Cobol - Re: Micro Focus position on the "Standardized" OO Collection Class Technica

Author

Re: Micro Focus position on the "Standardized" OO Collection Class Technica

Fredrick.Underwood.Devrie@gmail.com

2006-07-27, 9:55 pm

William M. Klein wrote:

> My experience (both when working for a vendor, working as a member of the user
> group of another vendor, and from years watching this forum) is that actual
> COBOL programmers do NOT code "conforming" COBOL source code, so that
> "portability" via standardization simply doesn't exist.
>

Your experience is obviously limited. I have ported many systems
across multiple platforms and vendors with minimal change. This is
quite a bogus argument. It is partially because of standardization and
conforming compilers that this is possible, and that COBOL is the
success story that it is. I am even aware of systems developed with MF
COBOL but deployed with a different vendor COBOL (with ZERO source code
changes) in order to avoid paying out of sight run time fees.

> As far as this being "short-sighted," Micro Focus has found that the amount of
> current COBOL-only OO applications is virtually nil. OO COBOL on Windows, Unix,
> and Linux tends to exist in "mixed language" applications. Therefore, as stated
> in the paper, MF will continue to work on improving support for such
> inter-operability, but will NOT try and enhance COBOL-only (RESTRICTED to COBOL)
> tools (for OO).

This is such a spurious argument it makes me laugh. Of COURSE there
are few OO only COBOL programs in MF Experience. They don't have a
conforming implementation of the standard so there cannot be any
programs that are OO only. It's like arguing against developing a
hydrogen powered car because you have never developed a hydrogen
powered car. MF obviously wants the standard to be whatever THEY have
developed and not a REAL standard. I am aware that MF has OO
extensions. Compared to the COBOL standard, they are, well - just
aweful. Their ISO2000 directive that allows comforning syntax is

ly
incomplete and if it WERE then it would be possible to write full OO
COBOL programs and who knows ... if there were a way to do it maybe
they would encouter users using it!

William M. Klein

2006-07-27, 9:55 pm

I agree that COBOL programs are portable - and that this is one of the
advantages of COBOL. However, I do NOT agree that portable COBOL programs are
"standard conforming". (Consider COMP-3, GOBACK, USAGE POINTER and so many
other EXTENSIONS that are widely used).

Your assumption that my primary experience is mostly with Micro Focus is simply
WRONG. If you are a frequent reader of this forum, I think you wouldn't have
thought that, but that is only an assumption on my part.

Again, tell me what vendor you are using and I will know to what extent it
"conforms" to the CURRENT ANSI and/or ISO Standard. It is true that Micro Focus
doesn't, but as I indicate elsewhere, there is NO vendor (or freeware) that
does. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the Micro Focus implementation of
OO is the closest to the current Standard of any currently available for
Windows, Unix, or Linux.

The point is that existing customers of ALL COBOL vendors have not provided
sufficient business cases to the vendors for them to provide conforming
compilers. Vendors meet REAL customers needs, not "standards".

Vendors do (have and will continue to) provide compilers supporting portable
COBOL source code. I see little or no evidence that any customers actually
want/need or that vendors are soon going to provide conforming compilers.

P.S. There was some need/business cases for compilers conforming to the '85
ANSI/ISO Standard - but that is 20 years ago. Those compilers are still in use
(and being developed and enhanced).

Again, did you ever try compiling ANY of your "portable" (or ported) COBOL
source code with "conformance flagging" turned on? If so, was it conforming?

Finally, Micro Focus is committed to providing "mixed COBOL/Java" and "mixed
COBOL/C++" and "mixed COBOL/C#" PORTABLE object oriented support. If that was
what the current ANSI Collection Classes "promised," then I think Micro Focus
would support it. However, that is exactly what this proposal STOPS from
happening - as it forces the application to use COBOL-specific semantics in what
is usually a multi-language environment.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<Fredrick.Underwood.Devrie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154027265.476636.184240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
>
> Your experience is obviously limited. I have ported many systems
> across multiple platforms and vendors with minimal change. This is
> quite a bogus argument. It is partially because of standardization and
> conforming compilers that this is possible, and that COBOL is the
> success story that it is. I am even aware of systems developed with MF
> COBOL but deployed with a different vendor COBOL (with ZERO source code
> changes) in order to avoid paying out of sight run time fees.
>
>
> This is such a spurious argument it makes me laugh. Of COURSE there
> are few OO only COBOL programs in MF Experience. They don't have a
> conforming implementation of the standard so there cannot be any
> programs that are OO only. It's like arguing against developing a
> hydrogen powered car because you have never developed a hydrogen
> powered car. MF obviously wants the standard to be whatever THEY have
> developed and not a REAL standard. I am aware that MF has OO
> extensions. Compared to the COBOL standard, they are, well - just
> aweful. Their ISO2000 directive that allows comforning syntax is

ly
> incomplete and if it WERE then it would be possible to write full OO
> COBOL programs and who knows ... if there were a way to do it maybe
> they would encouter users using it!
>

William M. Klein

2006-07-27, 9:55 pm

<Fredrick.Underwood.Devrie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154035740.484705.322500@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

(previous messages snipped)

It seems as if you and I aren't communicating very well. Please DO communicate
your views on providing a Standard COBOL Collection Class specification to your
national standards body and any and all COBOL vendors that you deal with.

I want to correct one thing from an earlier post

You statted,

" Of COURSE there are few OO only COBOL programs in MF Experience. They don't
have a conforming implementation of the standard so there cannot be any programs
that are OO only."

Micro Focus *does* have an OO implementation that conforms to the current
ANSI/ISO definition. They also provide collection classes (as an extension to
the current ANSI/ISO COBOL OO specification - as there is no current
specification for this.)

Even WITH these classes, Micro Focus has determined that most (certainly not
all) COBOL programmers developing COBOL OO applications WANT to use existing
class libraries that are NOT language specific (e.g. the .NET class libraries).

You still haven't answered (that I have seen) which vendor or vendors compilers
you are using and whether you use their conformance flagging features. If so, do
your programs actually NOT use any extensions? (I am certain that some such
programs exist in the world, but I don't think they are very common.)

COBOLsource code portabity is and will continue to be important. Previous
experience (of most programmers that I have dealt with on Windows, Linux, Unix,
and IBM platforms, do NOT restrict their portable source code to syntax defined
in the Standard - but rather to that source code that is commonly implemented.
These two simply are not now (if they ever were) the same.

Having an ISO specification for a COBOL-specific Collection Class will provide
just about as much portability as the definition of VALIDATE (included in the
current Standard) and BIT data types (also in the current standard) and Report
Writer (required, not optional in the current Standard) and lots of other NOT
IMPLEMENTED BY MANY vendor features.

***

If my original post actually gets you to communicate with your "vendor of
choice" and/or your "national standards body" - even if it is to disagree wtih
the Micro Focus position, then I think that is a good thing. If all you do is
call this vendor "stupid" for meeting its best information of what its current
customers WANT, then there is a problem somewhere, and it isn't with Micro
Focus.

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

HeyBub

2006-07-27, 9:55 pm

Richard wrote:
>
> I don't actually see the point of mixed languages. It sounds nice to
> use 'existing skills and logic', but usually it takes more effort to
> re-engineer than to just rewrite.

There are some things you just can't do in COBOL.

Flames, for example.

Or what if, in the middle of a double declining balance computation you
needed the inverse of a 100x100 matrix? AND needed to compose a ringtone to
go with it?

Sponsored Links