Cobol - Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000

Author

Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000

Joe Bernstein

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Followups redirected to what I suspect is the right group; it's not a
group I read, so if you follow up to this post and don't send me a copy,
don't expect me to see it.

In article <d31d3207.0403012346.476e7eb@posting.google.com>,
Jbaloun <yonatan62@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Double digits are here to stay and the world goes on it's merry way.
> Besides if the programmers can rewrite all the code ever written in a
> few years, they can fix anything. Lights stayed on. Every line of code
> in its proper place. The coding job of all time, and nobody noticed.

Um, speak for yourself.

I worked as an accounting clerk, 1998-2002, and every job that lasted
more than a couple of w

s, up to at least early 2001, was driven in
one way or another by Y2K-related computer system conversions. Even
when the actual Y2K problems themselves were fixed, the companies
involved were either working to take advantage of the added features
of their new programs, or upgrading other systems that hadn't been
vulnerable to Y2K but had been identified, in the Y2K planning, as
outdated.

So *I*, anyway, noticed plenty.

And many thanks, you guys, for the most sustained employment I had in
my career as a temp.

Joe Bernstein

--
Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer joe@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/>

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:22:27 +0000, Richard Brennan
<rich@skag.vispa.com> wrote:

>
>Or "Might grow soft"!!

Or 'Mike Crosauft' was here!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:47:02 -0600, Peter Lacey
<lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Hear, hear. I suggest that the entire ng, for its entire history, be copied
>onto century-class cd's or dvd's or something, and placed in a safety deposit
>box to be opened in 2095. We won't be here to see it but I'd be willing to bet
>that much of what's on the ng will be relevant then. Ho ho!

I second that proposition!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:26:15 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>That's 'cause you folks have Habitant...

It takes a lot to crack a smile on tight-assed Ontarians!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:03:08 GMT, "canuckistani"
<dontwantanymedspissoff@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Here one would be able to enjoy the rants of the ever-time retentive Doctor John.

I haven't been able to look at my Victorinox watch with the sme eyes
since...

> Here one would chuckle when reading one of Mr. Bernier's many priceless posts.

Tabarnac, 'tweren't nuthin' really!

I'se was jes practicin' mah Anglish is all!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Xref: kermit comp.software.year-2000:154202 comp.programming:127928 comp.lang.cobol:85874 news.groups:133607

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:02:20 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>But the OP is in principle slightly premature : nothing should be done
>until the effects of tomorrow's date, only presumably negligible at
>present - have finished.

Indeed, old pendulum!

I second this proposition!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:05:17 -0600, "Crimefighter"
<crimefighter@deadspam.com> wrote:

>I'd say if you do a remove vote on the group, that any RELEVANT traffic
>about the Y2K program be redirected to comp.software.misc. I can't see
>anyone having to deal with the Y2K problem anymore.

Fare thee well then!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On 29 Feb 2004 08:46:41 -0500, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:

>Put the damned newsgroup out of its misery.

Such a tease!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Xref: kermit comp.software.year-2000:154210 comp.programming:127935 comp.lang.cobol:85877 news.groups:133622

On 2 Mar 2004 05:08:10 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>zzzzzZZZZZZzzzz... zzzzzaaaaaAAAAWWWWWWWW...
>zzzznnnnuuuuUURRRRKKKHHHhhhhh.... whuh? huh? oh... sorry, just... resting
>my eyes, please, go right ahead, you were saying...

Cabal fools are plottin' King-o!

Gerry Quinn

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

In article <mmeo40lk2jrgpsdgusdtmnlo1pc65fbl95@4ax.com>, berlutte@sympatico.ca wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:47:02 -0600, Peter Lacey
><lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> bet
>
>I second that proposition!

What about the year 9995? I bet there's lots of code with 4-digit years
waiting to cause disaster in 10000.

- Gerry Quinn

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

In article <mkjo40tm71osr35vkca9nq8na63vrq8rfo@4ax.com>,
<berlutte@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2004 05:08:10 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Cabal fools are plottin' King-o!

If you were saying such, M Bernier, then it will be given all the
attention it deserves.

DD

Corey Murtagh

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

berlutte@sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:22:27 +0000, Richard Brennan
> <rich@skag.vispa.com> wrote:
>
>
> Or 'Mike Crosauft' was here!

Since we're slagging off MS (gee, how unusual :> ), here's an interesting
oxymoron: Microsoft Works :>

--
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

LX-i

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <mmeo40lk2jrgpsdgusdtmnlo1pc65fbl95@4ax.com>, berlutte@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>
> What about the year 9995? I bet there's lots of code with 4-digit years
> waiting to cause disaster in 10000.

Aw - no one will be using COBOL by then... ;)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:29:41 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Aw - no one will be using COBOL by then... ;)

As an archivist, i think we have to keep historic Cobol artefacts, the
machines to read them *and* expert operators.

Since the Dwarf is quite compact, I propose that he be frozen on the
morrow for the sake of Homeland Security!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Xref: kermit comp.software.year-2000:154235 comp.programming:128084 comp.lang.cobol:85906 news.groups:133901

On 26 Feb 2004 14:08:41 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>And a very interesting discussion it might be to follow.

I think you have more than followed, old trombone.

Hit 'n run, cascadin', google searches, polemics with all and sundry!

My! Csy2k should be kept for borderline burn-out coder can come and
throw code books to the shredders!

Crazy Merkans!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:26:15 +1300, Corey Murtagh
<emonk@slingshot.no.uce> wrote:

>Since we're slagging off MS (gee, how unusual :> ), here's an interesting
>oxymoron: Microsoft Works :>

I spent lots of time recently exploring the registry's mysteries with
an app. name jv16 Power tools. By using different techniques, I
reduced the beast's total entries by 12,000.

In another experiment, I checked the results of a brand new
installation of Window (after a full format) and detected 3 corrupt
entries right off the bat.

'Windows Makes You Works' is maore like it!

berlutte@sympatico.ca

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

On 26 Feb 2004 18:53:55 GMT, me@privacy.net (Jamie Andrews; real
address @ bottom of message) wrote:

> This is a discussion concerning the removal (rmgrouping)
>of the newsgroup "comp.software.year-2000". This is not a
>formal call for votes, nor is it a threat of rmgrouping the
>newsgroup without a vote.

A woman [Jamie] approached the Pearly Gates, and Saint Peter asked for
her social security number. The woman told him, and Saint Peter typed
on his workstation: pearly-gates:~/peter grep 212-53-6432
/earth/human/status

The computer responded:
212-53-6432 Jamie Andrews ja@dragon.com!earth
<mailto:cms@dragon.com!earth>
naughty pearly-gates:~/peter

Saint Peter then told her she was eternally damned, and that a minivan
to hell would be arriving shortly. Jamie began to protest "but what
did I do wrong? I loved my fellow neighbor as I loved myself, I was a
kind, warm, gentle person! Surely there must be a mistake!"

So, Saint Peter looked up on the files, and saw, lo and behold that
she truly was a kind, warm, gentle person...until he saw the entry for
Jan 7, 1992-earth, which read:

***DAMNABLE VIOLATION #69*** Posted irrelevant article to newsgroup.
After probing a little more, Saint Peter explained to the woman "It
seems that on January 7, 1992 you posted an article to
Alt.religion.computers. This article gave no praise of Emacs, no snide
remarks toward Microsoft, and not even a comment on the proper
definition of 'hacker'! In fact, the article was not even relating to
computers at all, and discussed, of all things, human religion! There
wasn't even a reference to Bob or Discordianism, Zen, or the Tao of
programming. Oh dear, this is terrible."

"You see, heaven is a perfect place, and we only have room for the
most perfect people. Ever since we ran the T-3 line up from New
Jersey we've been particularly harsh on breakers of netettiquite.

Didn't you read RFC-23654? The one proposing commandments 11 through
15?" He opened up an XTerm window and searched for some files. After
a few moments, the laser printer spat out a crisp sheet of paper. It
read:

11: Thou shalt not flame spelling or grammar.

12: Thou shalt not have a .sig file longer than 3 lines. 13: Thou
shalt not send "All PC Users must die" messages to 19 random groups.

14: Thou shalt not request post a frequently asked question.

15: Thou shalt not post to a group without first reading a w

's
worth of posts, thereby avoiding irrelevant articles.

16: Thou shall not post administrative requests to the main list.

When she was done, she began to stammer, but Saint Peter stopped her,
saying "I'm sorry. There's nothing I can do. To register a
complaint, you'll have to send mail to
status-change-request@godvax.heaven.com
<mailto:status-change-request@godvax.heaven.com> .

We have a group of cherubim who manage such requests. But be sure
you don't send it to status-change@godvax.heaven.com
<mailto:status-change-request@godvax.heaven.com> , otherwise your
request will be distributed to the whole mailing list. They *hate*
that! In fact, there's some discussion about making that the 16th
commandment..."

At that point, a Dodge minivan drove up and came to a stop. Satan, in
the form of an IBM salesperson, stepped out. "Welcome!", she said.
"We've been waiting for you..." Jamie, almost in a trance, stepped
into the minivan and was whisked away to the netherworld, a world of
COBOL, System 36's, punch cards, incompatible network standards, and
irresponsible news posters.

Satan turned to Jamoe, and smiled. "You'll like it here", she said,
"We have netnews, but we've greatly simplified it. We have only one
group, it's alt.talk.sci.comp.soc.rec.misc!"
========================================
===================

LX-i

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Xref: kermit comp.software.year-2000:154247 comp.programming:128148 comp.lang.cobol:85930 news.groups:134056

berlutte@sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:29:41 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> As an archivist, i think we have to keep historic Cobol artefacts, the
> machines to read them *and* expert operators.

Speaking of artifactual machines - I got rid of my Commodore 64s a
couple of years ago. The Mrs. didn't like them hanging out in the
garage any more. Did they make a COBOL for the C-64? All I ever used
was BASIC.

> Since the Dwarf is quite compact, I propose that he be frozen on the
> morrow for the sake of Homeland Security!

Might want to get his approval on that... Involuntary cryostasis isn't
in the Constitution - yet.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wayne Brown

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

In news.groups LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Speaking of artifactual machines - I got rid of my Commodore 64s a
> couple of years ago. The Mrs. didn't like them hanging out in the
> garage any more. Did they make a COBOL for the C-64? All I ever used
> was BASIC.

Yes, "Nevada COBOL" and "Nevada Fortran" were available for the C64.
Both required the CP/M package (which consisted of a Z80 coprocessor
cartridge and CP/M boot diskettes). The COBOL was a bit crippled -- e.g.,
no nested IF statements allowed -- but it was suitable for learning.
In fact, it helped me get my first programming job; I was a mainframe
operator at the time, and my boss was impressed that I had learned COBOL
on my own time just because I was interested.

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

Donald Tees

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Wayne Brown wrote:
> In news.groups LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, "Nevada COBOL" and "Nevada Fortran" were available for the C64.
> Both required the CP/M package (which consisted of a Z80 coprocessor
> cartridge and CP/M boot diskettes). The COBOL was a bit crippled -- e.g.,
> no nested IF statements allowed -- but it was suitable for learning.
> In fact, it helped me get my first programming job; I was a mainframe
> operator at the time, and my boss was impressed that I had learned COBOL
> on my own time just because I was interested.
>

MicroFocus, Nevada, and MicroSoft all had Cobol's that would run under
DOS. MicroFocus was by far the first, having a compiler that ran under
CPM-86 and MPM-86 well before the PC.

Donald

Richard

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Donald Tees <donald_tees@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote

> MicroFocus, Nevada, and MicroSoft all had Cobol's that would run under
> DOS. MicroFocus was by far the first, having a compiler that ran under
> CPM-86 and MPM-86 well before the PC.

I think that you meant CP/M-80.

Actually I think that Microsoft's may have been the first to run under
DOS. Their PC-DOS version of their CP/M-80 Cobol was availble very
early with PC-DOS.

MicroFocus CIS Cobol for CP/M-80 was 1978 or so and appears to have
derived from the founder's previous work for ICL Dataskill in
producing ICL 1500 Cobol around 1977, perhaps earlier the 2nd edition
was 1977.

MicroSoft's Cobol for CP/M-80 was 1979. There were also versions for
other Z80 machines such as the touchpad POS terminal (as used by Pizza
Hut in UK in the 80s).

RM Cobol also had a CP/M-80 and MP/M version as well as Oasys 8bit
around 1979.

Donald Tees

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Richard wrote:
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>
>
>
> I think that you meant CP/M-80.
>
> Actually I think that Microsoft's may have been the first to run under
> DOS. Their PC-DOS version of their CP/M-80 Cobol was availble very
> early with PC-DOS.
>
> MicroFocus CIS Cobol for CP/M-80 was 1978 or so and appears to have
> derived from the founder's previous work for ICL Dataskill in
> producing ICL 1500 Cobol around 1977, perhaps earlier the 2nd edition
> was 1977.
>
> MicroSoft's Cobol for CP/M-80 was 1979. There were also versions for
> other Z80 machines such as the touchpad POS terminal (as used by Pizza
> Hut in UK in the 80s).
>
> RM Cobol also had a CP/M-80 and MP/M version as well as Oasys 8bit
> around 1979.

I was thinking of the Altos, actually. It ran MP/M-86 on six terminals,
and was 8088 based. The latter ones were 8086. Quite a nice OS,
actually. Completely time-sliced timesharing(no security to speak of),
and a bit weak in the ability to prioritize, but nicer than anything up
until cheap networks. As I remember CP/M-86, it morphed into MP/M-86
almost imediately. CP/M-80 was 3-4 years earlier than that. I was using
PDP-11 & 8's during the first couple of years of the s-100 bus. Did'nt
really get involved with the z-80 stuff and CP/M-80.

I'm pretty sure it was a MicroFocus compiler, but a bit hazy on the
year. Several years before the PC, for sure, and I would think close to
the mid seventies.

Donald

Richard

2004-03-26, 10:59 pm

Donald Tees <donald_tees@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote

> I was thinking of the Altos, actually. It ran MP/M-86 on six terminals,
> and was 8088 based. The latter ones were 8086. Quite a nice OS,
> actually.

I did use MP/M II on 8 bit and went straight to Concurrent-CP/M-86 3.x
which was rather better than MP/M-86 as it had concurrent virtual
terminals - ie multi-tasking at each terminal.

> Completely time-sliced timesharing(no security to speak of),

There was password protection on directories and files built into the
OS.

> and a bit weak in the ability to prioritize,

256 levels of priority, I did have programs that changed the priority,
but usually a MP/M or CCP/M system running an accounting type system
had spare CPU time because the queue was at the hard disk.

> but nicer than anything up until cheap networks.

Often a multiuser system would outperform a network using Cobol
accounting systems because the disk access was done directly on the
machine where the program was running. With a network each station
was saturating the network by dragging the index blocks from the
server on every record read.

> As I remember CP/M-86, it morphed into MP/M-86 almost imediately.

MP/M-86 derived from MP/M II, not from CP/M-86. The CP/M and MP/M
lines didn't have much code in common beyond the ability to run the
CP/M programs.

> I'm pretty sure it was a MicroFocus compiler, but a bit hazy on the
> year. Several years before the PC, for sure, and I would think close to
> the mid seventies.

I don't think so. Microfocus CIS Cobol for 8 bit was 1978, but
MP/M-86 did not get released until October 1981 according to my
references, which was marginally after the IBM-PC of September 1981.

CP/M-86 was first released in Jan 1981 so even that was only
marginally ahead of the IBM-PC and PC-DOS.

I still use the latest derivitive of Concurrent-CP/M-86 - IMS Real/32.

Sponsored Links