Home > Archive > Cobol > July 2004 > In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
|
|
| William M. Klein 2004-06-26, 8:55 pm |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ddf3d4.115012207@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why is my reception in CLC discrepant with it in the real world? I didn't live
> in a niche or sheltered environment. I worked with people from divers
> backgrounds ranging from CS academics to self-taught g s with low social
> skills. The answer must be in the dynamics of electronic communication vs.
> face-to-face.
>
> Robert
>
Robert,
One more time (in case you are serious in asking why your reception is what
it is) the following is my PERSONAL opinion:
1) You state as "fact" things which are actually (your) opinion.
2) You state as "universal" things which actually reflect ONLY those
environments (no matter how wide) that you have experience with. (Similarly you
imply and even state that any other environment isn't "important")
3) When people correct (by showing exceptions) your generalizations or correct
some of your errors, you either "change what you said" or keep arguing or
otherwise refuse to simply "accept" that you were WRONG in what you originally
postulated.
***
Simply "restricted" your statements with such phrases as:
"in my opinion"
or
"in the environments that I have worked in"
or
"with such and such a compiler on such and such an OS"
many of the arguments that you start (and refuse to accept that you "lose" would
never be disputed).
Similarly, once you do make a generalization or state something as a fact and
someone shows you a SINGLE exception, if you would accept (publicly) that you
were simply stating what you know about specific environments, then (IMHO) you
would be better accepted within CLC.
All of what I state above is (itself) generalization. You HAVE on occasion
stated true "facts" as "facts" and have (infrequently) expressed an opinion as
an opinion and have acknowledged errors that you made. However, your general
(normal) failure to do so is what results in the reception you receive.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-27, 8:55 am |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40ddf3d4.115012207@news.optonline.net...
><snip>
live[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Robert,
> One more time (in case you are serious in asking why your reception is what
>it is) the following is my PERSONAL opinion:
Thank you for the frank assessment.
>1) You state as "fact" things which are actually (your) opinion.
My personal style is to be assertive.
>2) You state as "universal" things which actually reflect ONLY those
>environments (no matter how wide) that you have experience with. (Similarly
you
>imply and even state that any other environment isn't "important")
Same.
>3) When people correct (by showing exceptions) your generalizations or correct
>some of your errors, you either "change what you said" or keep arguing or
>otherwise refuse to simply "accept" that you were WRONG in what you originally
>postulated.
If I'm factually WRONG, I admit it readily.
When there is doubt, I used to add information to CLARIFY what I meant. Here,
clarification is taken as a sign of weakness, so I stopped doing that.
Electronic communication seems pathological -- sick logic. People are more
interested in competition (for what prize?) than they are into sharing
information and ideas.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-27, 3:55 pm |
| In article <40de96ca.156736337@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Thank you for the frank assessment.
>
>
>My personal style is to be assertive.
Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
seen' and 'It IS'.
>
>
>Same.
Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
experienced' and 'It ALWAYS is'.
>
>
>If I'm factually WRONG, I admit it readily.
>
>When there is doubt, I used to add information to CLARIFY what I meant. Here,
>clarification is taken as a sign of weakness, so I stopped doing that.
Mr Wagner, how is it, then, that so many others add information to clarify
and are not seen as weak?
>
>Electronic communication seems pathological -- sick logic.
Mr Wagner, electronic communications might be just another medium which
requires a certain kind of skill; if that is the case then your evaluation
of the pathology above might be seen as, once again, 'a poor painter
blames the brush'.
DD
| |
| Robert Jones 2004-06-27, 3:55 pm |
| Bottom posting
robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote in message news:<40de96ca.156736337@news.optonline.net>...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> live
>
>
> Thank you for the frank assessment.
>
>
> My personal style is to be assertive.
>
> you
>
> Same.
>
>
> If I'm factually WRONG, I admit it readily.
>
> When there is doubt, I used to add information to CLARIFY what I meant. Here,
> clarification is taken as a sign of weakness, so I stopped doing that.
>
> Electronic communication seems pathological -- sick logic. People are more
> interested in competition (for what prize?) than they are into sharing
> information and ideas.
Robert
Assertiveness has its benefits, but can be overdone. This is not an
employer/employee environment. Whether or not it is true or was
justified, giving examples of personal disagreements in the work
environment and how you always came off best with other people
quitting or being sacked gives the impression that that may be what
you would like to happen here, which tends to put other people's backs
up even more. I think, not being one myself, that the most effective
managers are those who can be assertive when the need arises, but
mostly persuade and suggest in a non-confrontational manner, asking
for consensus opinions with reasons then discussing the options. A
really skilful manager probably nearly always avoids the need for
confrontation and doesn't make people resentful.
I think there is great merit in being able to discuss matters of
technique and style while not necessarily agreeing with each other.
For example, in the matter of program efficiency and your sort
examples, I think it is highly desirable to know how to write programs
and systems efficiently at all levels from code level to system
management and which approach is most appropriate for a given
situation. Having said that, some techniques may never be appropriate,
apart perhaps from being a part of going through the learning process,
when I/we/they didn't know any better.
In my experience the regular contributors to this group have always
been willing to contribute information and ideas, when they are not
having a rant <Grin>. Electronic communication is just another form
of communication, in this forum it is not significantly different from
communicating by round robin letter.
Sometimes when reading a response with which one disagrees or which is
offensive (sometimes it's hard to tell whether it is just a wind
up<banter> ), it is best not to reply too quickly, but let the dust
settle first.
I think you have made some beneficial contributions to the group and
could make more, as of course have and can the other contributors. A
least it makes us all think about the topics and reconsider our
opinions, even if we don't change them.
As others have already stated, Bill Klein really has made and
continues to make a considerable contribution to the use of COBOL and
its improvement, and really does know a lot about the subject.
Robert Jones
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-27, 8:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
>seen' and 'It IS'.
I thought it was understood that everything a person says is based on his or her
experience and/or opinion. That's how I take such statements, unless they're
supported by corroborating evidence. Even when evidence is offered, I'm
skeptical about bias.
>Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
>experienced' and 'It ALWAYS is'.
An old gunny said, "If it happens once, it's an incident; twice, it's a
coincidence; three times, it's a pattern."
I quoted him because you value old gunny aphorisms. :)
>
>Mr Wagner, how is it, then, that so many others add information to clarify
>and are not seen as weak?
Because they're not on the receiving end of hositility, thus their clarification
is not seen as a defense.
>
>Mr Wagner, electronic communications might be just another medium which
>requires a certain kind of skill; if that is the case then your evaluation
>of the pathology above might be seen as, once again, 'a poor painter
>blames the brush'.
You're right. I will try to write more carefully .. and less frequently.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-27, 8:55 pm |
| rjones0@hotmail.com (Robert Jones) wrote:
> I think, not being one myself, that the most effective
>managers are those who can be assertive when the need arises, but
>mostly persuade and suggest in a non-confrontational manner, asking
>for consensus opinions with reasons then discussing the options. A
>really skilful manager probably nearly always avoids the need for
>confrontation and doesn't make people resentful.
My style was to manage by empowerment, appeals to pride and other positive
feelings. I found it more productive than appeals to fear. When I have to be The
Boss, I tell people what TO do, not what they shouldn't do. I've never had a
Programming Standard with a long list of DON'Ts.
I sought consensus on questions of style. Perhaps 20-30% of our practices were
the ideas of others, which prevailed over mine. I know, a really skilful manager
would have made them think _all_ ideas were their own. I admire people with that
ability.
>Sometimes when reading a response with which one disagrees or which is
>offensive (sometimes it's hard to tell whether it is just a wind
>up<banter> ), it is best not to reply too quickly, but let the dust
>settle first.
Good advice. Letting it simmer in the subconscious sometimes produces a higher
quality response.
>I think you have made some beneficial contributions to the group and
>could make more, as of course have and can the other contributors. A
>least it makes us all think about the topics and reconsider our
>opinions, even if we don't change them.
By George, you GOT it. I'm not here to win arguments; my goal is to prompt
people to think about style.
>As others have already stated, Bill Klein really has made and
>continues to make a considerable contribution to the use of COBOL and
>its improvement, and really does know a lot about the subject.
Yes. We're fortunate that he's here.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-28, 3:55 am |
| In article <40df23bf.192826650@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I thought it was understood that everything a person says is based on his or her
>experience and/or opinion.
If that were the case, Mr Wagner, then the use of the one might have been
dropped for the use of the other... which, for some people, does not
appear to be the case.
>That's how I take such statements, unless they're
>supported by corroborating evidence.
As my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with the angels - used
to say: 'Never use yourself as a comparative, you'll only be
disappointed.'
>Even when evidence is offered, I'm
>skeptical about bias.
>
>
>
>An old gunny said, "If it happens once, it's an incident; twice, it's a
>coincidence; three times, it's a pattern."
What did this sergeant tell you about 'It has rained now for three days
straight, the sun will never be seen again'?
>
>I quoted him because you value old gunny aphorisms. :)
I've heard a few, used a few and realised the limitations of a few.
>
>
>Because they're not on the receiving end of hositility, thus their clarification
>is not seen as a defense.
So what you intended was not 'clarification is taken as a sign of
weakness' but 'when one receives hostility clarification is taken as a
sign of weakness'? I am not sure I have seen that as a pattern, might you
be able to indicate anyone else who has been seen in such a light?
>
>
>You're right. I will try to write more carefully .. and less frequently.
Recognition of a difficulty is a First Step, some say... most gracious of
you to do so, Mr Wagner.
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40df23bf.192826650@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>Recognition of a difficulty is a First Step, some say... most gracious of
>you to do so, Mr Wagner.
You're a marketing genius. A Twelve Step program to 'break the habit' of faulty
communication has a potential audience of 200M in the US, billions worldwide.
Let's start with bureaucrats.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
| In article <40e00231.249781415@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>You're a marketing genius.
Me? Pfoo, I'se jes' a COBOL-codin fool, that's all.
>A Twelve Step program to 'break the habit' of faulty
>communication has a potential audience of 200M in the US, billions worldwide.
>
>Let's start with bureaucrats.
Perhaps a smaller group might be more manageable... how about starting
with the aestheticians?
DD
| |
| Paul Raulerson 2004-06-28, 8:55 pm |
| What, pray tell, exactly is a aesthetician?
docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cbp7o9$lbu$1@panix5.panix.com>...
> Perhaps a smaller group might be more manageable... how about starting
> with the aestheticians?
>
> DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-28, 8:55 pm |
| In article <7b475f.0406281307.41c71abd@posting.google.com>,
Paul Raulerson <paul@raulersons.com> wrote:
>What, pray tell, exactly is a aesthetician?
Well... it might be what a dictionary says it is... or it might be
something else.
(Actually... it is kinda funny. I used the word in the sense given in
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...va=aesthetician but
I had in mind, as a kind of private joke, the thought that as a
'beautician' applies completely and utterly contrived standards of
cosmetic appearance in the name of 'beauty' so might an aesthetician apply
completely and utterly contrived standards of what is beautiful in the
name of 'aesthetics'... but just now I double-checked at
http://dictionary.reference.com/sea...sthetician&db=* and found that
I'd already been beaten to the punch... line.)
DD
[color=darkred]
>
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cbp7o9$lbu$1@panix5.panix.com>...
>
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-06-29, 3:55 am |
| In article <cbp7o9$lbu$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <40e00231.249781415@news.optonline.net>,
> Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
> Me? Pfoo, I'se jes' a COBOL-codin fool, that's all.
>
>
> Perhaps a smaller group might be more manageable... how about starting
> with the aestheticians?
>
> DD
>
Start with the lawyers. If you break them, nobody will miss them...and
it will be easier for everyone to communicate...
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-29, 8:55 am |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-3E782F.22541628062004@corp.supernews.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cbp7o9$lbu$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Start with the lawyers. If you break them, nobody will miss them...and
>it will be easier for everyone to communicate...
Mr Zitzelberger, that's been suggested before... Henry VI, Part 2, act 4,
sc. 2, l. 76-7, in the words of Dick the Butcher.
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2004-06-29, 3:55 pm |
| In article <cbrddf$2p6$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <joe_zitzelberger-3E782F.22541628062004@corp.supernews.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Mr Zitzelberger, that's been suggested before... Henry VI, Part 2, act 4,
> sc. 2, l. 76-7, in the words of Dick the Butcher.
>
> DD
>
He was quite wise...I think history has given him a bum rap...
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-29, 3:55 pm |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-9CCF6A.08165829062004@corp.supernews.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cbrddf$2p6$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>He was quite wise...I think history has given him a bum rap...
History gave him a spanking?
Oh, never mind... when you said 'bum rap' I thought...
.... gah... getting my mind into the gutter'd be a step or three up.
DD
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-07-01, 8:55 pm |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40df23bf.192826650@news.optonline.net...
clarify[color=darkred]
>
> Because they're not on the receiving end of hositility, thus their
clarification
> is not seen as a defense.
One of the problems, it strikes me, is that what you describe as
"clarification" others may reasonably perceive as "qualification".
If somebody makes a flat universal statement of truth to which a
counterexample is provided, it is NOT a clarification to add "in the
contexts in which I have had experience" or even "in all contexts that
really matter in the universal scheme of things" to it after the fact, any
more than it is a *clarification* to change the statement to include
"'universal', as every reasonable person knows, is synonymous with 'among
the flying pigs that always find themselvesd perched in the palm trees at
the North Pole at sundown on Christmas day' " after the fact.
If someone's statements are *accurate as written*, they won't often have to
be clarified. Or qualified by limiting their contexts afterward.
When someone consistently makes pronouncements in a dogmatic manner with
universal application, and those pronouncements are consistently
demonstrated by others as being meaningful only in a limited context, it
should not surprise that person that continuing to make such pronouncements
and continuing to dismiss the limitations on context as irrelevant is met
with, first, irritation, and ultimately, hostility.
There is a context in which Kuwait is "really" a province of Iraq, and
regardless of the size of that context and how deeply those within that
context accept it as universal fact, there is a significant context in which
Kuwait is *not* a province of Iraq.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Richard 2004-07-02, 3:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> Because they're not on the receiving end of hositility,
It seems to me that the ones on the receiving end of 'hostility' are
those that are accused of:
* creating a travesty
* are 'piss poor' programmers
* have a mediocre intellect
and several other insults you have distributed.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-02, 8:55 am |
| "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40df23bf.192826650@news.optonline.net...
>
>clarify
>clarification
[color=darkred]
>If someone's statements are *accurate as written*, they won't often have to
>be clarified. Or qualified by limiting their contexts afterward.
>
>When someone consistently makes pronouncements in a dogmatic manner with
>universal application, and those pronouncements are consistently
>demonstrated by others as being meaningful only in a limited context, it
>should not surprise that person that continuing to make such pronouncements
>and continuing to dismiss the limitations on context as irrelevant is met
>with, first, irritation, and ultimately, hostility.
I write in a conversational style that assumes the reader will apply commonly
accepted qualifications in a spirit of good will. This forum would be less
interesting if I wrote in the formal 'all "i"s dotted' style of lawyers,
bureaucrats and scientists.
All communication requires the sender and receiver to share a common language,
which embraces more than lexicon and syntax (grammar), it also embraces culture.
When culture is omitted, intentionally or not, words can be interpreted to
unintended meanings.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-02, 8:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>It seems to me that the ones on the receiving end of 'hostility' are
>those that are accused of:
>
> * creating a travesty
> * are 'piss poor' programmers
> * have a mediocre intellect
>
>and several other insults you have distributed.
Touche. Those were hostile words.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-07-02, 8:55 am |
| In article <40e51cce.584325010@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
>
>Touche. Those were hostile words.
Mr Wagner, please notice that on the one hand you claim 'I write in a
conversational style that assumes the reader will apply commonly accepted
qualifications in a spirit of good will' and on the other hand it was not
all that difficult to find what you label as 'hostile words' from your
postings of the past few ws.
It might be concluded, then, that your statement regarding 'a
conversational style that assumes... a spirit of good will' is an
out-and-out fabrication... or what seems more likely is that you are, in
fact, completely and utterly unaware of what you are writing.
DD
| |
| Paul Raulerson 2004-07-02, 3:55 pm |
| Live with it - I just got called a Moron in another group by a 'job ser' who wants to be a
Linux system admin (or an AS/400 system admin as second choice). I recommended
he load Linux a few times and use that as a point with potential employers.
Indeed, I have a friend looking for a guy just like him, and I was going to put them in
electronic touch with each other - but that fool blew that.
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message news:40e519ed.583588217@news.optonline.net...
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I write in a conversational style that assumes the reader will apply commonly
> accepted qualifications in a spirit of good will. This forum would be less
> interesting if I wrote in the formal 'all "i"s dotted' style of lawyers,
> bureaucrats and scientists.
>
> All communication requires the sender and receiver to share a common language,
> which embraces more than lexicon and syntax (grammar), it also embraces culture.
> When culture is omitted, intentionally or not, words can be interpreted to
> unintended meanings.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-02, 8:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40e51cce.584325010@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>Mr Wagner, please notice that on the one hand you claim 'I write in a
>conversational style that assumes the reader will apply commonly accepted
>qualifications in a spirit of good will' and on the other hand it was not
>all that difficult to find what you label as 'hostile words' from your
>postings of the past few ws.
>
>It might be concluded, then, that your statement regarding 'a
>conversational style that assumes... a spirit of good will' is an
>out-and-out fabrication... or what seems more likely is that you are, in
>fact, completely and utterly unaware of what you are writing.
You're wrong on both counts. My statement was not an out-and-out fabrication and
I am aware of what I'm writing. Try a better model.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-07-03, 8:55 am |
| In article <40e6016e.13170814@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>You're wrong on both counts. My statement was not an out-and-out fabrication and
>I am aware of what I'm writing. Try a better model.
Perhaps an in-and-out fabrication, Mr Wagner? Either you were aware of
their hostility when you wrote them or you were not. If you were aware of
your hostility then you were not 'writing in a conversational style that
assumes... a spirit of good will' and asserting that you do appears to be
a deliberate misrepresentation of truth.
Assuming that you were not aware of what you judge as 'hostile words'...
well, that's the second alternative.
DD
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-06, 3:55 pm |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40e519ed.583588217@news.optonline.net...
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I write in a conversational style that assumes the reader will apply commonly
> accepted qualifications in a spirit of good will. This forum would be less
> interesting if I wrote in the formal 'all "i"s dotted' style of lawyers,
> bureaucrats and scientists.
>
> All communication requires the sender and receiver to share a common language,
> which embraces more than lexicon and syntax (grammar), it also embraces
culture.
> When culture is omitted, intentionally or not, words can be interpreted to
> unintended meanings.
The COMMON language of C.L.C. is to distinguish between "universal truths"
(about COBOL or otherwise) and those things that one knows are true in
- some environments
- all environments that the writer is aware of
Once (if) you start making those distinctions, your posts will receive
SIGNIFICANTLY better responses - and your perceived knowledge and credibility
will be increased.
There *ARE* universal truths about "COBOL" about "programming" etc. Many
questions deserve answers that provide such. There are also things (probably
many more than for the former) that require answers that explain for what
compiler or environment they are true.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-07, 3:55 am |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40e519ed.583588217@news.optonline.net...
><snip>
language,[color=darkred]
>culture.
>
>The COMMON language of C.L.C. is to distinguish between "universal truths"
>(about COBOL or otherwise) and those things that one knows are true in
>
> - some environments
> - all environments that the writer is aware of
>
>Once (if) you start making those distinctions, your posts will receive
>SIGNIFICANTLY better responses - and your perceived knowledge and credibility
>will be increased.
I've started qualifying my statements with 'I believe', 'in my experience', 'I
have never seen ...', etc. Doing so forces one to use first person pronouns,
which, outside CLC, are better avoided in discussions that aren't about the
person. To my taste, unnecessary references to himself make the writer sound
egotistical.
>There *ARE* universal truths about "COBOL" about "programming" etc. Many
>questions deserve answers that provide such.
Anything in the Standard is a "universal truth" about Cobol. On programming
style in general, I can't think of any assertion that would go unchallenged
here. GO TO, periods and numbered paragraphs all have their champions on CLC.
>There are also things (probably
>many more than for the former) that require answers that explain for what
>compiler or environment they are true.
I move between compilers and environments so frequently that I find it hard to
remember idiosyncracies. I find it simpler to restrict my Cobol to features that
work the same on compilers I'm likely to encounter -- Micro Focus, IBM, Fujitsu
and (formerly) Realia -- which all began life as IBM clones. Micro Focus has
since gone beyond IBM-compatibility to become the 'gold standard' of Cobol, IMO.
It's unlikely I'll ever again work on AcuCobol, RM, Kobol or Unisys, although I
have used them in the past. Thus, when an extension such as POINTER or GOBACK
works the same on MF, IBM and Fujitsu, that's a universal truth in my universe.
When a Standard-compliant(?) feature such as IF NUMERIC has tripped me up in the
past, that's a universal falsehood in my universe. I would advocate INSPECT ..
CONVERTING as a more reliable alternative. We recently saw here an example of
Class Test not working as expected, yet no one thought to recommend INSPECT as a
solution.
In short, I think we'd profit more from commonalities than from differences.
Rather than asking which compiler, I'd rather say 'this way will work on all
compilers' .. now hastily qualified with '(in my experience)'.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-07-07, 3:55 am |
| In article <40eb48b2.293922576@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I've started qualifying my statements with 'I believe', 'in my experience', 'I
>have never seen ...', etc. Doing so forces one to use first person pronouns,
>which, outside CLC, are better avoided in discussions that aren't about the
>person. To my taste, unnecessary references to himself make the writer sound
>egotistical.
To admit to the limitations of one's knowledge, learning and experience
'make the writer sound egotistical'? What an interesting statement...
consider the following:
'I have seen (x) to be the case... but I have only seen my own small
corner of the world and there might be many things out there with which I
am unfamiliar.'
.... and ...
'I have seen (x) to be the case... and since I have seen it to be such
then it *must* be such, in all places and at all times or at the very
least in any situation which has any value whatsoever.'
Now... cut off everything beyond the 'I have seen (x) to be the case'.
What do you expect to follow?
(There are some who say that what one expects to follow tells a Very Great
Deal about one's personality... but such people are sometimes called
Experts and they often disagree with each other.)
DD
| |
| Richard 2004-07-07, 8:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
> Anything in the Standard is a "universal truth" about Cobol.
There is not a 'the Standard'. The current standard_s_ in general use
include ANS'74, ANS'85, ANS'85 + amendment'89, X/Open. It may well be
that someday we may be able to use the ANS'02 standard.
Given that many issues differ between these various standards, none of
them form a 'universal truth'.
> On programming
> style in general, I can't think of any assertion that would go unchallenged
> here.
That is often because many of your assertions are simply, factually,
wrong, especially when unqualified.
> GO TO, periods and numbered paragraphs all have their champions on CLC.
Your 'assertions' are usually made as a religious cru e against
them. In the past you have been quite insulting about their use,
showing that your argument is emotional rather than rational.
No one requires that you use any of these items, I would not
'champion' them, but I would defend the freedom for anyone to use
whatever style they like (as long as they don't do it in my programs).
> -- Micro Focus, IBM, Fujitsu
> and (formerly) Realia -- which all began life as IBM clones.
The term 'IBM clone' is meaningless in this context. Which of the
several families of IBM compilers are you referring to that these may
be a 'clone' of. Some of these are: OSVS, AS/400, Visual Age.
MicroFocus 'began life' as very restricted subset on an 16Kb desktop
machine and then became CIS Cobol on CP/M and MP/M. It was never an
'IBM clone' but implemented much of X/Open. MicroFocus Level II Cobol
was almost a complete X/Open implementation. What part of X/Open does
'IBM' use ?
Perhaps you are  because there was an 'IBM Cobol' on the PC
that was a rebadged version of Microfocus Cobol/2. MF Cobol/2
included many OSVS features, probably implemented at IBM's request for
this version, but also has MicroSoft, X/Open, and unique features that
are nothing to do any IBM extensions.
> Micro Focus has
> since gone beyond IBM-compatibility to become the 'gold standard' of Cobol,
> IMO.
When you start at the wong place you wind up at the wrong conclusion.
In this case it is: 'has since gone beyond ..'. MF never was an 'IBM
clone', it was always an interactive system.
> Thus, when an extension such as POINTER or GOBACK
> works the same on MF, IBM and Fujitsu, that's a universal truth in my
> universe.
Fujitsu does not document or support the particular MF POINTER
implementation. While the current compiler may work there is no
guarantee that a new version will continue to implement it.
> When a Standard-compliant(?) feature such as IF NUMERIC has tripped me up in
> the past, that's a universal falsehood in my universe.
But it is not a 'falsehood' of any Cobol, but of your knowledge of how
to use it correctly.
> I would advocate INSPECT ..
> CONVERTING as a more reliable alternative.
In what way is a 'INSPECT CONVERTING' an alternative for 'IF NUMERIC'
?
> We recently saw here an example of
> Class Test not working as expected, yet no one thought to recommend INSPECT as
> a solution.
The fault was the expectation, not the class test.
> In short, I think we'd profit more from commonalities than from differences.
> Rather than asking which compiler, I'd rather say 'this way will work on all
> compilers' .. now hastily qualified with '(in my experience)'.
Which is not useful at all when the particular compiler being used is
not one within your preference of a rather restricted subset.
In fact your '(in my experience)' qualification seems to be quite
wrong too. You just said:
> It's unlikely I'll ever again work on AcuCobol, RM, Kobol or Unisys,
> although I have used them in the past.
Your experience (if your statement about this use is actually true)
obviously includes these which _do_not_ work with many of the features
you choose to call 'universal'.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-07, 8:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>There is not a 'the Standard'. The current standard_s_ in general use
>include ANS'74, ANS'85, ANS'85 + amendment'89, X/Open. It may well be
>that someday we may be able to use the ANS'02 standard.
Between 1989 and 2002 the OFFICIAL standard was ANS'85+'89.
>
>No one requires that you use any of these items,
Most mainframe shops have a 'programming standards' document requiring their
use, and code reviews to enforce it.
>
>The term 'IBM clone' is meaningless in this context. Which of the
>several families of IBM compilers are you referring to that these may
>be a 'clone' of. Some of these are: OSVS, AS/400, Visual Age.
Between 1960 and 1983, most Cobol lived on IBM mainframes.
>MicroFocus 'began life' as very restricted subset on an 16Kb desktop
>machine and then became CIS Cobol on CP/M and MP/M. It was never an
>'IBM clone' but implemented much of X/Open. MicroFocus Level II Cobol
>was almost a complete X/Open implementation. What part of X/Open does
>'IBM' use ?
>
>Perhaps you are because there was an 'IBM Cobol' on the PC
>that was a rebadged version of Microfocus Cobol/2. MF Cobol/2
>included many OSVS features, probably implemented at IBM's request for
>this version, but also has MicroSoft, X/Open, and unique features that
>are nothing to do any IBM extensions.
In the mid '80s, MF/CIS/MS was marketed as an IBM mainframe development
platform. Extensions that were incompatible with IBM were not touted features.
>
>But it is not a 'falsehood' of any Cobol, but of your knowledge of how
>to use it correctly.
01 foo pic x.
move 'A' to foo
if foo is numeric
display 'someone does not know how class tests should work'
end-if
>
>In what way is a 'INSPECT CONVERTING' an alternative for 'IF NUMERIC'?
INSPECT foo CONVERTING
'0123456789 ' TO
' x'
if foo equal to spaces
display 'foo is numeric'
end-if
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-07, 3:55 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ebcd11.327814837@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
>
>
> Between 1989 and 2002 the OFFICIAL standard was ANS'85+'89.
>
A) The ISO Standards and FIPS Standards also existed
B) After '91, the "official" US Standard was
X3.23-1991b (If I recall its name correctly - which I may not) which included
X3.23-1985 (base '85 Standard)
plus
X3.23-1989 (Intrinsic Function Amendment)
*PLUS*
X3.23-1991 (Correction Amendment)
However, most "testing" was done against the FIPS Standard (and there were some
differences - most significantly whether the Intrinsic Function module was
optional or required to be a conforming to "High Subset"
C) The X/Open Standard was also valid during this time (and "required" for some
business)
D) Various other National Standards (most notably MIA - again if I remember the
Japanese name correctly) were VERY important for those creating compilers as
well as those doing some types of business.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-07, 3:55 pm |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ebcd11.327814837@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
< snip>
>
> In the mid '80s, MF/CIS/MS was marketed as an IBM mainframe development
> platform. Extensions that were incompatible with IBM were not touted features.
>
Actually, in the mid-80's RM and Microsoft (V1 - before they used Micro Focus
COBOL) compatability were more significant "marketing" features than IBM
compatibility.
It was ONLY with the COBOL/2 product (and there were "slight" differences
between the MF COBOL/2 and IBM COBOL/2 products) was "IBM maifnrame development"
really pushed. The WORKBENCH product was the first major "IBM mainframe
off-loading" product and that ONLY became available after COBOL/2 when GA.
For some examples of non-IBM extensions that were introduced (and "touted") in
earlier products, see:
- Accept/Display and screen section
- comp-5 (and comp-6)
- line sequential
- DBCS (Shift-JIS) support
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Richard 2004-07-07, 3:56 pm |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> Between 1989 and 2002 the OFFICIAL standard was ANS'85+'89.
Which may, or may not, be relevant to the programmer who uses the
compiler provided by the site.
>
> Most mainframe shops have a 'programming standards' document requiring their
> use, and code reviews to enforce it.
No one requires _you_ to use any of these items or to work for sites
that require their use.
>
> Between 1960 and 1983, most Cobol lived on IBM mainframes.
What has 'most' got to do with it ? It also lived on NCR, ICL,
Burroughs, RCA, English Electric, Singer and dozens of others. It also
lived on IBM System 3 and Series 1 and 5150 and others. When
MicroFocus, Microsoft, BOS, and others each went to write a Cobol
Compiler for micros they didn't do it to make a small IBM mainframe
doing Batch and CICS, they did it for interactive systems in a way IBM
Mainframes didn't do.
[color=darkred]
> In the mid '80s, MF/CIS/MS was marketed as an IBM mainframe development
> platform.
It is true that _ten_years_ after Microfocus 'began life' thay _also_
marketed a mainframe development platform alongside their continuing
small business interactive system development market.
> Extensions that were incompatible with IBM were not touted features.
Yes they were, but not in that market so perhaps your experience is
rather limited. For example: They were promoting Dialog Manager which
had nothing to do with IBM, and Screen Sections and SCREENS, and
'Panels 2', they added extensions for writing Windows 3.0 API
programs. They produced conversion tools and actively marketed them
for DG, MicroSoft Cobol and RM as well as the IBM features.
>
> 01 foo pic x.
>
> move 'A' to foo
> if foo is numeric
> display 'someone does not know how class tests should work'
> end-if
Which specific environments will do the display ? Which compilers,
what versions ? (hint: mine don't).
It seems to me that you once incompetently tried an IF NUMERIC on a
PACKED field (which is specifically disallowed) and never learned why
your expectation was wrong.
>
> INSPECT foo CONVERTING
> '0123456789 ' TO
> ' x'
> if foo equal to spaces
> display 'foo is numeric'
> end-if
This fails to match 'IF NUMERIC'.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-08, 3:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>No one requires _you_ to use any of these items or to work for sites
>that require their use.
Economics might. I work on Unix platforms specifically to avoid the tyranny of
mainframe 'programming standards'. In this environment, nobody seems to care
about style standards. Miraculously, we survive without them. Mainframers won't
believe it.
>
>What has 'most' got to do with it ? It also lived on NCR, ICL,
>Burroughs, RCA, English Electric, Singer and dozens of others. It also
>lived on IBM System 3 and Series 1 and 5150 and others. When
>MicroFocus, Microsoft, BOS, and others each went to write a Cobol
>Compiler for micros they didn't do it to make a small IBM mainframe
>doing Batch and CICS, they did it for interactive systems in a way IBM
>Mainframes didn't do.
You're right. But I'm right too. 'Most' means that more than 50% of Cobol
programmers were immersed in the IBM mainframe culture. Do you dispute that?
>
>Yes they were, but not in that market so perhaps your experience is
>rather limited. For example: They were promoting Dialog Manager which
>had nothing to do with IBM, and Screen Sections and SCREENS, and
>'Panels 2', they added extensions for writing Windows 3.0 API
>programs. They produced conversion tools and actively marketed them
>for DG, MicroSoft Cobol and RM as well as the IBM features.
The Screen Section simplified text-mode Green Screens. We've since gone beyond
that to GUI screens. Cobol offers no support there.
>
>Which specific environments will do the display ? Which compilers,
>what versions ? (hint: mine don't).
Best I remember, it was Honeywell .. but might have been Burroughs. The compiler
said IF NUMERIC 'should' be made against PIC 9. If you mde it against PIC X, you
must accept the default substituion, which was S9(1). Thus, 'A' is numeric
because it's a plus one with a row-12 overpunch, according to the rules of
punched cards.
>It seems to me that you once incompetently tried an IF NUMERIC on a
>PACKED field (which is specifically disallowed) and never learned why
>your expectation was wrong.
I'm such an idiot. (Flagillating self.)
>
>This fails to match 'IF NUMERIC'.
Why? It tests whether foo contains the digits 0 through 9.
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-08, 3:55 am |
| Two comments - see below:
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ec9718.379541379@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
<snip>
> The Screen Section simplified text-mode Green Screens. We've since gone beyond
> that to GUI screens. Cobol offers no support there.
>
Check out AcuCOBOL's screen section and Accept/Display syntax which fully
support GUI development.
However, this section of the thread was about (I thought) COBOL in the '80's
when "character screen" I/O was a major (non-IBM-ish) feature of Micro Focus
COBOL via the Screen Section.
<snip>
>
> Why? It tests whether foo contains the digits 0 through 9.
>
I sure hope that "foo" is a COPY of the original field that you want to test.
Otherwise (unlike the IF NUMERIC CLASS test) you certainly have distroyed its
original content!!!
That code is certainly NOT equivlent to the perfectly PORTABLE source code:
If foo Numeric
display "foo is numeric"
End-IF
| |
| Richard 2004-07-08, 3:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
> Economics might. I work on Unix platforms specifically to avoid the tyranny of
> mainframe 'programming standards'.
Standards are for a reason. It allows the code to survive for decades
while programmers come and go each year.
If they went through 'what C did in the 70s', then 'what Pascal did in
the 80s' and 'what C++ did in the 90s' they would now be rewriting
everything to 'what Java is now'. This would require several times
the number of programmers to reinvent the systems every few years, to
no beneit _at_all_ for the business.
> In this environment, nobody seems to care
> about style standards. Miraculously, we survive without them.
Now you have claimed to have rewritten whole systems. In what way
does your rewrite represent the previous system 'surviving' ? You are
also advocating reimplementing to a new style, in what way is that the
current system 'surviving'.
It isn't about _you_ surviving, it is about the _business_ surviving,
they do that by ensuring their systems continue to work for the least
cost. That means using standards.
> Mainframers won't believe it.
I am sure that they shake your head in wonderment at your attitudes,
yes.
> You're right. But I'm right too. 'Most' means that more than 50% of Cobol
> programmers were immersed in the IBM mainframe culture. Do you dispute that?
I only dispute its relevence.
> The Screen Section simplified text-mode Green Screens.
IBM Mainframe green screens were driven completely differently. The
whole architecture of CICS (and many similar products) is completely
different from micro based screen section.
> We've since gone beyond
> that to GUI screens. Cobol offers no support there.
Nor does C or C++ or Ada or many other languages, they do it using API
calls - just as Cobol does.
> Best I remember, it was Honeywell .. but might have been Burroughs. The compiler
> said IF NUMERIC 'should' be made against PIC 9. If you mde it against PIC X, you
> must accept the default substituion, which was S9(1). Thus, 'A' is numeric
> because it's a plus one with a row-12 overpunch, according to the rules of
> punched cards.
So what is your point ? You seem to be blaming the compiler for you
not reading the manual.
>
> Why? It tests whether foo contains the digits 0 through 9.
Well actually, if you had read the manual, or knew the standard, you
would know that IF NUMERIC allows operational signs too.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-08, 8:55 pm |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>For some examples of non-IBM extensions that were introduced (and "touted") in
>earlier products, see:
> - Accept/Display and screen section
True.
> - comp-5 (and comp-6)
I'm fairly sure IBM had comp-5, meaning native integer. Comp-4 meant 'the other
way around'. Thus, comp-4 on a big-endian mainframe meant small-endian while on
a small-endian PC, comp-4 meant big-endian.
Comp-6 was unsigned packed decimal, which IBM didn't support .. wisely, IMO. The
_reason_ for using packed decimal was not to save space, it was to exploit
high-speed hardware arithmetic. Intel, Alpha and Power CPUs don't have those
instructions, so there is no reason to use packed on those platforms. Binary
(comp-5) saves _more_ space and executes faster. On an IBM mainframe, asking the
compiler to reformat unsigned packed would have negated the speed advantage .
> - line sequential
IBM mainframes didn't have the concept of an ASCII text file.
> - DBCS (Shift-JIS) support
A minefield of conflicting 'standards'. Someone said "The nice thing about
Standards is that there are so many to choose from."
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-08, 8:55 pm |
| IBM had comp-5 when it "re-badged" the Micro Focus product on OS/2.
As far as "mainframe" goes, see:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-b...LR205/FRONT_2.1
which documents it as a NEW feature in 2000 (hardly relevant for our discussion
of what Micro Focus did in the mid-80's)
***
As far as DBCS goes, in 1989 when I joined Micro Focus, they obtained MORE
revenue for sales in Japan - than in the rest of the world combined! (This
ended in the early 90's but was true for the time that you were talking about.)
***
As far as Line Sequential goes, it has nothing to do with ASCII vs EBCDIC. It
has to do with the type of file - which is WHY IBM does, now, include support
for LINE SEQUENTIAL in their z/OS compilers. See:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-...3lr20/4.2.5.1.4
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40edcba5.978259@news.optonline.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
in[color=darkred]
>
> True.
>
>
> I'm fairly sure IBM had comp-5, meaning native integer. Comp-4 meant 'the
other
> way around'. Thus, comp-4 on a big-endian mainframe meant small-endian while
on
> a small-endian PC, comp-4 meant big-endian.
>
> Comp-6 was unsigned packed decimal, which IBM didn't support .. wisely, IMO.
The
> _reason_ for using packed decimal was not to save space, it was to exploit
> high-speed hardware arithmetic. Intel, Alpha and Power CPUs don't have those
> instructions, so there is no reason to use packed on those platforms. Binary
> (comp-5) saves _more_ space and executes faster. On an IBM mainframe, asking
the
> compiler to reformat unsigned packed would have negated the speed advantage .
>
>
> IBM mainframes didn't have the concept of an ASCII text file.
>
>
> A minefield of conflicting 'standards'. Someone said "The nice thing about
> Standards is that there are so many to choose from."
>
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-09, 3:55 am |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>Two comments - see below:
>
>--
>Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40ec9718.379541379@news.optonline.net...
><snip>
beyond[color=darkred]
>
> Check out AcuCOBOL's screen section and Accept/Display syntax which fully
>support GUI development.
The 2002 Cobol Standard doesn't support GUI screens, as far as I know. AcuCOBOL
does it via extensions. So too does SP2. For that matter, we could call COM
functions directly.
>
>I sure hope that "foo" is a COPY of the original field that you want to test.
>Otherwise (unlike the IF NUMERIC CLASS test) you certainly have distroyed its
>original content!!!
Yes, it's a copy.
>That code is certainly NOT equivlent to the perfectly PORTABLE source code:
>
> If foo Numeric
> display "foo is numeric"
> End-IF
My code is _more_ portable. It will work on both ASCII and EBCDIC when expanded
beyond the digits 0 through 9. It took some detective work to determine the
seminal posting was asking about EBCDIC. Had it been cast as INSPECT ..
CONVERTING, the difference wouldn't have mattered.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-09, 3:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
of[color=darkred]
>
>Standards are for a reason. It allows the code to survive for decades
>while programmers come and go each year.
Does that mean new development must follow the style of the '70s?
>If they went through 'what C did in the 70s', then 'what Pascal did in
>the 80s' and 'what C++ did in the 90s' they would now be rewriting
>everything to 'what Java is now'. This would require several times
>the number of programmers to reinvent the systems every few years, to
>no beneit _at_all_ for the business.
I don't argue for rewriting old code (actually I do). Again, the question is
whether new code should follow obsolete standards.
>Now you have claimed to have rewritten whole systems. In what way
>does your rewrite represent the previous system 'surviving' ? You are
>also advocating reimplementing to a new style, in what way is that the
>current system 'surviving'.
The Design survived.
>It isn't about _you_ surviving, it is about the _business_ surviving,
>they do that by ensuring their systems continue to work for the least
>cost. That means using standards.
As I said, the businesses did not survive. They didn't fail because they lacked
programming standards, they failed because they were poorly managed.
>Nor does C or C++ or Ada or many other languages, they do it using API
>calls - just as Cobol does.
Correct. They don't call the Windows API, they call COM (or earlier MFC).
compiler[color=darkred]
you[color=darkred]
>
>So what is your point ? You seem to be blaming the compiler for you
>not reading the manual.
I'm blaming the compiler for letting obsolete technology override common sense.
We all know that 'A' is not numeric.
>
>Well actually, if you had read the manual, or knew the standard, you
>would know that IF NUMERIC allows operational signs too.
I didn't tell it there was an 'operational sign'. I asked it to test whether foo
was numeric. When the NUMERIC test doesn't work as expected, the language has
failed, we use workarounds such as INSPECT.
| |
| Richard 2004-07-09, 3:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> The 2002 Cobol Standard doesn't support GUI screens, as far as I know.
Nor do the C, C++, Ada, nor many other languages, what is your point ?
> AcuCOBOL
> does it via extensions. So too does SP2. For that matter, we could call COM
> functions directly.
As indeed most other languages do. I wrote full GUI/Graphical Windows
API programs in Cobol in 1991.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-07-09, 8:55 am |
| In article <40edfe41.13936324@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Does that mean new development must follow the style of the '70s?
>
>
>I don't argue for rewriting old code (actually I do). Again, the question is
>whether new code should follow obsolete standards.
Mr Wagner, this presents a difficulty. One of the things which increases
productivity in a shop - as you have noticed before - is familiarity of
all the coders with a given set of standards for how code is supposed to
be written; you were, as I recalled, quite pleased with the results of a
standards you had imposed on a shop you'd managed.
The question becomes... how does one determine the point of diminishing
returns for a shop's standard? At what point does one say 'Yes, everyone
knows where to find I-O routines and edit logic... but now we have to make
things different and that's going to slow us down for (n) months'?
(After one determines such a thing the question then becomes one of 'How
do I persuade people to accept a decrease in my shop's productivity for
(n) months in order to fix something they have to be convinced is
broken?'... but that's a political question and the one asked above is a
mere metrical one.)
DD
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-09, 3:55 pm |
| Actually sp2 uses only the standard COBOL CALL statement (no extensions) to the
language.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0407082205.73cb62a3@posting.google.com...
> robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
> Nor do the C, C++, Ada, nor many other languages, what is your point ?
>
>
> As indeed most other languages do. I wrote full GUI/Graphical Windows
> API programs in Cobol in 1991.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-10, 3:56 am |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>Actually sp2 uses only the standard COBOL CALL statement (no extensions) to the
>language.
Inside sp2 it must be using OO invocations to COM functions.
>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:217e491a.0407082205.73cb62a3@posting.google.com...
>
>
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-10, 3:56 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>Nor do the C, C++, Ada, nor many other languages, what is your point ?
Decision-makers think C++ 'can do GUI' whereas Cobol cannot. They staff projects
and impose language selection based on that faulty assumption.
I'm now working on a project where all Web reports are written in the 'COGNOS
language'. COGNOS isn't a report generator, it's a business intelligence (BI)
product. Management paid millions for it, then reduced it to a Web report
generator. Reports could just as well have been produced by Cobol using CGI.
Management doesn't understand that. Our job should be educating them.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-10, 3:56 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40edfe41.13936324@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Mr Wagner, this presents a difficulty. One of the things which increases
>productivity in a shop - as you have noticed before - is familiarity of
>all the coders with a given set of standards for how code is supposed to
>be written; you were, as I recalled, quite pleased with the results of a
>standards you had imposed on a shop you'd managed.
>
>The question becomes... how does one determine the point of diminishing
>returns for a shop's standard? At what point does one say 'Yes, everyone
>knows where to find I-O routines and edit logic... but now we have to make
>things different and that's going to slow us down for (n) months'?
>
>(After one determines such a thing the question then becomes one of 'How
>do I persuade people to accept a decrease in my shop's productivity for
>(n) months in order to fix something they have to be convinced is
>broken?'... but that's a political question and the one asked above is a
>mere metrical one.)
A fair question. Progress, in the shops I managed, was made by slow evolutionary
growth rather than revolutionary shazam -- everything changed at once. But it
was important they we were Evolving, not just maintaining the status quo. I had
a vision of the goal and made sure we were marching toward it. The goal was
Quality Cobol. We arrived there in 2-3 years.
As for productivity, we had five programmers doing the work that required 50 at
comparable companies.
| |
| Richard 2004-07-10, 3:56 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> the language.
> Inside sp2 it must be using OO invocations to COM functions.
'Inside SP2' isn't Cobol. Actually the version that I mostly use goes to curses.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-10, 8:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>
>'Inside SP2' isn't Cobol.
Isn't sp2 written in Cobol?
> Actually the version that I mostly use goes to curses.
I've never seen Unix GUI in a production system. I've only seen it on
development platforms, where it looks different from MS.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-07-10, 8:55 am |
| In article <40ef38d0.94475363@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>A fair question. Progress, in the shops I managed, was made by slow evolutionary
>growth rather than revolutionary shazam -- everything changed at once. But it
>was important they we were Evolving, not just maintaining the status quo. I had
>a vision of the goal and made sure we were marching toward it. The goal was
>Quality Cobol. We arrived there in 2-3 years.
>
>As for productivity, we had five programmers doing the work that required 50 at
>comparable companies.
I'm not sure this ansered the questions of 'how does one determine the
point of diminishing returns for a shop's standard? At what point does
one say 'Yes, everyone knows where to find I-O routines and edit logic...
but now we have to make things different and that's going to slow us down
for (n) months'?' or the political question that follows... but I now
wonder about something else.
In the example you give... how many programmers were there when you began
your Long March to Quality COBOL? Did the company start out as a $n/yr
company with 50 programmers, as other $n/yr companies, and in 2 - 3 years
you managed to fired 90% of the programming staff... or did the company
start as a ($n/10)/yr company, with five coders, and Quality COBOL
Initiative allow for a ten-fold increase in revenue without an associated
increase in staff?
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-10, 3:56 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40ef38d0.94475363@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
evolutionary[color=darkred]
had[color=darkred]
at[color=darkred]
>
>I'm not sure this answered the questions of 'how does one determine the
>point of diminishing returns for a shop's standard? At what point does
>one say 'Yes, everyone knows where to find I-O routines and edit logic...
>but now we have to make things different and that's going to slow us down
>for (n) months'?' or the political question that follows... but I now
>wonder about something else.
>
>In the example you give... how many programmers were there when you began
>your Long March to Quality COBOL? Did the company start out as a $n/yr
>company with 50 programmers, as other $n/yr companies, and in 2 - 3 years
>you managed to fired 90% of the programming staff... or did the company
>start as a ($n/10)/yr company, with five coders, and Quality COBOL
>Initiative allow for a ten-fold increase in revenue without an associated
>increase in staff?
The day I arrived, the company had three programmers. The other two left and I
replaced them with five. During the seven year interval, sales doubled (to
$2B), then dropped to its original level. Soon after I left, the number of
programmers increased to about 20.
There wasn't a 'diminishing return' because the new staff had no investment in
the old standard. We created a new standard based on modular programming and,
over 2-3 years, rewrote 2-3K programs.
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-10, 3:56 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ef37b7.94194265@news.optonline.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
the[color=darkred]
>
> Inside sp2 it must be using OO invocations to COM functions.
>
Totally IRRELEVANT to *your* original point. The question was what the
APPLICATION programmer needed to do - not what the "software vendor" uses.
This is why some of us object to your posts. You won't admit that you were
simply in error in your original statement - but instead try and change what you
are talking about.
This goes back to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread.
When you make a "generic statement" and someone shows you a single
counter-example, what you should to (in my opinion - and I believe in the
opinion of others in this group), is to simply ADMIT YOUR ERROR and then (if
necessary) state for which environments or conditions your original "generic"
statement is/was true.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Richard 2004-07-10, 8:55 pm |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> The day I arrived, the company had three programmers. The other two left
It is very tempting to conclude ...
> and I
> replaced them with five. During the seven year interval, sales doubled (to
> $2B), then dropped to its original level. Soon after I left, the number of
> programmers increased to about 20.
>
> There wasn't a 'diminishing return' because the new staff had no investment in
> the old standard. We created a new standard based on modular programming and,
> over 2-3 years, rewrote 2-3K programs.
It seems to me that one may conclude:
Old standards: 3 programmers
New standards: 6 programmers (who had developed with those)
New standards: 20 programmers (who had not developed those)
The number of programmers increased to 20 _because_ of the new
standards, or because the old standards were no longer in force.
Perhaps with the old standards it only required 3 programmers because
they could find everything required to do changes to the system to
keep up with business needs.
The 6 rewrote the system and knew enough about it to keep changes
meeting business needs.
Later, 20 were required because it was difficult to locate required
modifications, changes were difficult to contain, percollating to many
parts of the system, requiring large retesting mechanisms.
Also you said that every employer went bankrupt.
Perhaps even the 20 were unable to keep up with business changes.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-11, 3:55 am |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40ef37b7.94194265@news.optonline.net...
>the
>
>Totally IRRELEVANT to *your* original point. The question was what the
>APPLICATION programmer needed to do - not what the "software vendor" uses.
>
>This is why some of us object to your posts. You won't admit that you were
>simply in error in your original statement - but instead try and change what
you
>are talking about.
>
>This goes back to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread.
>
>When you make a "generic statement" and someone shows you a single
>counter-example, what you should to (in my opinion - and I believe in the
>opinion of others in this group), is to simply ADMIT YOUR ERROR and then (if
>necessary) state for which environments or conditions your original "generic"
>statement is/was true.
I'm not changing what I originally said:
"The 2002 Cobol Standard doesn't support GUI screens, as far as I know. AcuCOBOL
does it via extensions. So too does SP2. For that matter, we could call COM
functions directly."
Now that Cobol supports OO, an application program could invoke COM directly.
Alternatively, SP2 or a tool like it could be written in Cobol.
I admit "So too does SP2" was incorrect using literal interpretation. SP2 does
not extend Cobol syntax. But it does extend functionality in the same way OO
does. Every OO method is a 'verb' that extends the language. There is no
linguistic difference between CONSTRUCT Foo (if there were such a Cobol verb)
and INVOKE Foo 'new'.
Before OO, only the compiler writer could extend the language. After OO, every
developer is empowered to do so.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-11, 3:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>It is very tempting to conclude ...
What? They hated me? You're right.
One was an innocent superstar who has been trying to apologize for 20 years.
in[color=darkred]
>
>It seems to me that one may conclude:
>
> Old standards: 3 programmers
At a failing company.
> New standards: 6 programmers (who had developed with those)
At a vibrant company.
> New standards: 20 programmers (who had not developed those)
At an again failing company.
>The number of programmers increased to 20 _because_ of the new
>standards, or because the old standards were no longer in force.
The number of programmers increased to 20 because the new manager was more
interested in covering his ass politically than in making progress.
>Perhaps with the old standards it only required 3 programmers because
>they could find everything required to do changes to the system to
>keep up with business needs.
A failing business doesn't have many needs.
>The 6 rewrote the system and knew enough about it to keep changes
>Also you said that every employer went bankrupt.
A paraphrase of Groucho Marx comes to mind. 'I wouldn't work for a company that
hires people like me.'
>Perhaps even the 20 were unable to keep up with business changes.
If they'd had 100, the outcome would have been the same. The company didn't fail
because of inability to keep up with changes. I'll withhold comment on why it
did fail. It was about business, not computers.
| |
| William M. Klein 2004-07-11, 3:55 am |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40f08a0f.180824052@news.optonline.net...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I'm not changing what I originally said:
>
> "The 2002 Cobol Standard doesn't support GUI screens, as far as I know.
AcuCOBOL
> does it via extensions. So too does SP2. For that matter, we could call COM
> functions directly."
>
> Now that Cobol supports OO, an application program could invoke COM directly.
> Alternatively, SP2 or a tool like it could be written in Cobol.
>
> I admit "So too does SP2" was incorrect using literal interpretation. SP2 does
> not extend Cobol syntax. But it does extend functionality in the same way OO
> does.
Are you now saying that any 3rd party product that provides a CALL interface to
COBOL is "extending functionality the same way that OO does"?
sp2 extends the range of applications that COBOL can produce by providing a
"well-defined" CALL interface. This uses native COBOL syntax to provide access
to "black-box" functionality via the MOST traditional interface to COBOL.
The ISO 2002 Standard extends the native language by providing OO syntax (and
semantics). There are 3rd party "class vendors" that provide functionality to
COBOL OO programs thru this *new* well defined native COBOL interface.
Comparing an OO 3rd party class system would be reasonable to compare to the sp2
CALL interface. However, to compare sp2 itself to ISO 2002 OO syntax simply
isn't comparing apples to oranges.
AcuCOBOL uses EXTENSION language (extension to both the '85 and '02 Standards)
to provide functionality comparable to that provided by sp2 via native (both '85
and '02) standard language.
Now both of these also provide functionality comparable to that provided by MS
(or similar) GUI class libraries that can be ACCESSED via OO COBOL syntax. Was
that your point?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-11, 8:55 am |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40f08a0f.180824052@news.optonline.net...
><snip>
>AcuCOBOL
does[color=darkred]
>
>Are you now saying that any 3rd party product that provides a CALL interface to
>COBOL is "extending functionality the same way that OO does"?
No. I conceptualized sp2 written in OO Cobol, thus a part of the application
program. I don't know whether it is. It could be.
>The ISO 2002 Standard extends the native language by providing OO syntax (and
>semantics). There are 3rd party "class vendors" that provide functionality to
>COBOL OO programs thru this *new* well defined native COBOL interface.
>Comparing an OO 3rd party class system would be reasonable to compare to the
sp2
>CALL interface. However, to compare sp2 itself to ISO 2002 OO syntax simply
>isn't comparing apples to oranges.
A non-OO Cobol program can CALL an OO Cobol program, or even a nested program. I
did that in "oodemo" posted here. The aggregate functions as an OO program.
>AcuCOBOL uses EXTENSION language (extension to both the '85 and '02 Standards)
>to provide functionality comparable to that provided by sp2 via native (both
'85
>and '02) standard language.
>
>Now both of these also provide functionality comparable to that provided by MS
>(or similar) GUI class libraries that can be ACCESSED via OO COBOL syntax.
Was
>that your point?
Yes, that's the concept I had in mind .. but communicated poorly.
| |
| Richard 2004-07-11, 3:55 pm |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> I'm not changing what I originally said:
>
> "The 2002 Cobol Standard doesn't support GUI screens,
Is this being said as a criticism of the Cobol standard and/or of J4 ?
Do you think that the standard should define GUI ?
If not then what is your point ?
| |
| Richard 2004-07-12, 3:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> No. I conceptualized sp2 written in OO Cobol, thus a part of the application
> program. I don't know whether it is. It could be.
It is not, but it is also unlikely. SP2 has been in use since around
1993 for several compilers while OO Cobol has not.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-12, 8:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>Is this being said as a criticism of the Cobol standard and/or of J4 ?
>
>Do you think that the standard should define GUI ?
>
>If not then what is your point ?
Before responding, I'll put the statement back IN CONTEXT:
[WMK:][color=darkred]
> Check out AcuCOBOL's screen section and Accept/Display syntax which fully
>support GUI development.
The 2002 Cobol Standard doesn't support GUI screens, as far as I know. AcuCOBOL
does it via extensions.
-- end of restoration --
I didn't fault Cobol or J4, nor do I fault C++ or Java. Microsoft's COM and .NET
libraries work fine for all OO languages and others capable of calling an OO
language.
Moving screen functions from Cobol to a common library is analogous to moving
indexed file functions from Cobol to a common database, and moving
communications to common protocol services such as tcp/ip. In all three cases,
the result was higher quality and interoperability. So the answer to your second
question is no, I don't think Cobol should try to define GUI.
My point was that Cobol should acknowledge interoperation rather than extending
the language to give the illusion that Cobol is doing it all .. a'la AcuCOBOL's
Accept/Display. A no-brainer first step would be incorporating EXEC SQL into the
standard. It's a de-facto standard anyway, and integrated into many compilers.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-07-12, 3:56 pm |
| In article <40eff599.142812370@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>The day I arrived, the company had three programmers. The other two left and I
>replaced them with five. During the seven year interval, sales doubled (to
>$2B), then dropped to its original level.
So... one day you walked into a $1B/yr company and that company had three
programmers. On that same day... how many programmers did companies of
similar business and size in that area usually have?
DD
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-07-12, 3:56 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40edcba5.978259@news.optonline.net...
>
> I'm fairly sure IBM had comp-5, meaning native integer. Comp-4 meant 'the
other
> way around'. Thus, comp-4 on a big-endian mainframe meant small-endian
while on
> a small-endian PC, comp-4 meant big-endian.
According to what I see, COMP-4 is the same as COMP -- halfword binary for 1
through 4 digits, fullword binary for 5 through 9 digits, doubleword binary
for 10 through 18 digits, with the leading bit containing the sign.
I'm not sure what COMP-4 is to be presumed the other way around *from*,
since the basis for my description of COMP-4 dates from a 1973 DOS/VS COBOL
reference manual, which I suspect predates a time in which the distinction
between "big-endian" and "small-endian" had shown up on the radar of
programmers at most mainframe shops! COMP-4 seems significantly to predate
COMP-5, and I'd expect the latter to be a variant of the former.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-07-12, 3:56 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ec9718.379541379@news.optonline.net...
>
> Best I remember, it was Honeywell .. but might have been Burroughs. The
compiler
> said IF NUMERIC 'should' be made against PIC 9. If you mde it against PIC
X, you
> must accept the default substituion, which was S9(1).
Such an implementation would, it seems to me, be in violation of ANSI
X3.23-1974 page II-43, 5.2.1.2, Class condition, second paragraph.
"The usage of the operand being tested must be described as display. ...
The NUMERIC test cannot be used with an item whose data description
describes the item as alphabetic or as a group item composed of elementary
items whose data description indicates the presence of operational sign(s).
If the data description of the data item begin tested does not indicate the
presence of an operational sign [note: I'd say this includes both PICTURE 9
and PICTURE X], the item being tested is determined to be numeric only if
the contents are numeric and an operational sign is not present. ..."
Other evidence leads me to believe that the '68 standard (I do not have a
copy) was worded similarly, and I can't find any difference in the '85
standard's wording in this area.
> Thus, 'A' is numeric
> because it's a plus one with a row-12 overpunch, according to the rules of
> punched cards.
'A' is also @C1@ in EBCDIC and @41@ in ASCII. According to the way I read
the standard, the corresponding Hollerith code acceptable to a COBOL numeric
test of either Picture X or Picture 9 Usage Display would be a single punch
in row 1; the acceptable EBCDIC code, @F1@; and the acceptable ASCII code,
@31@ .
Note: the 2002 standard does allow NUMERIC tests against items of category
NUMERIC; it no longer limits such tests to USAGE DISPLAY.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Richard 2004-07-12, 8:55 pm |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
[color=darkred]
> I didn't fault Cobol or J4, nor do I fault C++ or Java.
Java does actually define a GUI (actually two: AWT and Swing).
> Microsoft's COM and .NET
> libraries work fine for all OO languages and others capable of calling an OO
> language.
Whether MS COM and .NET 'work fine' is a matter of opinion. There are
many other ways of having a GUI, many of which can be accessed from
Cobol.
> My point was that Cobol should acknowledge interoperation rather than
> extending the language to give the illusion that Cobol is doing it all
> .. a'la AcuCOBOL's Accept/Display.
You now seem to be saying that the Cobol standard _shouldn't_ 'support
GUI screens', it should only 'support' CALL/INVOKE.
> A no-brainer first step would be incorporating EXEC SQL into the
> standard. It's a de-facto standard anyway, and integrated into many compilers.
EXEC SQL has nothing to do with GUI. It is also not 'integrated' into
many compilers, it is often done using one of a range of
pre-processors that convert the SQL into CALLs. In fact where the SQL
is 'integrated', such as Fujitsu, it is limited to a common subset of
the SQL databases and ODBC that it accesses, which is not always a
good thing.
SQL also has its own standard, it would be foolish of J4 to try to
define its own and thus fragment the standards process.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-07-12, 8:55 pm |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ebcd11.327814837@news.optonline.net...
> Between 1960 and 1983, most Cobol lived on IBM mainframes.
Oh, I think I'd dispute that. I don't think IBM users did all that much
with COBOL until the introduction of the IBM System 360/40 in 1965, and even
then assembler for business applications was decidedly more popular.
In my case, in the IBM shop I started at in '67, they ran a whole lot of
1401 emulation on the 360/40 and a corresponding amount of 7080 emulation on
the 360/65, with all the new development being done in ALC. They later
offloaded the 1401 emulation onto two genuine 1401's, upgraded the 360/40 to
a /50 and picked up a second /50; these two covered much of the DOS Release
23 work as well as OS/MFT. The /65 continued running both 7080 emulation
and OS/MFT. All the 360 "native code" was in ALC; I think they'd begun
investigating the use of COBOL around the time I left in '69, but certainly
none was in production by then.
In contrast, Flow-Matic arguably is the parent of COBOL, having been
developed by Grace Hopper's group for the Univac I and later Univac II, and
upon the completion of the first specification for COBOL in 1960, all
indications are that COBOL was widely accepted in that environment
(certainly by the time of the Univac III).
Burroughs saw enough market in COBOL to build a machine specifically to run
that language (the B2500/3500, introduced in 1966). These (and their
successors) were *very* successful competitors for the 360/30 and 360/40
(and their successors), and assembler code was decidedly the exception
(although ENTER SYMBOLIC from COBOL was hardly unknown back then!).
And there's some evidence to suggest the *first* system on which a
full-scale COBOL compiler actually ran was a DEC PDP-1 (in 1960), though I
can't vouch for it personally.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-12, 8:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40eff599.142812370@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>So... one day you walked into a $1B/yr company and that company had three
>programmers. On that same day... how many programmers did companies of
>similar business and size in that area usually have?
About 50 .. but they weren't on the brink of bankruptcy. The turnaround company
needed new functionality.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-07-12, 8:55 pm |
| In article <40f328be.101028351@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>About 50 .. but they weren't on the brink of bankruptcy. The turnaround company
>needed new functionality.
I... see, I think. A company can be on the brink of bankruptcy for a
variety of reasons, of course... but it seems as though this organisation
functioned with a substantially smaller programming staff than
similarly-sized companies even before your arrival.
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-13, 8:55 am |
| "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40ec9718.379541379@news.optonline.net...
>
>compiler
>X, you
>
>Such an implementation would, it seems to me, be in violation of ANSI
>X3.23-1974 page II-43, 5.2.1.2, Class condition, second paragraph.
>
>"The usage of the operand being tested must be described as display. ...
>The NUMERIC test cannot be used with an item whose data description
>describes the item as alphabetic or as a group item composed of elementary
>items whose data description indicates the presence of operational sign(s).
>If the data description of the data item begin tested does not indicate the
>presence of an operational sign [note: I'd say this includes both PICTURE 9
>and PICTURE X], the item being tested is determined to be numeric only if
>the contents are numeric and an operational sign is not present. ..."
After reading that, it is clear the compiler was in violation. I distinctly
remember writing IF X IS NUMERIC AND X NOT ALPHABETIC. I remember another
compiler that refused to do IF NUMERIC on anything but PICTURE 9.
>Note: the 2002 standard does allow NUMERIC tests against items of category
>NUMERIC; it no longer limits such tests to USAGE DISPLAY.
That must be about packed decimal. Everything is valid in binary.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-13, 8:55 am |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
[color=darkred]
>
>You now seem to be saying that the Cobol standard _shouldn't_ 'support
>GUI screens', it should only 'support' CALL/INVOKE.
"Now" implies a change. I never said Cobol should support GUI.
compilers.[color=darkred]
>
>EXEC SQL has nothing to do with GUI.
It is an example of Cobol supporting interoperation.
> It is also not 'integrated' into
>many compilers, it is often done using one of a range of
>pre-processors that convert the SQL into CALLs. In fact where the SQL
>is 'integrated', such as Fujitsu, it is limited to a common subset of
>the SQL databases and ODBC that it accesses, which is not always a
>good thing.
>
>SQL also has its own standard, it would be foolish of J4 to try to
>define its own and thus fragment the standards process.
SQL permits the compiler .. at compile time .. to submit the statement to the
database engine for validation. There is no reason for the compiler to define a
subset, or any validation rules. The Cobol standard could simply say 'The
statement between EXEC SQL and END-EXEC will be submitted to the SQL processor.'
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-13, 8:55 am |
| "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40ebcd11.327814837@news.optonline.net...
>
>
>Oh, I think I'd dispute that. I don't think IBM users did all that much
>with COBOL until the introduction of the IBM System 360/40 in 1965, and even
>then assembler for business applications was decidedly more popular.
Between 1963 and 1966 I worked at ARCO (earlier Richfield Oil) where the primary
computer was IBM 7044. Code was 80% COBOL and 20% FORTRAN. It was that way when
I started, so they must have been writing COBOL for several years prior. There
was no application code written in assembler. The only assembly language was on
1401s, which were used | | |