Is Bill Klein a "hypocrite"? - asks Bill Klein

As it just became official and some of you may soon hear about it from other
sources, I thought I would let this forum know that as of today, I am the
"official primary representative" of Micro Focus to J4.  This does NOT mean 
that
I am Micro Focus employee or that I have any other current relationship with
them beyond and above this.

Furthermore, Micro Focus is aware:
- of my ongoing (public) relationships with other vendors (and "open source"
)
COBOL developers
- my ongoing questioning of the entire Standardization process
- my view of the "unimplementability" (much less implementation status) of t
he
current '02 ANSI/ISO Standards

***

I don't mean to imply (hint at or otherwise) that MF shares these views, but
they do know my view.

***

So the question (I hope) is answered that I am not a "hypocrite" in attendin
g
these meetings and representing one vendor's positions on it.

***

Wish me luck.  The last time I attended, I left being certain I would get an
ulcer if I had to hear one more discussion from this group.  We'll see what
happens this time !!!

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

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:s4zvg.282705$SQ6.89026@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> As it just became official and some of you may soon hear about it from
> other sources, I thought I would let this forum know that as of today, I
> am the "official primary representative" of Micro Focus to J4.  This does
> NOT mean that I am Micro Focus employee or that I have any other current
> relationship with them beyond and above this.
>
> Furthermore, Micro Focus is aware:
>  - of my ongoing (public) relationships with other vendors (and "open
> source") COBOL developers
> - my ongoing questioning of the entire Standardization process
> - my view of the "unimplementability" (much less implementation status) of
> the current '02 ANSI/ISO Standards
>
> ***
>
> I don't mean to imply (hint at or otherwise) that MF shares these views,
> but they do know my view.
>
>   ***
>
> So the question (I hope) is answered that I am not a "hypocrite" in
> attending these meetings and representing one vendor's positions on it.
>
>   ***
>
> Wish me luck.  The last time I attended, I left being certain I would get
> an ulcer if I had to hear one more discussion from this group.  We'll see
> what happens this time !!!
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>

Don't worry I am sure it does not matter, simply attending the meetings will
be more than ample punishment I am certain.

Who among us can claim that their personal beliefs and values are 100
percent in alignment with the corporate beliefs and values of their
employer?

In article <s4zvg.282705$SQ6.89026@fe09.news.easynews.com>,
William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Wish me luck.

Bona fortuna, Mr Klein.

DD

charles hottel wrote:
>
> Don't worry I am sure it does not matter, simply attending the
> meetings will be more than ample punishment I am certain.
>
> Who among us can claim that their personal beliefs and values are 100
> percent in alignment with the corporate beliefs and values of their
> employer?

Me.

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12btpajscu2ce22@news.supernews.com...
> charles hottel wrote: 
>
> Me.
>

Sounds like you are legend in your own mind :-)

William M. Klein wrote:
> As it just became official and some of you may soon hear about it from oth
er
> sources, I thought I would let this forum know that as of today, I am the
> "official primary representative" of Micro Focus to J4.  This does NOT mea
n that
> I am Micro Focus employee or that I have any other current relationship wi
th
> them beyond and above this.
>
> Furthermore, Micro Focus is aware:
>   - of my ongoing (public) relationships with other vendors (and "open sou
rce")
> COBOL developers
>  - my ongoing questioning of the entire Standardization process
>  - my view of the "unimplementability" (much less implementation status) o
f the
> current '02 ANSI/ISO Standards
>
> ***
>
> I don't mean to imply (hint at or otherwise) that MF shares these views, b
ut
> they do know my view.
>
>    ***
>
> So the question (I hope) is answered that I am not a "hypocrite" in attend
ing
> these meetings and representing one vendor's positions on it.
>
>    ***
>
> Wish me luck.  The last time I attended, I left being certain I would get 
an
> ulcer if I had to hear one more discussion from this group.  We'll see wha
t
> happens this time !!!
>

No you're not an hypocrite but I think you are NUTS !

Having committed, nevertheless you raise the topic here - which suggests
you consider your own decision perhaps somewhat troublesome.

Now the only person we heard from about M/F cutbacks was you; no other
sources. Are they just pruning the marketing arm, or more likely, it
also has impact on the development team, plus of course without being
laid-off some of the good folks will have walked away, for at least the
second time. Given that the objective of laying people off is to save
money how does this impact on M/F's attitude to J4/WG4 - no answer
required - but what is the response in your own mind.

Simple question  - does M/F need the Standards machinery at this
juncture ? (Don't forget that in the PC-world both F/J and M/F have
opened the flood-gate by introducing dotNet. It would appear a number of
M/F users have stopped at Version 3.1, but if you are a newcomer you
can't buy 'old' compilers and you are faced with V 4. and soon V 5 -
both which have dotNet and you can cope quite happily without the
following TRs).

They'll love you at J4 of course - particularly if you ask the question,
"Can we get a handle on who is going to implement what of COBOL 2002,
plus the ensuing changes scheduled for COBOL 2008 ?"

Another quote from you, "M/F have stated they will implement the full
Standard". Is that the case now that they are going through cutbacks.

I know there is more in the bag of tricks for COBOL 2008 than I mention,
but I'll concentrate on OO with one exception for Procedural.

1. TR - Dynamic Working-Storage Tables (John Piggott)

With your 'inclination' to Procedural, I'm sure you will support this
one - and M/F would need it to compete in the mainframe environment.

2. TR - Finalizer

OK it's set and ready to go, if a compiler team implements it.

(a) IBM doesn't need this feature - using JavaBase
(b) with a slightly different philosophy about creating objects, F/J
appears to have its own current solution
(c) Hitachi ?
(d) Fujitsu-Siemens - no doubt Karl would like a spec rather than dream
up his own
(e) M/F *could* implement - but the current given methods in Classes
Base/Behavior for "finalize", "deepFinalize", "deepFinalizeWithDepth"
and "ReallyDeepFinalize", work quite well in a disciplined approach.

3. TR - XML

OK this is an M/F baby. Hadn't realized Huib Klink was the original
author until you said so. Remember SoftwareSimple back around 2000. I
queried why Bob Karlin suggested a COBOL DB, seeing that this is a
feature well supported outside of COBOL. At the time Thane replied J4
had already come to the same conclusion. It was axed.

Same applies with XML -  It's well served outside the COBOL domain. And
in retail terminology, what is the 'shelf life' for this product. The
way things move in the IT world it could conceivably be obsolescent as
the 'darling technology' before the compiler developers have even
introduced it.

4. Collections.

Talk about COBOL-lite.  What has resulted to date, including caveats
that "it isn't yet complete" just doesn't compare with the M/F Model. (I
recall it came up as a topic - multi-threading with collections; I don't
think any conclusion was reached). Not just Ordered, Sorted and Keyed
Collections - but the whole M/F GUI approach, (1) Dialog Editor and GUI
classes or, (2) Dialog System, are interwoven with their Collection
philosophy, the above 'major' classes being backed up by a whole series
of array classes to manipulate strings.

If they want to save money - why implement something new when they
already have a very satisfactory model. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Being M/F they will will also want to continue with "backwards
compatibility" - so now the old methods plus new method-names/actions ?
It *can* be done - but why spend the money ?

One serious suggestion I would make. Get yourself to Newbury for a one
day session with a couple of "hot-shots" who understand their Collection
philosophy in detail. Ignore the syntax element of the TR, get them to
walk you through the necessary coding to currently implement
Arrays/Collections in detail, with particular emphasis on the invoking
of myriad super support classes, and then compare it to the TR. Get them
to make a comparison approach to the F/J model (which essentially is
what the TR is about) and where M/F creates collections of
"ofReferences" or "ofValues". Plus their equivalent of KeydCollections,
Dictionary, which allows for four combinations of string and object
references.

So far as I've seen, there doesn't appear to have been any serious M/F
input into this topic. The first of two messages I wrote to Tony Hill
was a XXXXX about how I thought this TR was going. His reply, "What do
you want me to do ?". (My second message was about the runtime fees).

Conclusion :

If you are going to represent M/F and NOT the COBOL community - make
sure it's something that works on their behalf.

Jimmy

Not answering a lot of this, but from what I heard BEFORE my J4 representati
on
was even considered, most of the "recent" redundancies (aka "lay offs") were
among those NOT directly bringing in revenue. I didn't hear of ANY "develope
r"
lay-offs (but there certainly may have been some) and most of the "sales" pe
ople
were also kept.  I did hear of some "direct customer support" lay-offs and t
his
didn't (doesn't) make much sense to me - and didn't when Fujitsu did the sam
e
thing a while ago.

***

As far as any *current* public statement on implementation of the 2002 Stand
ard
(or any TR or the '08 Standard), as far as I know Micro Focus and IBM both h
ave
the same PUBLIC statement,

"We will implement those specific features that our customers need/want - an
d
will pay for the development of.  If this includes a "fully conforming"
compiler, then our customers will need to communicate this to us. If not, th
ose
features that do meet our customers needs will be implemented as resources
allow."

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:e8Evg.212955$Mn5.185774@pd7tw3no...
> William M. Klein wrote: 
>
> No you're not an hypocrite but I think you are NUTS !
>
> Having committed, nevertheless you raise the topic here - which suggests y
ou
> consider your own decision perhaps somewhat troublesome.
>
> Now the only person we heard from about M/F cutbacks was you; no other
> sources. Are they just pruning the marketing arm, or more likely, it also 
has
> impact on the development team, plus of course without being laid-off some
 of
> the good folks will have walked away, for at least the second time. Given 
that
> the objective of laying people off is to save money how does this impact o
n
> M/F's attitude to J4/WG4 - no answer required - but what is the response i
n
> your own mind.
>
> Simple question  - does M/F need the Standards machinery at this juncture 
?
> (Don't forget that in the PC-world both F/J and M/F have opened the flood-
gate
> by introducing dotNet. It would appear a number of M/F users have stopped 
at
> Version 3.1, but if you are a newcomer you can't buy 'old' compilers and y
ou
> are faced with V 4. and soon V 5 - both which have dotNet and you can cope
> quite happily without the following TRs).
>
> They'll love you at J4 of course - particularly if you ask the question, "
Can
> we get a handle on who is going to implement what of COBOL 2002, plus the
> ensuing changes scheduled for COBOL 2008 ?"
>
> Another quote from you, "M/F have stated they will implement the full
> Standard". Is that the case now that they are going through cutbacks.
>
> I know there is more in the bag of tricks for COBOL 2008 than I mention, b
ut
> I'll concentrate on OO with one exception for Procedural.
>
> 1. TR - Dynamic Working-Storage Tables (John Piggott)
>
> With your 'inclination' to Procedural, I'm sure you will support this one 
-
> and M/F would need it to compete in the mainframe environment.
>
> 2. TR - Finalizer
>
> OK it's set and ready to go, if a compiler team implements it.
>
> (a) IBM doesn't need this feature - using JavaBase
> (b) with a slightly different philosophy about creating objects, F/J appea
rs
> to have its own current solution
> (c) Hitachi ?
> (d) Fujitsu-Siemens - no doubt Karl would like a spec rather than dream up
 his
> own
> (e) M/F *could* implement - but the current given methods in Classes
> Base/Behavior for "finalize", "deepFinalize", "deepFinalizeWithDepth" and
> "ReallyDeepFinalize", work quite well in a disciplined approach.
>
> 3. TR - XML
>
> OK this is an M/F baby. Hadn't realized Huib Klink was the original author
> until you said so. Remember SoftwareSimple back around 2000. I queried why
 Bob
> Karlin suggested a COBOL DB, seeing that this is a feature well supported
> outside of COBOL. At the time Thane replied J4 had already come to the sam
e
> conclusion. It was axed.
>
> Same applies with XML -  It's well served outside the COBOL domain. And in
> retail terminology, what is the 'shelf life' for this product. The way thi
ngs
> move in the IT world it could conceivably be obsolescent as the 'darling
> technology' before the compiler developers have even introduced it.
>
> 4. Collections.
>
> Talk about COBOL-lite.  What has resulted to date, including caveats that 
"it
> isn't yet complete" just doesn't compare with the M/F Model. (I recall it 
came
> up as a topic - multi-threading with collections; I don't think any conclu
sion
> was reached). Not just Ordered, Sorted and Keyed Collections - but the who
le
> M/F GUI approach, (1) Dialog Editor and GUI classes or, (2) Dialog System,
 are
> interwoven with their Collection philosophy, the above 'major' classes bei
ng
> backed up by a whole series of array classes to manipulate strings.
>
> If they want to save money - why implement something new when they already
> have a very satisfactory model. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
> Being M/F they will will also want to continue with "backwards
> compatibility" - so now the old methods plus new method-names/actions ?
> It *can* be done - but why spend the money ?
>
> One serious suggestion I would make. Get yourself to Newbury for a one day
> session with a couple of "hot-shots" who understand their Collection
> philosophy in detail. Ignore the syntax element of the TR, get them to wal
k
> you through the necessary coding to currently implement Arrays/Collections
 in
> detail, with particular emphasis on the invoking of myriad super support
> classes, and then compare it to the TR. Get them to make a comparison appr
oach
> to the F/J model (which essentially is what the TR is about) and where M/F
> creates collections of "ofReferences" or "ofValues". Plus their equivalent
 of
> KeydCollections, Dictionary, which allows for four combinations of string 
and
> object references.
>
> So far as I've seen, there doesn't appear to have been any serious M/F inp
ut
> into this topic. The first of two messages I wrote to Tony Hill was a bitc
h
> about how I thought this TR was going. His reply, "What do you want me to 
do
> ?". (My second message was about the runtime fees).
>
> Conclusion :
>
> If you are going to represent M/F and NOT the COBOL community - make sure 
it's
> something that works on their behalf.
>
> Jimmy

Congratulations, Bill!

If anything could breathe life back into this process it would be your
contribution.

A fresh viewpoint that isn't tempered by 'toeing the party line' is exactly
what is needed.

Who knows? We might even see an implementation of the standard yet...

One thing is for sure...If you are on this committee it will be honest.

Very best wishes.

Pete.















"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:s4zvg.282705$SQ6.89026@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> As it just became official and some of you may soon hear about it from
> other sources, I thought I would let this forum know that as of today, I
> am the "official primary representative" of Micro Focus to J4.  This does
> NOT mean that I am Micro Focus employee or that I have any other current
> relationship with them beyond and above this.
>
> Furthermore, Micro Focus is aware:
>  - of my ongoing (public) relationships with other vendors (and "open
> source") COBOL developers
> - my ongoing questioning of the entire Standardization process
> - my view of the "unimplementability" (much less implementation status) of
> the current '02 ANSI/ISO Standards
>
> ***
>
> I don't mean to imply (hint at or otherwise) that MF shares these views,
> but they do know my view.
>
>   ***
>
> So the question (I hope) is answered that I am not a "hypocrite" in
> attending these meetings and representing one vendor's positions on it.
>
>   ***
>
> Wish me luck.  The last time I attended, I left being certain I would get
> an ulcer if I had to hear one more discussion from this group.  We'll see
> what happens this time !!!
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>
>

"charles hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5hCvg.592$gF6.148@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12btpajscu2ce22@news.supernews.com... 
>
> Sounds like you are legend in your own mind :-)
No Charlie, you will elicit the same response from anyone who is self
employed...

Pete.

charles hottel wrote:
> "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12btpajscu2ce22@news.supernews.com... 
>
> Sounds like you are legend in your own mind :-)

No, but being of a "logical" mind (usually a "plus" for programmers), I
decided many years ago, that as long as I was going to work for an idiot,
that idiot might as well be me.