| Fredrick.Underwood.Devrie@gmail.com 2006-07-27, 9:55 pm |
|
William M. Klein wrote:
> 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.
Kind Sir, I never assumed any such thing and challenge you to show
where I indicated such in my messages. Your assumptions are what they
are.
>
> 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.
>
This is not related to the issue at hand. Micro Focus wanting to kill
a feature that is vitally necessary for development of Object Oriented
programs in COBOL.
> 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.
Your "usually a multi-language environment" argument is erroneous. C++
does not USUALLY interact with Java. Java doesn't USUALLY (ever?)
interact with C#, etc. COBOL seems to be the only place such mixing
seems to be necessary and this MAY be largely because one cannot use
any native syntax in COBOL to use collections of objects -- something
vital to OO programming.
This mixed language support does not allow one to collect COBOL only
objects. Killing the feature does nothing to enable Micro Focus to
create these extensions as they desire. It does, however,
unnecessarily strip COBOL of a needed feature for OO programming. This
is negativism toward COBOL - which as I understand it, is Micro Focus'
bread and butter. It seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's
face.
THUS it is short sighted and well... stupid.
|