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

Author

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

Richard

2006-07-27, 9:55 pm

William M. Klein wrote:

> 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).

Well, _I_ never use those 3 examples, never have. The first two are
IBMisms and no use to me. USAGE POINTER is for C programmers.

> 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".

I think that 'business cases' are more important than 'real customer
needs'. It is in the vendors interest to lock in their customers in by
creating features that the customers, or actually the customer's
programmers, will use as if they were real needs.

> 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.

Vendors provide the ability to port _to_ their special features from
other vendors. They do not support 'portable source code' in the sense
of 'write it for our compiler and recompile it on someone else's'
(except for example MF targetting mainframe development).

> 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.

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.

2006-07-28, 3:55 am

In article <12cio4gg5af1354@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>
>There are some things you just can't do in COBOL.
>
>Flames, for example.

Hmmmm... what about -

MOVE 'POOPIE-HEAD' TO LAST-POSTERS-DESCRIPTION.
MOVE 'AM NOT! ' TO STUNNING-REPLY.
MOVE 'ARE SO! ' TO REPLYS-REJOINDER.

.... and so on.

DD

HeyBub

2006-07-28, 7:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <12cio4gg5af1354@news.supernews.com>,
> HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmmm... what about -
>
> MOVE 'POOPIE-HEAD' TO LAST-POSTERS-DESCRIPTION.
> MOVE 'AM NOT! ' TO STUNNING-REPLY.
> MOVE 'ARE SO! ' TO REPLYS-REJOINDER.
>
> ... and so on.
>

I was thinking about the other kind of flames, like the one's on the
dentist's (played by Allen Arkin) BMW in "The In-Laws":

Arkin: "There's FLAMES on my car!"
Be-bopper: "Thaz right man. They won't wash off and you can't paint over
'em."

2006-07-28, 6:55 pm

In article <12ck5roj9vh9f47@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I was thinking about the other kind of flames, like the one's on the
>dentist's (played by Allen Arkin) BMW in "The In-Laws":
>
>Arkin: "There's FLAMES on my car!"
>Be-bopper: "Thaz right man. They won't wash off and you can't paint over
>'em."

Hmmmmm... and some people wonder if there are reasons for my saying 'I
barely know what *I* think, let alone anyone else.'

DD

Sponsored Links