Cobol - RW - yet again (was: If you were inventing CoBOL...

Author

RW - yet again (was: If you were inventing CoBOL...

William M. Klein

2004-09-21, 3:55 am

"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
news:1pcuk09fc58birlncs7nmdg4b73hq7eo01@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:22:01 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
<snip>
> PC Cobol hasn't become dominant, but non-mainframe technologies now
> dominate the computer industry .. including Cobol's former stronghold:
> general business in medium to large companies. Fewer than ten percent
> of full-time programmers are working in Cobol.
>

Robber the only *VALID* conclusion from the statement (that I won't even agree
is true)

Fewer than ten percent of full-time programmers are working in Cobol.

Is

COBOL jobs are not predominant.

***

Making an assumption about what TECHNOLOGY is dominate in the computer industry
from what JOBS are dominate in the industry is a wild (in my opinion) leap of
assumption.

The simple fact is that for many (but I don't have the statistics to tell you
what percentage) of "workstation interface applications" there are MAINFRAME
applications/programs that interface with the data. In many cases, these are
existing ("legacy") applications that require little or no maintenance - much
less new development. But if you took away the "mainframe technology", then the
chances are:

- you wouldn't see any utility bills (hard-copy or online)
- credit card transactions
- banking transactions
- insurance claims processing

or MANY many other types of "general business as we know it today"

***

In general,
Robert would you PLEASE stop making conclusions from what types of jobs you
see (especially jobs advertised on US-or-English-speaking websites) other than
what jobs are advertised there.

I would certainly guess (and this is a PERSONAL guess) that getting a COBOL
mainframe development job - searching via the web, might be difficult and might
not lead to the HIGHEST paying job available via a web search. But guessing
what development is being done on mainframes (or via mainframe COBOL) from this
limited database is simply an erroneous piece of logic.

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

William M. Klein

2004-09-21, 8:55 am

Robert,
In your post - visible at:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=two+...line.net&rnum=5

you state,

"I haven't touched a mainframe in 20 years."

so, when you state in this thread,

> More broadly, that credit cards or insurance claims cannot be
> processed on non-mainframe platforms more efficiently?
>
> I know they can because I've done it both ways.

Do you acknowledge that the "mainframe" side of this experience is over 20 years
old (and hence FAR from current mainframe technology) or were you in error when
you said that you hadn't touched such an environment for 20 years?

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
news:11puk09ne04r3qkuv66l7uneeis1netepe@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:16:43 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> All things equal and over the long run, demand should reflect usage.
> Do you have any evidence that Web job sites are biased? That turnover
> varies by technology?
>
> More broadly, that credit cards or insurance claims cannot be
> processed on non-mainframe platforms more efficiently?
>
> I know they can because I've done it both ways.

William M. Klein

2004-09-21, 8:55 am

I need to correct my *partial* quote of RW's original statement. The full
sentence was

"Excepting two years during Y2K, I haven't touched a mainframe in 20 years."

However, I hardly think that Y2K programming (remediation) would qualify one for
commenting on *CURRENT* mainframe technology for doing credit card or insurance
processing.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bZN3d.1762995$y4.305729@news.easynews.com...
> Robert,
> In your post - visible at:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?q=two+...line.net&rnum=5
>
> you state,
>
> "I haven't touched a mainframe in 20 years."
>
> so, when you state in this thread,
>
>
> Do you acknowledge that the "mainframe" side of this experience is over 20
> years old (and hence FAR from current mainframe technology) or were you in
> error when you said that you hadn't touched such an environment for 20 years?
>
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
> news:11puk09ne04r3qkuv66l7uneeis1netepe@
4ax.com...
>
>

Sponsored Links