual.net...
> Thanks for that, Chuck.
>
> Given that resources are limited and time is pressing, I have to say again
I
> cannot see justification for EITHER Collection Classes OR Embedded XML.
The
> people who are likely to use these facilities are already using them
through
> third parties and public domain software. Others who might want to use
them
> would need to go OO (OK, not for XML, perhaps) and once they do that, they
> don't need the intrinsic capability. There is therefore no pressing need
for
> them.

The argument for standardization is that it's done the *same* way in all
implementations. That's the point. I went through this when I was working
on the ISO Date/Time formats proposal. The COMBINED-DATETIME function was
provided *precisely* so that a *single standard* numeric format including
both date and time values (calendar from 1600AD, times to the nanosecond)
would be *specified*. The arithmetic in the function is trivial; the point
is that the formula is specified, not left up to the user. And there was
indeed user demand for just such a function, and just such a format. That
there might be any number of *other* such timestamp formats that could have
been, or could be, developed, here's one that everyone is *encouraged* to
use for portability.

> Why not focus on getting COBOL 2002 implemented by SOMEBODY? The action of
> doing this would regain a bit of credibility.

I've been doing what I can in my area of responsibility. But I don't
personally see a lot of customer demand for some of the mandatory features,
like OO.

A side comment: I know only enough about OO to be a bit dangerous. My
personal focus is on "core COBOL" and extending what's already there. Of
the thirteen features WG4 put on its "must-have" list, I personally accepted
responsibility for six. Four of these were trivial, two were not. All of
them, *I believe*, fundamentally enhance "traditional COBOL". They were, in
ascending order of complexity (together with the most recent relevant J4
document numbers on the subject):
Increase minima for record locks (04-0057)
Increase maximum size of alphanumeric literals (04-0055)
Eliminate cryptic reference to "hardware" in ACCEPT rules (03-0263,
amended by 04-0191)
Allow <> as synonym for NOT EQUAL (03-0224)
Structured Constants (04-0056, amended by 04-0192)
Support for Dates in ISO 8601:2000 Formats (04-0120, amended by
04-0193 and 04-0196)

In addition, at the WG4 meeting in October, with the support of J4, I
presented a discussion of the 128-bit floating-point formats (and the
*decimal* floating-point formats of various sizes) being proposed by IEEE in
their rewrite of IEEE 754. WG4 added this to their "wish list" for the 2008
standard, and I'm hard at work preparing a proposal for the standard to
include it (among all my other duties). The first draft of this was
J4/04-0219; a second draft, reflecting the discussion at J4 Meeting #249
last w

, is in preparation; I'd suggest waiting for that one (J4/04-0251).
It should be available before the first of the year. My personal opinion
that providing platform-independent, language-independent formats for
arithmetic operands coupled with the specific arithmetic and rounding rules
associated with those formats goes a LONG way toward improving the
portability of COBOL, and I would contend that that's a *necessary* change
if COBOL is to survive as a language.

One of the reasons I bring this list up is that none of these topics have
much at all (if anything) to do with either OO or XML. I also bring it up
as evidence that my personal interests lie in the improvement of what's
already available in COBOL, and the elimination of those aspects of COBOL
that are perceived to be deficiencies or limitations.

You've indicated that you see no requirement for standardized OO or XML
handling in COBOL; well, it appears that corporate participants in J4 like
Micro Focus, Fujitsu and IBM, together with some private consultants, have
encountered enough customer demand for these features to lobby for their
standardization. Neither OO nor XML is within my personal realm of
expertise, so I don't put myself in the front line of those discussions. I
shouldn't be called to task for focusing unduly on OO and on XML; I didn't
write those proposals, and my personal priorities have been elsewhere both
within the context of J4 and at Unisys.

the[color=darkred]
support[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> And nobody asked "Why?". Is nobody on this committee using OO? Are they
not
> aware there are free components available to implement both of these
> functions?

There are free components available that run on any platform or in any
environment with exactly the same functionality and using exactly the same
interface? That's the problem, Pete. There may be five sets, or fifty,
each relating to a specific environment and need. Which one is the *right*
one from COBOL's standpoint, and why? Yes, the committee is aware that
there are such components, just as they are aware that anyone could write a
user-defined function providing some sort of date/time timestamp in just
about any form the user wanted. The committee felt that developing a single
recommended approach to this problem was more consistent with language and
application portability than saying "do what ya wanna do".

> If they are aware, then why are they entertaining it?

Asked and answered.

> I understand they are trying to do their best here. It is suffering from
> lack of guidance, leadership, and answerability, as I mentioned before.
> Someone needs to call a few shots and demand some justifications.

I believe that's been done. J4 is responsible for the details of feature
implementation. WG4 is responsible for the feature *content*. J4 advises
WG4 as to what it believes is appropriate; WG4 either agrees or disagrees,
and it's WG4 that's got the final say. WG4 is made up of representatives of
the National Standards bodies of the member countries. The UK (BSI), Japan
(JISC), Germany (DIN), and the Netherlands (NEN) almost always participate,
as does New Zealand (SNZ), though the Kiwi contingent was unable to be at
the most recent WG4 meeting in The Hague.

If, for example, DIN on behalf of Germany says "yes" and NEN on behalf of
the Netherlands says "yes", do you really think it would be effective for J4
to go back to WG4 and say "But ... but ... we can't do that! Peter
Dashwood thinks it's a bad idea!!!" ?

-Chuck Stevens
> And, in my opinion, THAT was too much... (sorry, Jimmy, have to call it
like
> I see it...)

I understand that, Peter; the problem is that you didn't convince the
National Standards bodies of several countries who formally express
significant interest in the COBOL language that OO and XML handling in COBOL
was a bad idea.

I will comment that my recollection of the attitudes of the NZ delegation at
the previous WG4 meeting is that they were *adamant* that new features
should *first* be implemented in "core COBOL" and *only then* would OO
analog syntax be considered (which is why XML handling is in the language
rather than in a class library). They didn't seem all that interested in
OO, in fact. Have you expressed your views on Dynamic-Capacity Tables and
Any-Length Elementary Items to your national standards body or to those who
actively represent it at WG4 meetings? I would say the very existence of
these proposals for the 2008 draft owes much to the SNZ contingent; if
they're wrong-headed, you need to express that *to them*.

-Chuck Stevens

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-14, 8:55 pm

Fair response, Chuck.

It was not my intention to take you to task or hold you personally
responsible for any of the actions of J4/WG4.

Thanks for the clarification.

Good Luck.

Pete.

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:cpn73m$1tqu$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:327bp2F3jnnn7U1@individual.net...
again[color=darkred]
> I
> The
> through
> them
they[color=darkred]
> for
>
> The argument for standardization is that it's done the *same* way in all
> implementations. That's the point. I went through this when I was
working
> on the ISO Date/Time formats proposal. The COMBINED-DATETIME function was
> provided *precisely* so that a *single standard* numeric format including
> both date and time values (calendar from 1600AD, times to the nanosecond)
> would be *specified*. The arithmetic in the function is trivial; the
point
> is that the formula is specified, not left up to the user. And there was
> indeed user demand for just such a function, and just such a format. That
> there might be any number of *other* such timestamp formats that could
have
> been, or could be, developed, here's one that everyone is *encouraged* to
> use for portability.
>
of[color=darkred]
>
> I've been doing what I can in my area of responsibility. But I don't
> personally see a lot of customer demand for some of the mandatory
features,
> like OO.
>
> A side comment: I know only enough about OO to be a bit dangerous. My
> personal focus is on "core COBOL" and extending what's already there. Of
> the thirteen features WG4 put on its "must-have" list, I personally
accepted
> responsibility for six. Four of these were trivial, two were not. All of
> them, *I believe*, fundamentally enhance "traditional COBOL". They were,
in
> ascending order of complexity (together with the most recent relevant J4
> document numbers on the subject):
> Increase minima for record locks (04-0057)
> Increase maximum size of alphanumeric literals (04-0055)
> Eliminate cryptic reference to "hardware" in ACCEPT rules
(03-0263,
> amended by 04-0191)
> Allow <> as synonym for NOT EQUAL (03-0224)
> Structured Constants (04-0056, amended by 04-0192)
> Support for Dates in ISO 8601:2000 Formats (04-0120, amended by
> 04-0193 and 04-0196)
>
> In addition, at the WG4 meeting in October, with the support of J4, I
> presented a discussion of the 128-bit floating-point formats (and the
> *decimal* floating-point formats of various sizes) being proposed by IEEE
in
> their rewrite of IEEE 754. WG4 added this to their "wish list" for the
2008
> standard, and I'm hard at work preparing a proposal for the standard to
> include it (among all my other duties). The first draft of this was
> J4/04-0219; a second draft, reflecting the discussion at J4 Meeting #249
> last w

, is in preparation; I'd suggest waiting for that one
(J4/04-0251).
> It should be available before the first of the year. My personal
opinion
> that providing platform-independent, language-independent formats for
> arithmetic operands coupled with the specific arithmetic and rounding
rules
> associated with those formats goes a LONG way toward improving the
> portability of COBOL, and I would contend that that's a *necessary* change
> if COBOL is to survive as a language.
>
> One of the reasons I bring this list up is that none of these topics have
> much at all (if anything) to do with either OO or XML. I also bring it up
> as evidence that my personal interests lie in the improvement of what's
> already available in COBOL, and the elimination of those aspects of COBOL
> that are perceived to be deficiencies or limitations.
>
> You've indicated that you see no requirement for standardized OO or XML
> handling in COBOL; well, it appears that corporate participants in J4 like
> Micro Focus, Fujitsu and IBM, together with some private consultants, have
> encountered enough customer demand for these features to lobby for their
> standardization. Neither OO nor XML is within my personal realm of
> expertise, so I don't put myself in the front line of those discussions.
I
> shouldn't be called to task for focusing unduly on OO and on XML; I didn't
> write those proposals, and my personal priorities have been elsewhere both
> within the context of J4 and at Unisys.
>
>
> the
things[color=darkred]
> support
>
> not
>
> There are free components available that run on any platform or in any
> environment with exactly the same functionality and using exactly the same
> interface? That's the problem, Pete. There may be five sets, or fifty,
> each relating to a specific environment and need. Which one is the
*right*
> one from COBOL's standpoint, and why? Yes, the committee is aware that
> there are such components, just as they are aware that anyone could write
a
> user-defined function providing some sort of date/time timestamp in just
> about any form the user wanted. The committee felt that developing a
single
> recommended approach to this problem was more consistent with language and
> application portability than saying "do what ya wanna do".
>
>
> Asked and answered.
>
>
> I believe that's been done. J4 is responsible for the details of feature
> implementation. WG4 is responsible for the feature *content*. J4 advises
> WG4 as to what it believes is appropriate; WG4 either agrees or disagrees,
> and it's WG4 that's got the final say. WG4 is made up of representatives
of
> the National Standards bodies of the member countries. The UK (BSI),
Japan
> (JISC), Germany (DIN), and the Netherlands (NEN) almost always
participate,
> as does New Zealand (SNZ), though the Kiwi contingent was unable to be at
> the most recent WG4 meeting in The Hague.
>
> If, for example, DIN on behalf of Germany says "yes" and NEN on behalf of
> the Netherlands says "yes", do you really think it would be effective for
J4
> to go back to WG4 and say "But ... but ... we can't do that! Peter
> Dashwood thinks it's a bad idea!!!" ?
>
> -Chuck Stevens
> like
>
> I understand that, Peter; the problem is that you didn't convince the
> National Standards bodies of several countries who formally express
> significant interest in the COBOL language that OO and XML handling in
COBOL
> was a bad idea.
>
> I will comment that my recollection of the attitudes of the NZ delegation
at
> the previous WG4 meeting is that they were *adamant* that new features
> should *first* be implemented in "core COBOL" and *only then* would OO
> analog syntax be considered (which is why XML handling is in the language
> rather than in a class library). They didn't seem all that interested in
> OO, in fact. Have you expressed your views on Dynamic-Capacity Tables and
> Any-Length Elementary Items to your national standards body or to those
who
> actively represent it at WG4 meetings? I would say the very existence of
> these proposals for the 2008 draft owes much to the SNZ contingent; if
> they're wrong-headed, you need to express that *to them*.
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-15, 3:55 pm

Some more thoughts, interspersed:

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:31cis8F38doeoU1@individual.net...

> Adding OO to it was a fantastic achievement (a far from pointless adition
> (unlike intrinsic XML and Collections)) and it still leaves me gasping at
> the people who did it, but look at the reaction: Nothing. The user base
> simply didn't DESERVE to have what was produced. Their resistance to
change
> and entrenched conservatism shot it down before it could ever fly.

There are users of OO COBOL; they are just far fewer than either the vendors
or the committee (or the proponents) expected. Most seem to have
implemented the feature content as it existed in Committee Draft 1.4, or
even before; some aspects of OO COBOL have grown and evolved since then.

> Why spend
> time adding collections as part of the standard, when all they have to do
is
> go OO, and they can have all the collections they could ever want, of
> whatever type they want?

Yes, a user can write his own library for collections of objects, and most
likely that library would be incompatible with the analogous library at the
machine next door, whether from the same vendor or not. The COBOL standards
committees *continue* to encourage vendors and implementors to provide a
*single, portable* way of doing things precisely so that that way of doing
things is independent of the platform on which, or the operating environment
in which, the program is running.

> Same with XML. The external free facilities to handle XML are more than
> adequate (if you use OO). In fact they are totally rich, and they are
free,
> for ANY language that implements a COM/CORBA interface, including OO
COBOL.

The New Zealand representatives (in particular) at the June 2003 WG4 meeting
disagreed with you that XML should be supported *first* by the OO features
in COBOL. They also disagreed with the contention that dynamic-capacity
tables and any-length elementary items should be supported *first* by the OO
features in COBOL, or, in fact, that *any* new feature of COBOL other than
those strictly associated with Object Orientation should be supported
*first* by the OO features of COBOL.

Out of curiosity, have you examined the Native XML proposal to get a sense
of what, exactly, it is (and, more importantly, is not) trying to
accomplish?

> I can't see the point in using valuable resources to provide people with
> something that is already provided, if they were prepared to invest in
som