Home > Archive > Cobol > April 2007 > Is there a mainframe skills shortage?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Is there a mainframe skills shortage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gary drummond 2007-03-29, 3:55 am |
| Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> http://searchdatacenter.techtarget....1249301,00.html
> ?track=NL-576&ad=583919&asrc=EM_NLT_1201842&uid=1303979
>
> Frank
>
Very interesting article, with more meat in it than the various FUD
being released about the "legacy" environment. A few of the links on the
same page also bring a little more *sanity* to a discussion on mainframe
skills.
I agree that much, if not most, activity is in replacing the mainframe
OS with Linux, or other Unix-like OS, even on the existing hardware in
some cases. Also, that does nothing for the areas that mainframes were,
and still are, years ahead of most Win/Unix-like systems. Grid computing
is about the closest anything comes to mainframe scheduling, except for
it's limited use in a large transaction/database environment. The
Integrated Recovery and Step Control I used on Sperry/Unisys mainframes
is also years ahead of anything available, even on Sun 15K and other
large fail-safe environments. Education is another point I agree with in
the above article(s). It sucks! hardware and operations are even more
critical in their training requirements than programmers. They can't
even find relevant training, much like programmers. It's also very
difficult for current programmers to pass on their knowledge because
they write COBOL programs to implement business rules, and today's crop
is taught to implement algorithms with style.
When I had too much time on my hands in 1997-1999, I took a part-time
position at the local Community College. We had the full Academic MF
COBOL Suite-all the bells and options. There was a waiting list for the
different levels of COBOL, CICS, and IBM ASM classes. Most of the
students were from Russia, with the rest split between University
students wanting some mainframe classes, and employees from several
large Financial Corps in town-First Data, Mutual of Omaha,...
Scanning their website today, I noticed only a single COBOL I class each
session this year, no IBM ASM-just Intel, and no CICS. I guess they have
moved to more "modern" environments. It could be that the local jobs
have been outsourced to Russia or India, and there is no local demand
any more, or the companies do their own training.
My local Metro here (KS), JCCC, has converted to mostly teaching the
vendor's certification classes, plus administering the tests-for the
same price as the vendors. My experiences working with people with A+,
M$ and Unix certifications, are not happy ones. The Brainbench Certs
were *much* harder, and related to the real-world compared to Win, Red
Hat, or Sun Certs.
In my view (or it used to be), the "modern" workplace is like the legacy
workplace, a few good people can carry a lot of not-so-good ones. With
the hype-riddled FUD being spouted by industry *experts*, who depend on
FUD to keep their jobs, I don't see a bright future ahead. The education
available today does not lend itself to helping, so far as the article's
major points are concerned. Outsourcing => lower # jobs => less need for
training => no classes. Articles like Frank linked to can help, if
someone (that *counts*) pays attention.
Gary
"x"=someone else's term,*x* = as always.
Now some fun, but often true rants by *old* and *new* alike...
If the total workload cannot be ported or converted to run on Windows or
Unix, it's obviously a management problem. (IRS? SSA?)
Yes, there is a shortage of IT people who work in the US (for Russian or
Indian pay scales).
We need a 64-bit GUI OS, and 64-bit GUI software *before* we can replace
the old mainframes (that somehow work with 32/36-bits and no GUI).
We need hardware that better supports batch/transaction/database
environments, and that *can* run Windows-since Windows and the GUI-based
programming paradigm *cannot* possibly be at fault.
It's *not* the fault of today's hardware. Just because the micro that
started life as an embedded controller *still* doesn't have the
instruction and data protection capabilities of most mainframes, or the
fact that the PCI/DMA chips which were developed for small computers
cannot compete with smart block mux I/O channel modules, or I/O
processors with full access to memory *and* and up to several hundreds
of concurrent I/O channels!
Higher concurrent, or parallel, rates of I/O, to and from memory, will
result in faster throughput-for systems where file access, and database
applications are in the majority.
The *amount* of mass storage available does very little to increase
throughput, if the data is forced through a straw (even a big one),
because it very often has to be moved before it can be used by a
program. Caching in memory is nice, except it also restricts programs
resident in memory, and often causes even more I/O. Many implementations
will perform a swap to storage and back, before performing a memory to
memory transfer, if the load on the CPU or system is less, or a channel
can be configured as back-to-back or loop-back.
My PC with 4GB of memory can only use half of it because of the memory
model/DMA/PCI designs used in the PC-ala M$ PAE memo, to avoid double
buffering I need 64-bit capabilty, and another 4GB, which I guess leaves
32+ bits for me and my programs? :-)
How did my first mainframes, with only 1/1.5MB of memory and 48 channels
get so much work done (world-wide weather database updated via 400 comm
ports, and forecasts computed every 6 hours), when my PC is so much
bigger, faster, and has more storage? I even have graphics too!
If this were a blog...
Gary
A PC or six
Several keyboards-stained with beer
A bag of marbles (underfoot)
A bag of chips and some dip(my neighbor)
..
..
| |
| gary drummond 2007-03-29, 3:55 am |
| Tom wrote:
> On Mar 28, 4:26 pm, "Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbr...@efirstbank.com>
> wrote:
>
> The link didn't work
>
The underlined part (1st line) worked for me, I think the second is for
a feed?
Gary
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-03-29, 3:55 am |
|
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
news:460A7B1A.6F0F.0085.0@efirstbank.com...
> http://searchdatacenter.techtarget....1249301,00.html
> ?track=NL-576&ad=583919&asrc=EM_NLT_1201842&uid=1303979
>
> Frank
>
This article really lightened my day... It is raining here (bloody
Autumn...Grrr...) and I finally managed to get a COBOL component working as
a Web Service (after days of frustration), so I decided to take a break from
serious work and respond to the article. Since some of you can't see it,
I've reproduced it here and interspersed my comments... Everything in quotes
is from the article and I've used a few dashes to separate out the article
and the responses. A group of equals signs represents the beginining of a
response...If you want to remove my insightful witty observations and simply
reconstruct the article, just delete everything between a row of equals and
a row of dashes ;-)...
------------------------------------------------
"I've got a lot of respect for much of the market research that Gartner
produces -- but in this case I believe that Gartner is just plain wrong. "
================================
Immediately, we realise this is going to be insightful...:-)
As far as I'm concerned, I've NEVER seen anything from Gartner that looked
even remotely probable, never mind likely...Still, it's nice to see that at
least one of the Faithful is backsliding...:-)
-------------------------------------------------
"In a recent research note, "Impact of Generational IT Skill Shift on Legacy
Applications", Gartner suggests that a pending, projected decrease in
mainframe-skilled individuals may be a reason to migrate to other,
"more-modern application platforms".
The logic is that as baby-boomer mainframe coders and administrators leave
the workforce over the next five to seven years, mainframe shops
(particularly the smaller ones) are going to have great difficulty managing
their mainframe environments or maintaining legacy COBOL code. Thus, IT
executives should start planning to go to other platforms. "
==================================
While this is certainly a consideration, there are many much better reasons
to migrate away from COBOL... (Interoperability would be a major one in my
book...COBOL does NOT play nicely or easily with other languages. Some
others: COBOL does not sit well on the Network (unless the "network" is
being run from a centralized mainframe), COBOL objects are difficult to
share (unless you wrap them as something else, and always assuming you even
took the trouble to learn OOP in the first place...), COBOL has a major
emphasis on maintaining Source Code and this is error prone and
outdated...etc.)
-------------------------------------------------
"However, this Gartner report failed to identify which specific skills were
"at risk." Additionally, it failed to identify that there is a skills
shortage across the entire IT industry and not just in the mainframe market.
Furthermore, this mainframe skills shortage problem is geographical; and all
of the new improvements that IBM is making in mainframe management may
actually reduce the number of people needed to manage mainframes in the
future, as well as reduce the skills needed to manage mainframe
environments. "
=================================
That seems pretty fair comment. Looks like its "System Programmers" who are
at risk :-)
-------------------------------------------------
Based on interviews with IT executives, university professors, IT
recruiters, and IBM:
=================================
I had coffe with my Boss, my tutor, my pimp, and our IBM rep.... :-)
--------------------------------------------------
a.. Some mainframe skills are indeed in short supply;
b.. Other skills are readily available (especially Java/Linux skills);
and,
c.. The projected need for an army of mainframe-skilled IT professionals
to replace the existing generation of soon-to-retire mainframers may never
materialize.
COBOL programming
The term "mainframe skills" needs to be better defined. In my research, I
found that IT managers, recruiters, and university professors have generally
separated "mainframe skills" into four groups:
1.. COBOL programmers (applications developers and code maintainers);
2.. Administrators and managers (with CICS, zOS, and systems management
skills);
3.. Operations/planning staffs (business/design consultants, DBAs, and the
like); and,
4.. New applications designers (Java/Linux skill sets).
It is estimated that there are between 150 billion and 200 billion lines of
COBOL code in play in the mainframe marketplace today with several billions
of lines added annually.
==================================
But it was Gartner who estimated it.... now it has become an "Everybody
knows" urban factoid. (At least in COBOL mainframe circles...)
---------------------------------------------------
Despite rumors of its forthcoming demise, COBOL development is not going
away anytime soon.
==================================
Depends what you mean by "soon". I stated in 1996 that I believed there
would be negligible COBOL development going on by 2015. I stand by it. Seven
years (and a bit :-). Not really encouraging if you are planning a new
career (and if I'm right, of course...) :-)
---------------------------------------------------
Still, given the huge base of COBOL code in the market today, IT executives
who run mainframe shops should be very concerned about maintaining COBOL
skills over time. But, is there a critical COBOL skills shortage in the
world today? Will there be a critical COBOL skills shortage in the
foreseeable future?
==================================
Insert the word "alleged" between "the" and "huge" in the first sentence...
Even if it ISN'T huge, people who run shops where it is used should be
concerned. I notice the author says "mainframe" rather than COBOL, as if the
two are inseparable...they are not.
---------------------------------------------------
As I interviewed IT executives, IT recruiters, and university professors,
the following picture developed: IT executives who are able to outsource
their COBOL development and maintenance claim that there is no COBOL
resource shortage. COBOL skills are "easy to find" in India and elsewhere.
IT executives who cannot take advantage of outsourcing due to security or
legislative restrictions are forced to rely on domestic COBOL programmers
who are in comparatively short supply. These programmers usually make
themselves available on a contract basis and usually at premium prices.
==================================
However, the fact that COBOL skills are easily obtainable from outsourcing
is cold comfort to those programmers who put all their eggs in the COBOL
basket and do NOT live in India...
It is interesting to me that the general perception by many in the West is
one of thousands of Indians beavering away in COBOL, as if that was all they
can handle. Such is very much not the case. Indian and Pakstani programmers
are at the cutting edge in Java, C#, C++, OO, Web design and services,
search engine optimization, and functional programming. Many individuals and
companies in India are realising that COBOL is a dead horse and will ride it
for the money, as long as there is a market, but they are not neglecting
their futures either. There are some very bright and capable people
emerging from this part of the world and they are not likely to be satisfied
with COBOL programming for decades, as some of us were (or had to be, given
no alternative...)...
Over the last few days I have been reading white papers and articles about
web services and SOA. Some of these articles are written by people who can
hardly speak English (let alone write it), yet their knowledge and
understanding shines through. Seeing India as simply a place to obtain cheap
COBOL skills is way off the beam. It is not only COBOL jobs that will end up
there. (And all this before we even begin to consider China... :-))
----------------------------------------------------
"There is a perception in the United States and the European Union that
COBOL is a dying programming language (in fact, one professor told me that
there is an outright bias against COBOL at some universities). As a result,
the current generation of U.S. and E.U. object-oriented programmers want
little to do with COBOL. And further research showed that few U.S./E.U
universities still offer COBOL courses."
===================================
Hardly surprising, given that the COBOL establishment wanted little or
nothing to do with object orientation. Given that the world has voted with
its feet and decided Procedural programming is not the best paradigmn, it is
understandable that they are not interested in COBOL. I don't believe this
is a "bias against COBOL"; rather, it is simple pragmatism. Are the
engineers at Ford and General Motors biased against horses? No, they have
just moved on. (Some of them probably own and enjoy riding horses, too)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Some enterprises face an additional hurdle ? a requirement to "own" their
COBOL talent; in other words, a requirement to directly employ COBOL
programmers. For instance, several government organizations require that
their computer systems personnel be full-time, salaried employees, some for
security reasons and others to limit expenditures on contract labor. There
is clearly a shortage of COBOL talent in the U.S. and the E.U. ? and having
to find permanent, full-time COBOL help presents a real challenge. For
enterprises with these special requirements, finding and keeping COBOL
talent can be expensive."
====================================
If they haven't realized by now that maintaining salaried COBOL people long
term is stupid, then they deserve whatever they get. The security is a myth
(just because someone is salaried doesn't mean they won't spill the beans if
the offer is attractive enough), and the idea that permanent employees are
cheaper than contract resources is patently false, if you consider fixed
overheads, paid holidays, sick leave, pension, insurance, and any other
"perqs" of the job. Yes, a six month contract may cost as much as nine
months full time (or even more), but you only do it for six months, not for
the life of the employee. (Of course if you can persuade some poor soul that
they have a job for life then fire them 3 years down the track, you can
probably win, over contracting your requirement out, but you still have to
sleep nights :-), and how long before the word gets around, and so nobody
will work for you, contract or permanent...?)
-----------------------------------------------------
"However, some university professors are promoting the message that "COBOL
will make you marketable". Several of these professors mentioned that they
inform their students that COBOL-skilled individuals are able to command
higher salaries than their object-oriented, Java counterparts. Some domestic
U.S. students are buying this message. By comparison, this message is
playing really well at IBM's Shanghai mainframe development lab where COBOL
enrollments are way up and the money chase is on."
===================================
While I hope they are right, I seriously doubt it. (Maybe in Shanghai... for
now...). Certainly there is less COBOL skill around than Java, no argument.
But that is just a further incentive to move to Java...
-----------------------------------------------------
"Mainframe systems administration and management
As I researched skills shortages in the areas of administration and
management, I found hundreds-upon-hundreds of openings posted on employment
sites. These sites show that there is clear demand for mainframe
administrative and management skills. Further, a large number of these
postings often go unfulfilled over a thirty-day period, indicating to me
that enterprises are having trouble filling these positions. "
====================================
If there are "hundreds-upon-hundreds" then, obviously, there are not enough
people to fill these jobs, OR, the rates are not high enough to attract
people with the right skills. Why would you just automatically assume the
former?
------------------------------------------------------
"However, one IT recruiter told me that "the demand for mainframe skills
pales in comparison to the demand for hardware technicians, help desk staff,
and client/server database administrators ? particularly Oracle and SQL
Server database administrators." The problem of finding individuals with
computer skills is not solely a mainframe problem ? it's a problem across
the entire computing industry. On the day that I visited Dice.com's Web
site, I found that there were four times as many jobs that needed to be
filled in non-mainframe disciplines. In short, there's a major shortage of
trained IT talent across the industry. "
====================================
Yes, that MAY be so, or it MAY be that enough isn't being paid to get the
right people. It also raises the question of how the industry continues to
function WITHOUT these people... Could it be that much of this is simply
"empire building" by middle managers?
It is also true that the skill set needed to run a Help Desk is far removed
from the skill set needed to maintain a z/OS system and keep it running. We
are talking here about diverse skill sets, some of which can only really be
acquired "in the field" (not from a Computing Science course).
-------------------------------------------------------
"Modern mainframes, operations and planning
Finding mainframe database administrators, business consultants, business
process flow experts, designers, integrators, and testers is difficult. But
this is a cross-industry problem. There are still thousands of jobs posted
for mainframe design, implementation, testing, and communications positions.
This tells me that enterprises are still strategically committed to
mainframes as back-end database servers, transaction engines, and security
hubs. They are not looking to abandon or "re-platform" their mainframes.
Over the past five years, IBM has reinvented the mainframe and endowed it
with new processing capabilities. These capabilities include specialty
processing engines (zIIP and zAAP), as well as the ability to run thousands
of Linux instances on a mainframe platform. This ability to run the Linux
operating environment, and accompanying Java applications, modernizes the
mainframe. It makes it possible to use mainframes to run modernized
(non-COBOL legacy) applications. And, the ability to run these modern
workloads solves a big problem for mainframe buyers because there are plenty
of fresh college graduates available who have been trained on Java/Linux
platforms. If an enterprise purchases a mainframe to run Java/Linux
workloads, that enterprise is likely to experience fewer problems finding
the skills needed to run its mainframes.
Retiring mainframe staff and future managers
I could find no studies that showed how many mainframers are about to reach
retirement age. It is reasonable to expect that the bulk of these
retirements will occur between five and twelve years from now as this is the
timeframe when most of the baby-boomers reach retirement age. These
retirements will happen in a phased manner, and some prospective retirees
will not retire at all, working beyond official retirement age. Add to this
mixture that there are plenty of 35 to 50 year olds involved in managing
mainframe environments today. Not everyone who manages a mainframe is over
60 years old, so there is a "second crop" of mainframe managers currently in
the queue at many enterprises throughout the world.
Also, mainframes are becoming easier and easier to manage. IBM is
simplifying mainframe management and is spending $100 million to give the
mainframe a Windows-oriented, easy-to-use graphical user interface. By doing
this, IBM is not only making it possible for lesser-skilled individuals to
manage mainframes ? the company is also making mainframe management appeal
to our next generation of Windows-born-and-raised managers and
administrators. "
========================================
So finally, Big Blue is spending chicken feed to implement a GUI. (Insert
hollow laughter here :-)) Next they'll be implementing DotNET...:-) Hey, we
might even see Web Services running on the mainframe...:-) Perhaps even (30
years late) a decent IDE (and don't tell me about Eclipse being an IBM
product :-))
-------------------------------------------------------------
"The mainframe serves a unique role in the enterprise as a centralized,
secure database hub, as a powerful transaction engine, and as a host of
mission-critical business logic. "
========================================
Maybe. But until it can match price with modern Network servers, it will
remain the poor relation. I love it when they refer to mainframes as safe
for "mission critical" applications... like no-one ever got a S0C7 or S0C4
or ever had to pore over a memory dump running down event block chains,
because the fundamental tool set you need for problem solving wasn't
there...ANY application that goes live is "mission critical" to the people
who have to use it. Mainframes have no better a track record with this
regard than Client Server systems. Both have had poorly designed
applications implemented on them with disastrous results, and both have run
well designed systems flawlessly. It is only hardware. Success is determined
by the artist, not the paintbrush (MCM said it here first; I agree
wholeheartedly... :-))
-------------------------------------------------------------
"IT executives know this ? and maybe this is why the mainframe market grew
8% last year. The bottom line: the Gartner suggestions that IT executives
consider "re-platforming" or migrating to other "more modern application
platforms" due to a projected, unsubstantiated shortage in mainframe skills
needs to be re-thought. "
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Joe Clabby is president and found of Clabby Analytics, an
IT research and analysis firm. He over thrity years of IT experience
========================================
=
I'm wondering if the "8%" came from Gartner... :-) Even if it didn't, I
would be surprised if any credible source shows the mainframe share of the
IT market as even equal to what it was in 1980... (So much for stupid
statistics that really prove nothing...)
Given that Gartner are advising a migration away from COBOL I wouldn't send
to know for whom the bell tolls... This reminds me of certain rodents
departing from vessels that are about to explore the ocean from the "other"
side... :-)
BOTTOM LINE:
The Gotterdammerung of COBOL is upon us. The temples are being converted
into cinemas and they are showing streamed video from RSS. The High Priests
are being pensioned off or encouraged to early retirement; the truly Holy
amongst them who understand the Nature of Things have already expanded their
skill sets and achieved serenity. The Mighty Mainframe with its attendant
chorus of Magi has been relegated to the Back Office. The People have had
computing placed in their hands and they are not going to hand it back to
the Cult of COBOL; the young are downloading courses in programming and
driving robots, writing games, and taking to IT as ducks to water. They
understand Objects, Databases, standard software, exchange of information,
the Internet... All the things that bewilder the old Priesthood.
It really doesn't matter whether Gartner are right or wrong, the world will
vote as it always does...with its feet.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-03-29, 3:55 am |
|
"gary drummond" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:HMydnSNXAPZcp5bb4p2dnA@giganews.com...
> Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>
> Very interesting article, with more meat in it than the various FUD being
> released about the "legacy" environment. A few of the links on the same
> page also bring a little more *sanity* to a discussion on mainframe
> skills.
I guess you define "meat" as "That with which I agree"? :-)
I thought it was distinctly vegetarian and have posted my reasons for
thinking so, in this thread...:-)
>
> I agree that much, if not most, activity is in replacing the mainframe OS
> with Linux, or other Unix-like OS, even on the existing hardware in some
> cases.
So why are people doing that? Are they stupid? Uninformed? Listening to
Salesmen? What...?
Could it be that they actually get a better cost performance ratio by doing
so...? Nah... never...!
>Also, that does nothing for the areas that mainframes were, and still are,
>years ahead of most Win/Unix-like systems. Grid computing is about the
>closest anything comes to mainframe scheduling, except for it's limited use
>in a large transaction/database environment. The Integrated Recovery and
>Step Control I used on Sperry/Unisys mainframes is also years ahead of
>anything available, even on Sun 15K and other large fail-safe environments.
Totally arguable. During the course of my career I've seen systems I thought
were pretty unique and outstanding, running on mainframes... Case in
Point...I always loved the way the SCOPE OS on CDC Cybers would scatter
files across various disk drives (unless you told it not to) so that it
wrote them to the next sector that was becoming available on any system
owned drive. I/O was phenomenal. There were no DD s required; just a file
name and its organization. the system took total responsibility for storing
your data and retrieving it when you wanted it back... great stuff! (The
same system queued and sorted physical disk addresses so it could service
them with one s , long before the IBM 3330 implemented that same
functionality into firmware...). The point is that there have ALWAYS been
outstanding and innovative features in various hardware systems (and, prior
to 1981, that meant, primarily, "mainframe".)
Are these features any less valuable when they are superseded by an
alternative approach? The answer is "yes" AND "no". Distributed systems
across a network pass data around and get it back for you, probably in close
to the same time the Cyber took. RAID systems will provide the same security
your Unisys IRSC provided, even if they do it differently.
We LOVE what we understand and are familiar with; we resist the idea it may
be equalled or bettered by something else, we wot not of :-)...
>Education is another point I agree with in the above article(s). It sucks!
Kind of a sweeping condemnation, isn't it? Does ALL education suck?
I don't think so. It is much better today than it was thirty years ago. I
can remember getting bright eyed, bushy tailed, Computer Science grads,
sitting them down and asking them to do a three file merge in COBOL...
Most of them didn't even know how to approach the problem, yet these same
guys could write a random number generator based on a binary polynomial that
would guarantee never to repeat within so many billion samples... (Not a lot
of call for that in the Banking industry :-))
Today, they would look at you and say: "Why would you want to merge these
sequential files when you could have updated directly to a Relational
Database in ANY sequence you like and simply ORDERed the result set?" :-)
I guess that's progress... of a kind :-)
I don't think it is wrong for educational institutions to NOT teach COBOL
when there are superior alternatives that are in greater demand in industry.
The resources and time are limited; should an English Major be forced to
learn Latin and Sanskrit? (There was a time when they were...)
Some establishments are even querying the value of Old English for the
English curricula... Have a degree, but can't read Beowulf in Chaucer's
original dialect? How far away is the outrage that engenders in some English
lovers, from: "Write commercial computer programs but can't write COBOL?"
The difference is that today's graduates are not completely useless when
faced with commercial problems, even if they don't know COBOL. We see posts
here all the time from people asking intelligent questions about COBOL
formats, because they have never encountered them, but are being required to
deal with them. COBOL may be strange to them, but programming is not. Look
at Oliver...never encountered COBOL, expert in Java, picked COBOL up very
quickly and required only passing help from this group to do so. There are
others also...
A "programmer" can pick up COBOL fairly quickly; it may be much harder for a
COBOLler to pick up programming.
>Hardware and operations are even more critical in their training
>requirements than programmers. They can't even find relevant training, much
>like programmers. It's also very difficult for current programmers to pass
>on their knowledge because they write COBOL programs to implement business
>rules, and today's crop is taught to implement algorithms with style.
Is it not possible to implement business rules by implementing "algorithms
with style"? :-) The two may be less mutually exclusive than you think.
>
> When I had too much time on my hands in 1997-1999, I took a part-time
> position at the local Community College. We had the full Academic MF COBOL
> Suite-all the bells and options. There was a waiting list for the
> different levels of COBOL, CICS, and IBM ASM classes. Most of the students
> were from Russia, with the rest split between University students wanting
> some mainframe classes, and employees from several large Financial Corps
> in town-First Data, Mutual of Omaha,...
>
> Scanning their website today, I noticed only a single COBOL I class each
> session this year, no IBM ASM-just Intel, and no CICS. I guess they have
> moved to more "modern" environments. It could be that the local jobs have
> been outsourced to Russia or India, and there is no local demand any more,
> or the companies do their own training.
Probably all of the above...
>
> My local Metro here (KS), JCCC, has converted to mostly teaching the
> vendor's certification classes, plus administering the tests-for the same
> price as the vendors. My experiences working with people with A+, M$ and
> Unix certifications, are not happy ones. The Brainbench Certs were *much*
> harder, and related to the real-world compared to Win, Red Hat, or Sun
> Certs.
>
> In my view (or it used to be), the "modern" workplace is like the legacy
> workplace, a few good people can carry a lot of not-so-good ones. With the
> hype-riddled FUD being spouted by industry *experts*, who depend on FUD to
> keep their jobs, I don't see a bright future ahead. The education
> available today does not lend itself to helping, so far as the article's
> major points are concerned. Outsourcing => lower # jobs => less need for
> training => no classes. Articles like Frank linked to can help, if someone
> (that *counts*) pays attention.
Er... I think you meant if someone (that counts) agrees with your position.
I am someone who has occasionally counted. I do pay attention; I don't
necessarily agree (with you or the article). Being of a positive
disposition, I don't like to simply disagree (I'd much rather say "yes" than
"no"); that's one reason why I posted my reasons for disagreeing :-)
>
> Gary
<snipped rants, even though they are quite good :-)>
Pete.
| |
| Alistair 2007-03-29, 9:55 pm |
| Just so that you can feel better about it, it is raining over here as
well. Bloody Spring.
| |
| Frank Swarbrick 2007-03-29, 9:55 pm |
| >>> On 3/29/2007 at 8:57 AM, in message
<1175180223.827086.65950@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Just so that you can feel better about it, it is raining over here as
> well. Bloody Spring.
I can top that. It's snowing here! (Denver, CO)
Frank
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-03-29, 9:55 pm |
| On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:42:10 -0600, "Frank Swarbrick"
<Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote:
>
>I can top that. It's snowing here! (Denver, CO)
I just got back (to Boulder county) from vacation in Marin county,
freezing the whole time. It was windy and warm yesterday and now
this bloody snow.
At least it's melting off the roads here - but I expect to see lots of
broken branches.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-03-29, 9:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:4hpn03ph13obcdpqic42a0junk0ruln21d@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:42:10 -0600, "Frank Swarbrick"
> <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote:
>
>
> I just got back (to Boulder county) from vacation in Marin county,
> freezing the whole time. It was windy and warm yesterday and now
> this bloody snow.
>
> At least it's melting off the roads here - but I expect to see lots of
> broken branches.
Thanks guys... I feel much better :-)
Pete.
| |
| gary drummond 2007-03-30, 3:55 am |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "gary drummond" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:HMydnSNXAPZcp5bb4p2dnA@giganews.com...
>
> I guess you define "meat" as "That with which I agree"? :-)
Yes, for the most part. I didn't like some of what was said, but it was
true. I was just identifying with his exposure of blanket "legacy"
comments by the *experts*, while still being unhappy with the truth of
many of his comments. Typical for me :-)
>
> I thought it was distinctly vegetarian and have posted my reasons for
> thinking so, in this thread...:-)
>
>
> So why are people doing that? Are they stupid? Uninformed? Listening to
> Salesmen? What...?
>
> Could it be that they actually get a better cost performance ratio by doing
> so...? Nah... never...!
>
>
> Totally arguable. During the course of my career I've seen systems I thought
> were pretty unique and outstanding, running on mainframes... Case in
> Point...I always loved the way the SCOPE OS on CDC Cybers would scatter
> files across various disk drives (unless you told it not to) so that it
> wrote them to the next sector that was becoming available on any system
> owned drive. I/O was phenomenal.
Same on the 1100/2200.
There were no DD s required; just a file
> name and its organization. the system took total responsibility for storing
> your data and retrieving it when you wanted it back... great stuff!
Same on the 1100/2200, except file organization didn't count.
(The
> same system queued and sorted physical disk addresses so it could service
> them with one s, long before the IBM 3330 implemented that same
> functionality into firmware...).
Same, I think, if you mean it sorts to keep the heads going in the same
direction, with the exception of high priority I/O.
The point is that there have ALWAYS been
> outstanding and innovative features in various hardware systems (and, prior
> to 1981, that meant, primarily, "mainframe".)
>
> Are these features any less valuable when they are superseded by an
> alternative approach? The answer is "yes" AND "no". Distributed systems
> across a network pass data around and get it back for you, probably in close
> to the same time the Cyber took.
A *bad* distributed design doesn't work well :-)
I was assigned as to SAC/USSTRATCOM HQ to implement a our new new FDDI
network. (5 hosts and routers/concentrators) The IBM (2-3090s) were
scheduled to be replaced with distributed databases on multiple hosts,
not mine. When I left 10 years later, the network had grown, but the
IBMs were still there. Distributed databases/hosts hadn't been able to
do the job-the 10GB records were a problem...
RAID systems will provide the same security
> your Unisys IRSC provided, even if they do it differently.
No, duplexed files/raid has been around awhile but that only relates to
storage.
The IRSC was something I really hated at first, because I am performance
driven, but it grew on me.
The bottom line is that it was Integrated Recovery (Comm,message queues,
programs,databases) and could restore the system or a transaction to a
prior point in time (a step-with multiple steps/program), and also
replay everything after fixing whatever went wrong, if that's what you
wanted.
>
> We LOVE what we understand and are familiar with; we resist the idea it may
> be equalled or bettered by something else, we wot not of :-)...
>
>
>
> Kind of a sweeping condemnation, isn't it? Does ALL education suck?
No, just what I've experienced or observed, with the exception of when I
taught. My problems are talking and writing, not teaching. :-)
>
> I don't think so. It is much better today than it was thirty years ago. I
> can remember getting bright eyed, bushy tailed, Computer Science grads,
> sitting them down and asking them to do a three file merge in COBOL...
>
> Most of them didn't even know how to approach the problem, yet these same
> guys could write a random number generator based on a binary polynomial that
> would guarantee never to repeat within so many billion samples... (Not a lot
> of call for that in the Banking industry :-))
>
> Today, they would look at you and say: "Why would you want to merge these
> sequential files when you could have updated directly to a Relational
> Database in ANY sequence you like and simply ORDERed the result set?" :-)
>
> I guess that's progress... of a kind :-)
Now you are getting into the areas I, as a vendor, had to think about.
Let's test it to see if the cost of running a temp database (license
maybe? Disk and cpu usage. Development costs.) are less than him
learning how to do a merge. This ignores the fact that as a customer,
for at least one shot, you will eat the additional costs. As a vendor, I
could test it on one of many machines to see if it is a marketable idea,
including expanding the idea to converting the whole application mix to
a database. $$$ :-)
>
> I don't think it is wrong for educational institutions to NOT teach COBOL
> when there are superior alternatives that are in greater demand in industry.
> The resources and time are limited; should an English Major be forced to
> learn Latin and Sanskrit? (There was a time when they were...)
It's back again. My son was told he had to have two years of a foreign
language to get his math degree at UNL, but his 4 years in HS was OK.
*I* hit the roof about the requirement for 30 hours of multicultural
classes. I thought math was the universal language :-)
>
> Some establishments are even querying the value of Old English for the
> English curricula... Have a degree, but can't read Beowulf in Chaucer's
> original dialect? How far away is the outrage that engenders in some English
> lovers, from: "Write commercial computer programs but can't write COBOL?"
>
> The difference is that today's graduates are not completely useless when
> faced with commercial problems, even if they don't know COBOL. We see posts
> here all the time from people asking intelligent questions about COBOL
> formats, because they have never encountered them, but are being required to
> deal with them. COBOL may be strange to them, but programming is not. Look
> at Oliver...never encountered COBOL, expert in Java, picked COBOL up very
> quickly and required only passing help from this group to do so. There are
> others also...
>
> A "programmer" can pick up COBOL fairly quickly; it may be much harder for a
> COBOLler to pick up programming.
I wouldn't know, I was an ASM and Systems programmer before COBOL, but
then I screwed up and learned another 12+ of them. :-)
>
>
> Is it not possible to implement business rules by implementing "algorithms
> with style"? :-) The two may be less mutually exclusive than you think.
I have nothing against style. In most cases it is easier to read. What I
objected to is the complaints they make about how the validation code
didn't look as good as the rest of their code. Bad habits?
>
>
> Probably all of the above...
>
>
> Er... I think you meant if someone (that counts) agrees with your position.
> I am someone who has occasionally counted. I do pay attention; I don't
> necessarily agree (with you or the article). Being of a positive
> disposition, I don't like to simply disagree (I'd much rather say "yes" than
> "no"); that's one reason why I posted my reasons for disagreeing :-)
No problem, I know I'm opinionated, *but* (I read this somewhere) we can
agree to disagree on things.
> <snipped rants, even though they are quite good :-)>
I thought they were better than the rest of my post.
>
> Pete.
>
>
Gary
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-03-30, 3:55 am |
| Good response, Gary, thanks for that...
Very quick comment below...
"gary drummond" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:StednR_hQcuqGZHb4p2dnA@giganews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
<snip>[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> No problem, I know I'm opinionated, *but* (I read this somewhere) we can
> agree to disagree on things.
Absolutely! :-)
I have never understood why society generally considers people who are
opinionated to be undesirable. It's like, as long as you go with the flow
and don't think at all, you will be very socially acceptable.
I LIKE opinionated people, even if I disagree with them sometimes. I'd MUCH
rather someone demonstrated their capacity for independent thought, than
simply said: "yeah...whatever..."
OK, I guess sometimes some people come up with some really BAD ideas (Adolf
Hitler springs to mind - There, I've violated Godwin's Law again and so this
thread must close... (yeah, right...:-)), but surely even a BAD idea is
better than NO idea...??? What do you think?
(Thunderous choruses of "yeah...whatever" from stage left... :-))
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <5737g3F29vo4vU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:4hpn03ph13obcdpqic42a0junk0ruln21d@
4ax.com...
>
>Thanks guys... I feel much better :-)
Oh, I *cannot* resist...
.... a pity you don't look it, too!
DD
| |
|
| In article <57147bF29lbfkU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>I don't think so. It is much better today than it was thirty years ago. I
>can remember getting bright eyed, bushy tailed, Computer Science grads,
>sitting them down and asking them to do a three file merge in COBOL...
That's interesting, Mr Dashwood... my first response to that was 'there's
no need to do it in COBOL, one uses system utilities (DFSORT/SyncSort) for
such tasks... but if one needs Lines O' Code to satisfy a Corner Office
Idiot then there's a single verb to manage it'.
Be that as it may... I was taught that Computer Science grads should be
designing compilers while applications jockies write the COBOL.
>
>Most of them didn't even know how to approach the problem, yet these same
>guys could write a random number generator based on a binary polynomial that
>would guarantee never to repeat within so many billion samples... (Not a lot
>of call for that in the Banking industry :-))
That's why one doesn't hire CS grads to write banking apps... seems like
our educations were different.
>
>Today, they would look at you and say: "Why would you want to merge these
>sequential files when you could have updated directly to a Relational
>Database in ANY sequence you like and simply ORDERed the result set?" :-)
'Because two of the files are the inputs from branches with a lot of
activity, (n) tens of millions of records per day; they are MERGEd into a
single dump of the master table and reloaded, directly, into a re-creation
of the master using a system utility. Do you have any idea why that might
be superior to performing individual INSERTs?'
Oh, look... *two* interview questions in one!
DD
| |
| Roger While 2007-03-30, 7:55 am |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:57147bF29lbfkU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "gary drummond" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:HMydnSNXAPZcp5bb4p2dnA@giganews.com...
>
> I guess you define "meat" as "That with which I agree"? :-)
>
> I thought it was distinctly vegetarian and have posted my reasons for
> thinking so, in this thread...:-)
>
>
> So why are people doing that? Are they stupid? Uninformed? Listening to
> Salesmen? What...?
>
> Could it be that they actually get a better cost performance ratio by
> doing so...? Nah... never...!
>
Oh, indeed yes.
Ever looked at top500.org ?
A lot of those are using Linux or derivatives.
And these days, with blades, it is, from the maintenance point of view,
no contest.
And with 2/4 (and more) processor cores in PC's and blades, the
"mainframe", as nominally known, is somewhat dead.
Roger
Roger
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-03-30, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:58:50 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>I have never understood why society generally considers people who are
>opinionated to be undesirable. It's like, as long as you go with the flow
>and don't think at all, you will be very socially acceptable.
"Fitting in" is easy. It's easier to take care of kids who fit in.
And it's far more easy to see disruptive variations than constructive
variations. (They are also easier to occur).
Teens want to be  by being predictable and "in".
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-03-30, 9:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:eujf7f$iuf$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <574ohcF2bm2hgU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Mr Dashwood, that you see this as a matter of simple-minded prejudice
> might speak of how things are done in places with which you are familiar
> and little else.
>
>
> Perhaps, Mr Dashwood, it is a recognition that all edged tools are not
> equal and that trying to use a chisel as an axe or a scalpel as chef's
> knife might, possibly, lead to disappointment... then again, perhaps a
> Manager might bleat 'It's got an edge on it... it's *your* fault that you
> can't make it do what I want!'
>
With some justification apparently... Ironic you are discussing the finer
points of tool use when you have never used the tools I use daily. On the
other hand, I have used most of the tools you use and know the difference
between a scalpel, an axe, and a kirchen knife.
[color=darkred]
>
> Was that the point, Mr Dashwood? And here I was thinking that the point
> was to use the proper personnel for the appropriate job... you know,
> something that Management is concerned with.
That would be your wish to change the topic. Review the original post and
quote the context.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Mr Dashwood, I have no idea what you are calling 'todays (sic)
> technology'... when was the last time you loaded sixty million rows into a
> table with a twenty-character primary key both ways (using a system
> utility and performing individual INSERTs)?
Hmmmm... let me see... that would have been around the same time you
instantiated a table adapter to bind to your data automatically and
processed the in-memory result set with an iteration across each row
object...Ooops, might as well speak Swahili... I guess the answer on both
counts is "never".
>
> I did this... hmmmmm, must have been four, five years ago and the results
> were, by some standards, considerably different; I'd be most interested in
> reviewing your data and, by doing so, learning more.
No you wouldn't. You'd be interested in confirming your already decided
conclusion based on the practices you know and understand.
>
> Please be so kind as to begin with the hardware and database platform upon
> which you did these tests... I was on (as usual) an IBM mainframe, running
> z/OS (I think V1R3 or V1R4) and DB2.
>
You have my sympathy. Why not try a Bendix or a Hoover...?
> (now, class, watch what happens when a Manager is asked, nicely and with a
> 'please', for facts and figures)
>
Yes, class, see how the busy Manager does not waste his time in pointless
arguments with the uninformed. Those of you who are genuinely interested in
what the new Data technology holds, could try these links:
http://blogs.msdn.com/charlie/archi...rogramming.aspx
http://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msdn/vis...LinqToSql01.wmv
http://themechanicalbride.blogspot....g-of-plinq.html
http://www.intelligententerprise.co...br />
CJUNN2JVN
(Dwar...Er...People who are interested in large volumes of data might like
to comment on the "Putting the "Fun" in Functional Programming " paragraph,
in the last above. Personally, I'm not interested in a pissing contest over
data volumes ("mine is bigger than yours"), I'm much more interested in
techniques and solutions that optimise hardware (multiple cores) and query
expressions (functional programming and Lamdas) that can manipulate ANY
volume of data more effectively than most of us do currently. Today's
computer science graduates are learning these techniques, and a good thing
too...
Such techniques can obviate the old "merge sequentially and re-create"
approach, and that was where we came in...
Pete.
| |
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2007-03-31, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175337742.503099.254140@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Mar, 03:22, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> Three spelling mistakes in the word parallelize. Not an auspicious
> start
> and it makes it harder to take the rest seriously.
Does it? I guess I'm getting used to reading papers by people whose first
language isn't English.
While I love the English language, I keep its purpose in mind; it conveys
messages, thoughts and ideas.
To allow the wrapper to influence one's perspective on the content, can mean
missing some very valuable content.
Nevertheless, it is something we all do, as marketing men know well to our
cost...:-)
>
>
> Nice try. I've never heard of Kdb (functional database?) but I have
> heard of
> Cache (OO database works well with Java). I do wonder what the point
> is in
> putting up proud boasts of the Kdb performance when there are no
> comparative
> figures for SQL Server, etc.
They are not proud boasts and that wasn't the point. It isn't a contest; he
is simply saying that these techniques can handle high volume traffic. Note
it was a Pentium 2... If he wanted to boast he would have posted multi core
blade server figures.
>The non-standard syntax should put people
> off,
> though.
It isn't "non-standard" syntax, it is a new syntax for query expressions.
They are deliberately formulated differently from current SQL (although they
look similar) for reasons that become apparent in some of the other links
and material around Lamdas and functional programming. Formulating the
expressions in the way shown, allows decision trees to be implenented
without actually doing any I/O at all (it is a form of deferred execution),
and allows the data requirement to be manipulated by other processes (and
possibly on different processor cores), before it is actually executed.
These are quite different concepts than the ones we are used to with
embedded SQL.
Although these ideas have been around for quite some time, it is only now
that they have reached the mainstream and that was partly because C# is an
ideal vehicle for them, and implements them easily. Other OO type languages
will also do so.
Where will these technologies be in 10 years? Where will Ruby
> on
> Rails be? Nowhere.
I don't know anything much about Ruby, so I would refrain from predicting
its future or lack thereof. I do know something about COBOL and my
predictions on that are a matter of record.
There is a problem: so many technologies, so little
> time
> to pick the winner.
Only if you see it as a contest. It isn't. It is simply new technology that
will be implemented by a number of languages.
Why does everything have to be a hammer? Why aren't we all driving one make
of car, buying one brand of toothpaste, wearing one type of watch... and so
on...? There are different interpretations of an agreed underlying
technology.
It is exactly the same with software. When there is a sea change in the
technology (and I am suggesting that Functional Programming and Lamda
expressions will do that for data binding and access), there will be
different implementations of it in different languages.
This whole discussion started when it was suggested that CS grads should
stick to writing system software and leave applications to the COBOL people.
I don't see that as being right or useful. And it cetainly isn't fair to the
CS grads coming out of Acadaemia currently. They are much better informed
than most of us ever were and they are flexible enough to implement business
reqirements using the techniques and approaches they have been taught. Just
because they don't write COBOL doesn't mean they are useless.
The techniques in the links I posted are not just new fangled fashions that
simply re-invent what "everybody knows". This is the way of the future and
one of the reasons that COBOL will not be part of it is because it cannot
implement these approaches easily and simply.
(That is no fault of COBOL... it uses a different, and now superseded,
paradigm.)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <575uvjF29rv7kU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:eujf7f$iuf$1@reader2.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Hmmmm... let me see... that would have been around the same time you
>instantiated a table adapter to bind to your data automatically and
>processed the in-memory result set with an iteration across each row
>object...Ooops, might as well speak Swahili... I guess the answer on both
>counts is "never".
So, Mr Dashwood, you made an assertion ('Actually, it wouldn't be, using
todays technology') based on what you admit, above, as a complete and
utter lack of experimental evidence. In the terms employed by those
familiar with the rules of the game of baseball this has been referred to
as 'strike one'.
>
>
>No you wouldn't. You'd be interested in confirming your already decided
>conclusion based on the practices you know and understand.
Mr Dashwood, you accuse me of telling a lie ('no, you wouldn't') and then
do not post data to support your assertion... in terms employed by those
familiar with the rules of the game of baseball this has been referred to
as 'strike two'.
>
>You have my sympathy. Why not try a Bendix or a Hoover...?
>
>Yes, class, see how the busy Manager does not waste his time in pointless
>arguments with the uninformed.
Mr Dashwood, you belittle another's experience and then, in typical
Manager fashion, respond to a request for data with a variant of 'I'm a
very busy man'... in terms employed by those familiar with the rules of
the game of baseball this has been referred to as 'strike three'.
Those familiar with the rules of baseball are familiar with the
consequence of having made three strikes... but perhaps those familiar
with baseball's more primitive antecedant play by rules which allow for
such shuffling and dodging, I am not certain.
[snip]
>Such techniques can obviate the old "merge sequentially and re-create"
>approach, and that was where we came in...
Such techniques are not reflected in your own experience when it comes to
loading sixty million rows with a twenty-character primary key into a
table of any kind, Mr Dashwood... 'none' cannot reflect, remember?
Don't worry, Mr Dashwood... I'll continue to post based on what I have
learned and what I have done, you are welcome to post based on... whatever
it is that you use as a basis, and, as usual, the readers will decide.
Class dismissed.
DD
| |
|
| In article <1175337742.503099.254140@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 31 Mar, 03:22, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
>wrote:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Nice try. I've never heard of Kdb (functional database?) but I have
>heard of
>Cache (OO database works well with Java). I do wonder what the point
>is in
>putting up proud boasts of the Kdb performance when there are no
>comparative
>figures for SQL Server, etc. The non-standard syntax should put people
>off,
>though. Where will these technologies be in 10 years? Where will Ruby
>on
>Rails be? Nowhere. There is a problem: so many technologies, so little
>time
>to pick the winner.
Mr Maclean, have you learned *nothing* from this? It is not the goal of a
Manager to pick a 'winning technology', it is the goal of a Manager to
generate 'all ya gotta do is', blame shortcomings on others, belittle
experience and get out of the project and promoted into another division
before everything blows up... or so some have seen, of course.
DD
| |
| Alistair 2007-04-01, 7:55 am |
| On 31 Mar, 15:01, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1175337742.503099.254140@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> Does it? I guess I'm getting used to reading papers by people whose first
> language isn't English.
>
> While I love the English language, I keep its purpose in mind; it conveys
> messages, thoughts and ideas.
>
You've obviously never worked for managers who could not spell. There
is a difference between "You're fired" and "you're fried". To convey
accurately a message it is necessary to spell. I have encountered
poorly written/constructed texts before (the classic being the
advocate of word-processors who said that there was no need to plan a
document, just get on and write it. It made spaghetti code look
succinct and well laid out) and usually take it to be a sign of poor
thinking and weak arguments.
>
>
>
> They are not proud boasts and that wasn't the point. It isn't a contest; he
> is simply saying that these techniques can handle high volume traffic. Note
> it was a Pentium 2... If he wanted to boast he would have posted multi core
> blade server figures.
But he did not post any comparative figures for other software/
hardware combinations so I am left none the wiser. I can, with
justification, point out that Adabas can handle a higher transaction
rate than DB2 but unless I post comparative figures DD and yourself
would joyfully rip my argument to pieces.
>
>
> It isn't "non-standard" syntax, it is a new syntax for query expressions.
The author of the article said that it was a non-standard syntax (so
there! 8-P )
> They are deliberately formulated differently from current SQL (although they
> look similar) for reasons that become apparent in some of the other links
> and material around Lamdas and functional programming. Formulating the
> expressions in the way shown, allows decision trees
Welcome back to the 1970s.
> to be implenented
> without actually doing any I/O at all (it is a form of deferred execution),
> and allows the data requirement to be manipulated by other processes (and
> possibly on different processor cores), before it is actually executed.
> These are quite different concepts than the ones we are used to with
> embedded SQL.
>
> Although these ideas have been around for quite some time, it is only now
> that they have reached the mainstream and that was partly because C# is an
> ideal vehicle for them, and implements them easily. Other OO type languages
> will also do so.
>
> Where will these technologies be in 10 years? Where will Ruby
>
>
> I don't know anything much about Ruby,
In pc circles, Ruby on Rails is one of the latest fave rave must haves
for any programming fashionista.
> so I would refrain from predicting
> its future or lack thereof. I do know something about COBOL and my
> predictions on that are a matter of record.
>
> There is a problem: so many technologies, so little
>
>
> Only if you see it as a contest. It isn't.
No, it is a matter of earning money to pay for the mortgage. At least
with mainframe systems there were limited choices and it was pretty
obvious which languages were the ones to learn. Now there are so many
languages, databases, blah blah blah, and it is difficult to decide
which one to learn. I'm aiming for Java (someone is going to have to
maintain the code being written today when everyone else has decided
it isn't sexy and moved on to Ruby and Kdb, etc.).
But in one respect it is a competition - survival of the fittest
although the fittest don't always win.
> Why does everything have to be a hammer? Why aren't we all driving one make
> of car, buying one brand of toothpaste, wearing one type of watch... and so
> on...? There are different interpretations of an agreed underlying
> technology.
We are: INTEL chips, WINDOWS platform, JAVA runtimes, XHTML encoded
pages, IE7 browser, MS OFFICE ..... although some do persist in using
AMD (I have one!), Linux, C# (which probably doesn't work under
Linux)...
>
> It is exactly the same with software. When there is a sea change in the
> technology (and I am suggesting that Functional Programming and Lamda
> expressions will do that for data binding and access), there will be
> different implementations of it in different languages.
>
This isn't about a sea-change in technology. It is about what the kids
at university were taught 10 years ago. You just have to look at how a
poor operating system (Unix) has taken over the world to see that.
> This whole discussion started when it was suggested that CS grads should
> stick to writing system software and leave applications to the COBOL people.
I have only ever met one CS graduate and he was the world's worst
programmer. He would have been dangerous writing compilers and system
software.
>
> I don't see that as being right or useful. And it cetainly isn't fair to the
> CS grads coming out of Acadaemia currently.
No, they all come out perfectly formed for applications system
writing, right? I don't know what they teach in Uni today and I will
admit that I am prejudiced against CS graduates in the applications
arena based on a sample size of 1 (which may be statistically
significant, but I can't remember my degree foundation course on
statistics).
> They are much better informed
> than most of us ever were and they are flexible enough to implement business
> reqirements using the techniques and approaches they have been taught. Just
> because they don't write COBOL doesn't mean they are useless.
>
> The techniques in the links I posted are not just new fangled fashions that
> simply re-invent what "everybody knows". This is the way of the future and
> one of the reasons that COBOL will not be part of it is because it cannot
> implement these approaches easily and simply.
>
> (That is no fault of COBOL... it uses a different, and now superseded,
> paradigm.)
>
> Pete.
I have no doubt that the future is not as the world is now, and that
programming will move on but I despair at languages that often seem to
be rephrasing of existing languages (C compared to Assembler) without
adding clarity and simplification of the code. I remember that when I
first encountered SQL I could not take it seriously, but in skilled
hands it is certainly better than coding direct calls for data access.
In unskilled hands it is still better than having to code a thousand
lines of data division.
| |
| Alistair 2007-04-01, 7:55 am |
| > > Where will these technologies be in 10 years? Where will Ruby
>
> Mr Maclean, have you learned *nothing* from this? It is not the goal of a
> Manager to pick a 'winning technology', it is the goal of a Manager to
> generate 'all ya gotta do is', blame shortcomings on others, belittle
> experience and get out of the project and promoted into another division
> before everything blows up... or so some have seen, of course.
>
> DD
I am working on the principle that, as a little pebble knocking myself
against the big rock, I can wear the big rock down. I don't recall my
copy of 'Managing Software Projects' mentioning these approaches to PM
that you have highlighted. Perhaps I skipped that chapter? I do
remember reading somewhere about the first step in any successful
project is to identify the scapegoat.
| |
|
| In article <1175426708.488555.268220@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>But he did not post any comparative figures for other software/
>hardware combinations so I am left none the wiser. I can, with
>justification, point out that Adabas can handle a higher transaction
>rate than DB2 but unless I post comparative figures DD and yourself
>would joyfully rip my argument to pieces.
I cannot speak for others, Mr Maclean, but I do not, usually, consider
pointing out that an assertion is undocumented to be a cause for joy.
DD
| |
|
| In article <1175427055.953717.12640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I am working on the principle that, as a little pebble knocking myself
>against the big rock, I can wear the big rock down.
Mr Maclean, I wish you the best of luck... but I'll say that most
stonemansons I've met employ principles of geometry, physics and 'the
eye' (an intangible alluded to in the joke with the punchline 'Get a block
of marble and cut away everthing that *does'nt* look like an elephant') to
accomplish stone-shaping tasks.
>I don't recall my
>copy of 'Managing Software Projects' mentioning these approaches to PM
>that you have highlighted.
My error and apologies for my imprecision; by 'this' quoted above (in
'have you learned *nothing* from this', emphasis original) I was referring
to this UseNet thread, the one in which I offered to exchange experiences
with Mr Dashwood in order so that at least I might learn... and for which
he accused me of telling an untruth.
>Perhaps I skipped that chapter? I do
>remember reading somewhere about the first step in any successful
>project is to identify the scapegoat.
Are you referring to 'The Six Phases of a Project'? My memory is,
admittedly, porous but I recall them being something like:
1) Enthusiasm
2) Disillusionment
3) Panic
4) Search for the guilty
5) Blame of the Innocent
6) Honor, praise and promotion for the non-involved
DD
| |
| Michael Mattias 2007-04-01, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:euobgh$6cl$1@reader2.panix.com...
> Are you referring to 'The Six Phases of a Project'? My memory is,
> admittedly, porous but I recall them being something like:
>
> 1) Enthusiasm
> 2) Disillusionment
> 3) Panic
> 4) Search for the guilty
> 5) Blame of the Innocent
> 6) Honor, praise and promotion for the non-involved
This I like. A lot.
MCM
| |
|
| On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:09:00 -0500, <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
snip
> Those familiar with the rules of baseball are familiar with the
> consequence of having made three strikes... but perhaps those familiar
> with baseball's more primitive antecedant play by rules which allow for
> such shuffling and dodging, I am not certain.
There is a 'very' primitive three strikes rule, in many US states, that
send folks to jail for life.
Doesn't apply to white (read honky) collar crimes or IT managers, last I
heard..
Pity nay?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
| |
|
| In article <_dPPh.5007$Kd3.1044@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
Michael Mattias <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:euobgh$6cl$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
Glad you enjoyed, Mr Mattias... they are not original... part of the
Anciente Lore, like the 'ACHTUNG!! ALLES LOOKENPEEPERS!! Das
Computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingenpoken und mitten-grabben.'
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-04-01, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175426708.488555.268220@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Mar, 15:01, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> You've obviously never worked for managers who could not spell.
Yes, I have. Sometimes it was hilarious. :-)
Just because I can spell (apart from the odd typo) does not make me think
less of people who can't. We all have strengths and weaknesses; we all have
different backgrounds. Of course, I prefer to read properly formed English,
but I try not to get unwrapped when it isn't.
I was in an Asian supermarket the other day and came across some Slimming
Tea. Here's a reproduction of what it said in English, on the label:
SLIMING TEA (herbal)
THIS HERB IS GOOD FOR THE OVER WEIGHTED PERSON WHO DO NOT WANT TO CONTROL
FOOD CONSUMING AND SHOULD BE TAKEN BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.
Not exactly great English, but the meaning is clear. It made me smile, so I
bought some and it is quite pleasant tasting. The only drawback is that you
cannot use hot water, so it takes around 20 minutes to make...
I'll stop taking it immediately if it affects my slime level :-)
Of course, sometimes what you think is a spelling error actually isn't... I
remember seeing "Buff steak" on the menu in a restaurant in Kathmandu and
figured it was the local mispronunciation of "Beef". It wasn't; it was
actually buffalo...:-)
>There
> is a difference between "You're fired" and "you're fried".
I don't think so...:-)
>To convey
> accurately a message it is necessary to spell. I have encountered
> poorly written/constructed texts before (the classic being the
> advocate of word-processors who said that there was no need to plan a
> document, just get on and write it. It made spaghetti code look
> succinct and well laid out) and usually take it to be a sign of poor
> thinking and weak arguments.
>
Then we must agree to differ. Imagine how you would do in a foreign
language... would you be any less logical or have weaker arguments?
>
> But he did not post any comparative figures for other software/
> hardware combinations so I am left none the wiser. I can, with
> justification, point out that Adabas can handle a higher transaction
> rate than DB2 but unless I post comparative figures DD and yourself
> would joyfully rip my argument to pieces.
>
Not me. I have better things to do. I'd accept it as your opinion and move
on.
Besides, I really don't care, as long as they both perform useful work.
>
>
> The author of the article said that it was a non-standard syntax (so
> there! 8-P )
That's because the author of the article is comparing it to standard SQL.
Most people do. (I did when I first encountered it... until I did a lot more
reading and experimenting and started to understand WHY it is structured in
the unfamiliar way it is, and how it can do so much more BECAUSE it is.)
But, as always, I'm not here to Evangelize; I think if people want to do
multi-file merges and recreate databases, use utilities, or embedded SQL,
that's fine. But don't run away smugly thinking it is "better", or the best
way to do things, and, especially, don't write off someone else's approach
simply because you are unfamiliar with it, or because said person is young
and therefore couldn't possibly understand the elegance of your empirically
acquired approach.
There is some very exciting stuff coming out of "Computer Science" lately
and it is filtering into mainstream. Anders Helsberg covers it very well in
the interview and it is covered in more detail and even better (at lower
level of coding with examples and results) in another interview I watched
but am now unable to retrieve. It was a lecture by one of the guys on the
Linq team and it was excellent.
(But Hey, I've never loaded 60 million records to a database, so my opinions
here are probably not worth much :-))
>
>
> Welcome back to the 1970s.
Mid-sentence interruptions are considered rude by some people... (Not me, I
just find them off-putting...)
(They are not THOSE decision trees anyway... :-))
>
>
> In pc circles, Ruby on Rails is one of the latest fave rave must haves
> for any programming fashionista.
Not being one, I wouldn't know...
>
>
> No, it is a matter of earning money to pay for the mortgage. At least
> with mainframe systems there were limited choices and it was pretty
> obvious which languages were the ones to learn. Now there are so many
> languages, databases, blah blah blah, and it is difficult to decide
> which one to learn. I'm aiming for Java (someone is going to have to
> maintain the code being written today when everyone else has decided
> it isn't sexy and moved on to Ruby and Kdb, etc.).
Probably a good choice, even if not necessarily for the reasons you
mention... :-)
>
> But in one respect it is a competition - survival of the fittest
> although the fittest don't always win.
In the long run that which is best suited will survive. "Best suited" may
well mean understanding the changes going on and adapting to them, rather
than holding the Fortress.
>
>
> We are: INTEL chips, WINDOWS platform, JAVA runtimes, XHTML encoded
> pages, IE7 browser, MS OFFICE ..... although some do persist in using
> AMD (I have one!), Linux, C# (which probably doesn't work under
> Linux)...
C# runs fine under Linux. Have a look around the Web.
>
>
> This isn't about a sea-change in technology. It is about what the kids
> at university were taught 10 years ago. You just have to look at how a
> poor operating system (Unix) has taken over the world to see that.
>
I think I heard this speech some time ago regarding BetaMax and VHS... Let
it go. Unix has NOT taken over the World and even if it does, what's your
beef? If you intend to pay the mortgage off by application programming (as
you said above) why would you care what OS is in use? It's not like you have
to maintain it...
>
>
> I have only ever met one CS graduate and he was the world's worst
> programmer. He would have been dangerous writing compilers and system
> software.
>
Well, you wisely didn't jump to a conclusion based on a sample of one. I've
worked with quite a number over the years and the general trend has been
towards improvement. Some of them are not so good; some are outstanding,
exactly as those who came out of the Business or off the street without the
benefit of College Education.
Everyone deserves a "fair go" and should be given the benefit of the doubt,
not judged on their spelling, or their dress code, or their hair length, or
whether they had higher education, or the colour of their skin, gender, age,
religious persuasion (or lack of it) or any other prejudicial factor. Solely
how good they are at solving problems in commercial computer programming,
and how likely they are to be valuable in achieving the current goals. After
many years of recruiting, working alongside, and managing people I have come
to recognise value in diversity.
>
> No, they all come out perfectly formed for applications system
> writing, right?
No, and I never suggested that. Like all young people entering a profession
they will need mentoring and guidance and to acquire experience. If they are
not allowed to do it, they will never get that application experience.
What I am suggesting is that they are now beng taught best practices and new
techniques. That never used to happen because there WERE no best practices
or new techniques...
I don't know what they teach in Uni today and I will
> admit that I am prejudiced against CS graduates in the applications
> arena based on a sample size of 1 (which may be statistically
> significant, but I can't remember my degree foundation course on
> statistics).
Oops, I should have read further... you HAVE drawn a conclusion on a sample
of 1. Sad.
Twenty to thirty years ago, I probably would have agreed with you. Today, I
can't. I just don't think it is as bad as it was.
"I don't know what they teach in Uni today..." Perhaps that is the nub of
the problem. If you DID know, you might feel differently.
>
>
> I have no doubt that the future is not as the world is now, and that
> programming will move on but I despair at languages that often seem to
> be rephrasing of existing languages (C compared to Assembler) without
> adding clarity and simplification of the code.
Compared to Intel Assembler, C IS a clarification and simplification. I
used to LOVE Intel Assembler and still have a bunch of TSRs I wrote in it
under DOS 3.1 :-) But things move on... I used to love IBM BAL, but was
dragged kicking and screaming into COBOL (in 1967 :-)). Now I wouldn't go
back... Probably in a few years time I'll tell you how I LOVED programming
in COBOL but wouldn't go back...
There is no progress without change, and I have made sure my career
progressed over 4 decades.
> I remember that when I
> first encountered SQL I could not take it seriously, but in skilled
> hands it is certainly better than coding direct calls for data access.
> In unskilled hands it is still better than having to code a thousand
> lines of data division.
>
>
Sure, and a Lamda or Query expression can encompass a thousand lines of
SQL... :-) But if you don't look at it you will never know.
I would stress here that it isn't "wrong" to be uninformed; so long as you
don't start criticising that which you are not informed about.
Sometimes I just think it isn't really that important. I generate heat by
posting here, when that is not my intention. In the big picture it is all
just computer programming... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-04-02, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 03:01:38 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>Of course, sometimes what you think is a spelling error actually isn't... I
>remember seeing "Buff steak" on the menu in a restaurant in Kathmandu and
>figured it was the local mispronunciation of "Beef". It wasn't; it was
>actually buffalo...:-)
There are other meanings of "buff" with that spelling as well...
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-04-02, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 03:01:38 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I don't think so...:-)
Whatever the manager meant goes.
Have you ever read Eric Frank Russell's short story "Allamagoosa"?
>Well, you wisely didn't jump to a conclusion based on a sample of one.
As long as I mentioned SF, I have a bumper sticker saying:
"Everyone generalizes from a sample of one. At least, I do." -- Steven
K. Z. Brust
| |
| Alistair 2007-04-02, 6:55 pm |
| I like the idea of sliming tea but couldn't put up with the 20 minute
wait.
Re Buff steak - as a pm you should remember that to ASSUME makes an
ASS out of U and ME. What did it taste like? (and don't say Buffalo).
>
> Then we must agree to differ. Imagine how you would do in a foreign
> language... would you be any less logical or have weaker arguments?
>
Fortunately, I don't have to imagine; each year I go to Le Mans and
renew my acquaintance with the French language and the tried and
trusted technique of speaking English slowly and loudly (why is it
that Britain conquered most of the world but England lost the half of
France that it owned?). Actually I try to use French when there and
find that comprehension and pronounciation are two major stumbling
blocks.
>
>
> Not me. I have better things to do. I'd accept it as your opinion and move
> on.
>
> Besides, I really don't care, as long as they both perform useful work.
Wrong attitude! You should care, if only from the point of view as to
who is going to support/maintain the package when you've moved on. I
do charity work where I am redeveloping a CRM in MS Access BECAUSE the
database technology used in the existing package can not be developed
to provide new reporting facilities because nobody in the UK knows it.
>
> Mid-sentence interruptions are considered rude
Sorry. :-)
> by some people... (Not me, I
> just find them off-putting...)
> I think I heard this speech some time ago regarding BetaMax and VHS...
Good old Betamax. I worked in a shop where we sold an expensive
Betamax player with oil-damped ejection and a cheap clunky VHS. The
clunky VHS outsold the Betamax.
> Let
> it go. Unix has NOT taken over the World and even if it does, what's your
> beef? If you intend to pay the mortgage off by application programming (as
> you said above) why would you care what OS is in use? It's not like you have
> to maintain it...
My beef extends from the fact that Unix is not a good operating
system, I have 5 months experience of it and can not get a job using
it.
> Well, you wisely didn't jump to a conclusion based on a sample of one. I've
> worked with quite a number over the years and the general trend has been
> towards improvement. Some of them are not so good; some are outstanding,
> exactly as those who came out of the Business or off the street without the
> benefit of College Education.
>
The CS grad in question was a joint CS and Mathematics. I suspect that
the Maths may have lead to his academic approach to problem resolution
(manana).
>
>
> Oops, I should have read further... you HAVE drawn a conclusion on a sample
> of 1. Sad.
Gotcha! I shall take your further comments on board re the abilities
of CS grads and shall no longer be inately biaised against them. See,
something positive.
> I would stress here that it isn't "wrong" to be uninformed; so long as you
> don't start criticising that which you are not informed about.
>
> Sometimes I just think it isn't really that important. I generate heat by
> posting here, when that is not my intention. In the big picture it is all
> just computer programming... :-)
>
> Pete.
Pete: you post and others may choose to comment. If we were so opposed
to everything that you said then we would send you to Coventry (not
that I would recommend that place to anyone).
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-04-02, 6:55 pm |
| On 2 Apr 2007 09:01:37 -0700, "Alistair"
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My beef extends from the fact that Unix is not a good operating
>system, I have 5 months experience of it and can not get a job using
>it.
What correlation would you expect between these two statements?
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-04-02, 9:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:qe7213hars4h3m5u4vpu8kv45tnpkbjp07@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 03:01:38 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Whatever the manager meant goes.
>
"Manager" is just one of many hats I wear. In fact most of us need to
manage stuff at some time. Of course, if you are passionately opposed to
managers, then it may suit your purpose to label me as that... :-)
> Have you ever read Eric Frank Russell's short story "Allamagoosa"?
No, I'll have a look around the Web.
>
>
> As long as I mentioned SF, I have a bumper sticker saying:
>
> "Everyone generalizes from a sample of one. At least, I do." -- Steven
> K. Z. Brust
>
:-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-04-02, 9:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175529696.928149.135480@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I like the idea of sliming tea but couldn't put up with the 20 minute
> wait.
>
> Re Buff steak - as a pm you should remember that to ASSUME makes an
> ASS out of U and ME. What did it taste like? (and don't say Buffalo).
When in Kathmandu I wasn't wearing my PM hat; it was more the
"mountaineering and looking for answers" hat... :-)
It was dark meat, surprisingly not tough, and tasted stronger than beef but
not as gamey as wild venison. I was perfectly good, and tasty.
>
>
> Fortunately, I don't have to imagine; each year I go to Le Mans and
> renew my acquaintance with the French language and the tried and
> trusted technique of speaking English slowly and loudly (why is it
> that Britain conquered most of the world but England lost the half of
> France that it owned?). Actually I try to use French when there and
> find that comprehension and pronounciation are two major stumbling
> blocks.
>
So, are your thought processes less logical when in Le Mans? :-)
>
> Wrong attitude! You should care, if only from the point of view as to
> who is going to support/maintain the package when you've moved on.
Alistair, I have worked with many DBMS (including your favourite ADABAS,
back in the days when it was one of the first Network model DBs (as opposed
to hierarchical or relational). I have never found one that was worthless. I
don't get passionate about software any more (except stuff I wrote myself,
of course... :-)) If it does the job and suits the budget, I'm fine with
it. If I am specifcally asked by a customer to evaluate specific DBMS, with
regard to their specific environment, then I do that and recommend without
fear or favour.
If we are talking about packages, I do the job they are paying me for. Part
of that may be to ensure there is ongoing support (could be third party,
could be in house, could be both) and that simply goes with the territory.
For what it's worth, I don't consider a project "finished" until it is safe
to move on.
How does that require attitude adjustment?
I
> do charity work where I am redeveloping a CRM in MS Access BECAUSE the
> database technology used in the existing package can not be developed
> to provide new reporting facilities because nobody in the UK knows it.
>
Good for you. There is satisfaction in helping worthwhile causes.
>
> Sorry. :-)
>
>
>
> Good old Betamax. I worked in a shop where we sold an expensive
> Betamax player with oil-damped ejection and a cheap clunky VHS. The
> clunky VHS outsold the Betamax.
Yeah, life's a XXXXX, ain't it? :-) Seriously, sometimes the best product
just falls by the wayside, pushed out by the overwhelming marketing power of
an inferior competitor. At the tme, we get upset about the injustice of it,
but all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the World, won't change it. I
remember being devastated when one place I was working threw out TASKMASTER
in favour of IMS/DC. TM was definitely the best TP monitor I've ever worked
with and light years ahead of IBM's offerings. But IBM had the marketing
clout (and the political ears of the right (uninformed) people), so we moved
to IMS/DC. Six months down the track I was just grateful that IMS/DC was
better than CICS...:-). (Later, I worked on CICS sites and realised it isn't
so bad...:-)) The fact is that all of them do the job, and that was what I
stated and what I meant. I really don't care about this any more. It is like
focussing entirely on the paintbrush and never doing the painting. A good
artist will make a good painting with ANY kind of brush, as long as it lays
down paint...
>
>
> My beef extends from the fact that Unix is not a good operating
> system, I have 5 months experience of it and can not get a job using
> it.
How does your unfortunate inability to get a job with it, reflect on the
usefulness of the OS? (Are you thinking in French :-)?)
If you measure the worth of software purely by whether knowing it helps you
get a job, then it isn't me who requires attitude adjustment :-)
>
>
> The CS grad in question was a joint CS and Mathematics. I suspect that
> the Maths may have lead to his academic approach to problem resolution
> (manana).
>
>
>
> Gotcha! I shall take your further comments on board re the abilities
> of CS grads and shall no longer be inately biaised against them. See,
> something positive.
Excellent! If there can be a meeting of minds as disparate as ours, there is
still hope for the rest of the World... :-)
>
>
>
> Pete: you post and others may choose to comment. If we were so opposed
> to everything that you said then we would send you to Coventry (not
> that I would recommend that place to anyone).
Yes, I have been to Coventry. Good people, a modern cathedral (rebuilt after
the devastation of WWII), great shopping malls, and a lovely statue of Lady
Godiva... So, at least in my opinion, not all bad...
I don't mind people disagreeing with me; I don't mind people ignoring me (in
fact, that might be a very wise policy for some of the things I say... :-)).
I enjoy the interactions here and it does make some relief from some pretty
heavy stuff I am trying to assimilate at the moment, but I don't HAVE to
post here, so you won't hear me complaining about reactions to what I do
post. I just want to make it clear that I don't set out to wound, that's
all.
Pete.
Pete.
| |
| yukongal 2007-04-03, 3:55 am |
| Seeing the reparte (sp) between Pete and Alistair I thought I'd take a
gander at the requirements for a BS in CS at the local university in my home
town. It should be noted that they started offering this degree almost 30
years ago (I attempted to get it - looonnggg story involving university
politics) and most of the courses at that time were accounting - but the
first course was still the same. Looking at only the CMPT courses and using
their numbers I see:
(Note - these are semesters)
1020 - Infomation Computer Technology - 4 hrs - Concepts and techniques on
business applications of computers. Hands on experience in business
applications. Programming concepts using COBOL (!) programming language.
(Flavor not given).
1100 - Computer Information Applications - 3 hrs - Concepts and techniques
on the application of computers to the solution of buisiness computer
information systems. Students will have hands-on experience to word
processing, spreadsheet and database on microcomputers.
1120 - Application Programming - 4 hrs - A currently popular programming
language (such as JACA) will be used to create stand-alone applications and
World Wide Web pages.
1420 - Database Management Systems Applications - 2 hrs - An analysis of the
use of a DBMS in solving business problems with an emphasis on the entering,
updating, manipulating, storing and tetrieving of information.
2110 - Advanced Concepts in Programming - 4 hrs - The couse covers advanced
programming techniques and the concepts of object-oriented programming using
a currently popular programming language (such as C++)
2210 - Data Management with SQL - 3 hrs - Hands-on course utilizing a
multi-user database management system. SQL will be used as a data
manipulation and a data definition language (prereq - 1020 or 1100)
CNET courses - Conputer Network Technology
2150 - hardware Architecture - 3 hrs - Knowledge of computer hardware for
the purpose of aquisition, installation and maintenance at the equipment
level.
2200 - Network Technologies - 4 hrs - Examines the network technoogies
utilized in today's networks. Emphasis is placed on understanding hardware
and software concepts and protocols refereed to in technical publications
and advanced network studies.
8 hrs of technologies electives are also required - courses to choose from
can be...
Scripting Languages - Evaluate, lean and adopts new (4 hrs)
PC Operating Systems Inernet and the WWW (3 hrs)
Intro to Web Page Development (1 hr)
Electronic Spreadsheet Applications (2 hrs)
Microsoft Word (2 hrs)
Electronic Presentations (2 hrs) - Power Point
Microsoft Outlook (2 hrs)
Web Animation (2 hrs)
Digital Imaging (2 hrs)
Digital Illustration (3 hrs)
Digital Image Design and Editing (3 hrs)
Digital Video (3 hrs)
Internet Publishing and Design (3 hrs)
RPG Programming (4 hrs)
C Family Programming (4 hrs)
Information Systems Design and Implementation (4 hrs)
Computer End-user Support (3 hrs)
XML Concepts and Programming (3 hrs)
Desktop Publishing (3 hrs)
Advanced verstions of above
Web Site Maintenance (3 hrs)
MOUS certification Concepts (2 hrs) - prereq - all the MS stuff above
Have fun with it :)
| |
| Alistair 2007-04-03, 7:55 am |
| On 2 Apr, 17:29, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2007 09:01 | | |