COBOL is Number One

on the list of top 10 dead (or dying) computer skills:

http://www.computerworld.com/action...&intsrc=kc_feat

or if this wraps try www.computerworld.com/careers

On Jun 3, 8:47 pm, "Charles Hottel" <chot...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> on the list of top 10 dead (or dying) computer skills:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action...ewArticleBas...
>
> or if this wraps trywww.computerworld.com/careers


Sure, that's true. There's simply the matter of how many existing
billions of lines of code currently running in production, plus all
the current code being created every day, oh and the millions of
dollars needed to convert Cobol to X-language. Other than that, it's
as dead as Jimmy Hoffa, or will be in another X years. Phew, glad
that's settled, lol.

Even at my workplace they are pushing big for Java as the front end,
but Cobol will still be the back end, so to speak. Plus our Java
people keep quitting, so that's a bit of a snag.

Cobol: The New Back End

Charles Hottel wrote:
> on the list of top 10 dead (or dying) computer skills:

Interesting.  COBOL is more obsolete than OS/2.  heh...  I've used COBOL
a *lot* more recently than I've used OS/2!

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /     ~         Live from Albuquerque, NM!         ~
~  /     \/   o  ~                                            ~
~ /      /\ - |  ~           daniel@thebelowdomain            ~
~ _____ /  \  |  ~  http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog  ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

"Impy" <Impy.McFerguson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180925017.731346.135590@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 8:47 pm, "Charles Hottel" <chot...@earthlink.net> wrote: 
>
>
> Sure, that's true. There's simply the matter of how many existing
> billions of lines of code currently running in production, plus all
> the current code being created every day, oh and the millions of
> dollars needed to convert Cobol to X-language. Other than that, it's
> as dead as Jimmy Hoffa, or will be in another X years. Phew, glad
> that's settled, lol.

All of that is negated if the existing systems are replaced. Whether by a
package or by moving to a different development platform that refactors
legacy code. No maintenance, no conversion. You can wrap existing COBOL
functions and programs and continue running them until you actually NEED to
replace them... (I've been doing this with C# and it is quite simple; Java
can do it too...)
Don't be too smug. I believe X is NOT > 8.


>
> Even at my workplace they are pushing big for Java as the front end,
> but Cobol will still be the back end, so to speak.

And, as expertise in Java increases, they will see less and less need to
maintain two schools of programming.  The Java guys will be building
component based solutions using OO, and the COBOL guys will be maintaining
COBOL ... How long would you see that scenario lasting?

Within 20 years there won't be programmers (as we understand the term) in
organizations anyway. End users will use natural language  and graphical
front ends to do whatever they want done and code will be generated by
software. It will be encapsulated and reused automatically. Maintenance of
source code is unnecessary, expensive, and error prone.


>Plus our Java
> people keep quitting, so that's a bit of a snag.

:-) Maybe they don't feel welcome (or understood... ), or maybe they are
being told to write COBOL in Java...or maybe they can get better offers
(unlike the COBOL guys whose options are severely limited.) Whatever the
reason, it will only delay the inevitable;

COBOL will be phased out because it is simply too expensive to write in
today's world. Those billions of lines of code you mentioned were mostly
written during the latter half of the last century when there was no other
option. Gartner claim there are still about 3 billion lines a year being
written, but even if this were true (and I seriously doubt it), it means
nothing if the systems are replaced, as mentioned above.


> Cobol: The New Back End

I'm sure many here have maintained COBOL that looked like it came from
SOMEONE's back end... :-)

The distinction between front and back end processing is already blurring
and will eventually fade to a single unified transactional system, as
hardware and software continues advancing to the point where the most
complex transactions can be fully completed online.  Databases and
warehouses will become real time repositories, modelling the real world and
giving accurate pictures at any level required, including summaries and time
series, up to the millisecond.

I don't think we'll be doing it in COBOL.

Pete.

"Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KaK8i.13307$296.11284@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> on the list of top 10 dead (or dying) computer skills:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action...&intsrc=kc_feat
>
> or if this wraps try www.computerworld.com/careers
>
>
I'm not entirely convinced of the accuracy of some of this, although the
gist of it is hard to argue against. Certainly, COBOL is in decline, but I
don't think the article addresses the reasons for this at all well. To
simply say that Universities generally (a few exceptions) are not teaching
it, is a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenario in my opinion. A good reporter
would have tried to find out WHY they are not teaching it; we don't expect
Acadaemia to simply follow fashion without good reasons.

There are many good reasons for the decline of COBOL; I couldn't find any of
them in this article. It seemed to be based on hearsay and the views of a
very limited number of interviewed people, who may or may not be well
informed about it.

Even if they are right, and COBOL is the top dying computer skill, there are
still reasons why knowledge of it could be useful.

For myself, I've never regretted learning it.

Pete.

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
 news:ju2dncUdJ6KUDv7bnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Charles Hottel wrote: 
>
> Interesting.  COBOL is more obsolete than OS/2.  heh...  I've used COBOL a
> *lot* more recently than I've used OS/2!
>
The announcemnet about OS/2 is apparently official; no such announcement has
been made about COBOL... :-)

Pete.

On 4 Jun, 11:25, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Impy" <Impy.McFergu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> 
>
> I'm sure many here have maintained COBOL that looked like it came from
> SOMEONE's back end... :-)

I don't normally use this phrase but: ROFL.

Some of us still write Cobol that way!    ;-)

On 4 Jun, 11:25, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> The distinction between front and back end processing is already blurring
> and will eventually fade to a single unified transactional system, as
> hardware and software continues advancing to the point where the most
> complex transactions can be fully completed online.  Databases and
> warehouses will become real time repositories, modelling the real world an
d
> giving accurate pictures at any level required, including summaries and ti
me
> series, up to the millisecond.
>
> I don't think we'll be doing it in COBOL.
>
> Pete.

Too late. Britannia Music (ly now demised) wrote their sales order
and warehousing systems in Cobol and they were online realtime.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180956260.164378.186050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Jun, 11:25, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote: 
>
> Too late. Britannia Music (ly now demised) wrote their sales order
> and warehousing systems in Cobol and they were online realtime.
>
With no BackEnd (batch) processing?

Pete.

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5ci7kcF30ujccU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Within 20 years there won't be programmers (as we understand the term) in
> organizations anyway. End users will use natural language  and graphical
> front ends to do whatever they want done and code will be generated by
> software. It will be encapsulated and reused automatically. Maintenance of
> source code is unnecessary, expensive, and error prone.

Programmers (as we understand the term then)  may be using natural language
and graphical front ends to create applications, but end users? I think not.

It will be pretty much as it is today except the tools will be more
powerful.


MCM