| James J. Gavan 2006-05-23, 9:55 pm |
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:gFIcg.184820$WI1.7656@pd7tw2no...
>
>
>
>
>
> J4 membership presumes INCITS (previously NCITS) membership, which in
> addition to the costs of attending the J4 meetings (and the fees to cover
> the costs of those meetings) has its own membership fees, which some private
> individuals have protested were too high.
>
> At the time you're discussing, J4 and the US Technical Advisory Group to WG4
> were separate (the latter consisting of the US members of J4); their
> functions were subsequently merged and the membership distinctions erased.
>
> In the last reference I see, Canada is still a "P" member of ISO/IEC
> JTC1/SC22, the parent organization to WG4, but eligibility to be a Canadian
> delegate (or even to be HoD) is a Canadian question.
>
>
>
>
> Technically, "alternate members".
>
>
>
>
> Last we heard, yes. But, again, Huib was Don Schricker's alternate *as J4
> rep for Micro Focus*; that conveys nothing as to Don's position as chair.
>
Understood - stand-in for Don on behalf of M/F - not automatically
assuming the chair.
>
>
> Wim retired at the WG4 meeting at The Hague, with a ceremony conveying a
> knighthood on behalf of the Dutch government.
>
>
>
>
> I agree; I've seen Huib at several WG4 meetings, and he's an asset to the
> process. Wish we cound get him to cross the pond for J4 meetings.
>
>
>
>
> Somewhat confusing in a case like that, when part of the meeting's J4 and
> all of a sudden everybody puts on different hats because it's become a WG4
> meeting ... and then a couple of days later everybody changes hats again and
> it's back to J4 ...
>
>
>
>
> Sorry to hear that -- but similar rules apply in the US, which does have
> eligibility requirements as to who can be a US delegate, and in our case, if
> I remember it right, that includes attendance at either the two most recent
> J4 meetings as a member or at the most recent WG4 meeting as a US delegate.
> So in at least the case of these two countries, some demonstration of
> commitment to the process is expected!
>
>
>
>
> Even at Newbury?
Yes, even at Newbury. The nearest I got to WG4 was having a supper one
night with Ann and Don, when she was both a member of J4 and Covenor of
WG4. I made a lousy menu selection at a very swish eatery. I'd been
forewarned by Ian that J4 folks are 'thrifty' - you each pick up your
own tab for eats.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, people might expect to show up and get everybody to jump
> on board for one idea or another, when the likes of DIN and BSI have spent
> significant time and effort crafting positions that the newcomer to the
> process might not like.
>
>
>
>
> ISO/IEC Working Group *membership* and *representation* is by *country*,
> just as INCITS/J4 membership is by *company*. One country, one vote, hence
> the importance of the National Standards Bodies establishing positions. And
> the Head of Delegation for a country (to say nothing of the composition of
> the delegation as a whole) is established by the National Standards Body for
> that country some time before the Working Group meeting. What the
> composition of the delegations was at one meeting need have no bearing on
> what it will be at the next.
>
>
>
>
> I remember that we were expecting comments, but haven't received them.
> Note, however, that the Collection Class library TR has not yet gone to
> *formal* international review.
>
>
>
>
> I think that depends on what you mean by "survive". There's a heck of a lot
> of software out there that's still running, and it's still in COBOL, and
> it's still getting recompiled and tweaked so that it continues to run on new
> platforms and new releases of software, and it's still serving the needs of
> major international corporations. Do I think all that stuff's going to get
> replaced by applications written in Java or C++ next w , or next year, or
> two years from now? No, I don't; in fact, I would not be at all surprised
> to see Unisys working to keep its *COBOL74* compiler running five, and
> probably ten, years from now. We started trying to get rid of our COBOL(68)
> compiler in the late 1980's, finally "pulled the plug" at the end of 1999,
> and had customers paying us Many Bucks to continue to support it Just For
> Them for a couple of years more!
>
>
>
>
> I think to a degree the points are orthogonal. There is much about COBOL
> that is Trailing Edge Technology, and one of the benefits of Trailing Edge
> Technology is that, by and large, it works.
>
>
>
>
> Did that, specifically, in June 2003, just before the WG4 meeting in Las
> Vegas, in June of that year. Did everything we could to publicize it, I
> think including here in this forum. Some people came, and a number of ideas
> were brought forward from that COBOL workshop to the WG4 meeting.
>
>
>
>
> Again, I've said repeatedly I think there is value in a standard even if it
> is simply to provide guidelines for implementors as to how a consortium of
> interested parties think a given feature should be handled.
>
> For example, one of the things WG4 has historically taken a strong stand on
> is the idea that new features in the language should be available to the
> user of "core COBOL"; limiting stuff like user-defined functions to the
> OO-style environment does not further the cause of *growing* COBOL, it
> basically is a divisive move.
>
>
>
>
> Might well be. We do what we can!
Actually my thoughts are quite radical, completely disregarding the
setup you have 'grown' into. Two immediate impressions :-
1. Get rid of the friggin document you have at the moment. Over 1,000
pages and still growing - or will be once you start adding the TRs in -
when 2010 ? Seriously you get the ISO imprimatur for 2008, earliest
anybody is likely to implement 2009 - *IF* THEY IMPLEMENT; the earliest
you could get reaction to TRs is 2010/2011 when END USERS have bitched
to their vendor that the TRs don't work so good !
Hint, hint you still haven't got :-
invoke thisCollectionObject "quitIteration"
to break out of the iterative loop. It maybe the way that they have done
it but with M/F if on a conditional test you try to do EXIT METHOD - it
doesn't work; it only breaks out of an iterative loop, (not necessarily
the method), with 'quitIteration'.
The replacement for the existing documentation - triggered by Richard
posting those ICL syntax crib sheets, which of course are in most LRMs.
If for example it's 'INSPECT REPLACING' show the standard syntax
IMMEDIATELY followed by umpteen examples showing all the options. Use
*absolute* minimal wording to describe any nuances which may apply.
You may recall I posted something for Chris where he wanted a picture of
a box. Did it with the M/F Screen Section syntax. I was real clever ! No
I wasn't - I cribbed it from an existing M/F example. I can assure you
that if I had bothered to read the M/F 'words' for the extended syntax I
would probably never have latched on to the features available. Two
'goes' at adjusting the existing example which was for a two-dimensional
table, gave me the result that I could just code DISPLAY SCREEN-BOX, a
reference to a 50 x 25 Table.
2. What follows from #1 above - more or less your COBOL test suite
BECAUSE "somebody" having taken the first shot, (a developer at IBM,
Unisys, Liant, Acu, M/F, F/J, Fujitsu-Siemens, KOBOL, Open Source
etc...), you publicise the site to the outside world for the examples
and a small dedicated group receives enhanced/updated examples which
they accept/reject and if OK are further added to the list of examples.
This example thing is not a new one; I believe it was a topic at J4
about five years back. Trouble is you work for people who pay you but
you want US (Certainly most PC-users, the people that have to pay
ourselves), to initiate this idea.
Just those two points alone show how radically different our thoughts are.
>
>
>
> I'll be 62 next month ... ;-(
And should be showing a bit more responsibility at that age ! Visions of
somebody fitted out with a biker helmet emblazoned with Teutonic
symbols, studded jacket, and the boots of course. Jerome G could have
asked his brother Art to come up with different lyrics, to that lovely
theme which you could have hummed to yourself while on the road,
(H. David, A. Hammond)
Keeping my eyes on the road, I see you.
Keeping my hands on the bars, I'll greet you.
99 Miles From J4, I miss you, I miss you, please be there.
Passing the cryptic agenda, we're sailing.
Turning the laptops on, we're dancing.
99 Miles From J4, I want you, I need you, please be there.
The windshield is covered with rain, I'm cryin'.
(** Have you got one on your bike ? )
Pressing my foot on the gas, I'm flyin'.
Counting the e-mails, I'll mail you.
Reading the TRs on my tank, I'll write you.
99 Miles From J4, we're laughing, we're loving, please be there.
Counting the e-mails, I'll mail you.
Reading the TRs on my tank, I'll write you.
99 Miles From J4, we're laughing, we're loving, please be there.
Puhleese be there !
:-)
Don't rush to respond - I'm vacationing for a w.
Jimmy
|