Code Comments
Programming Forum and web based access to our favorite programming groups.
for a laught (???)If anyone is "interested" - you might want to check out the J4 "annual repor t" at: http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/07-0096.htm -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
Post Follow-up to this message
Re: for a laught (???)"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:v5N9i.249145$oS7.209162@fe04.news.easynews.com... > If anyone is "interested" - you might want to check out the J4 "annual > report" at: > > http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/07-0096.htm > > -- > Bill Klein > wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com > Sadly it isn't funny. I find it absolutely appalling that an official document, under the auspices of the official guardians of COBOL, can have a very important section of itself that is simple bullshit and hearsay. I refer, of course to Section 8, which is the only part of the document that would be of any interest to me (and probably a number of other people...) I reproduce it here, with my comments: (Quoted lines are prefixed with a single chevron) >8. Future Trends and Related Technical Activities There are no discernable technical activities under this heading... >COBOL continues to be widely used for development of new applications, and >for enhancement and re-engineering of existing >applications. Does it? Says who? I know a number of IT managers and none of them feels this way. I know of no sites which are undertaking new development in COBOL. I know of some who are re-engineering their existing COBOL. >The trend in the industry is to web-enable COBOL applications, with COBOL >running on a server interacting with a non->COBOL >user interface. Yes, that seems to be the case, but would it hurt to give some sources for the figures? Even if the author simply said "In my opinion..." or "According to my observations" you could at least respect him/her for being honest. This kind of sweeping statement should be confined to Usenet where we expect bullshit, and not form part of an official report from a serious Authority. >The following facts give you an idea of the importance of COBOL: FACTS????!!!! I am reminded of a definition of the term I once heard: "Fact" is a little furry animal that lives at the bottom of the sea and strides around in seven league sea boots collecting fish farts to put in spirit levels. And that's a fact" It would seem the author is operating on the same definition of a fact. >· More than $1.5 trillion has been invested in COBOL applications Gosh, where have I heard this before? >· More than 30 billion COBOL transactions occur daily Gosh, where have I heard this before? >· More than 200 billion lines of COBOL code are working as you read >this No, 100 billion of them are being retired... It's a fact... I just said it... >· More than 5 billion lines of COBOL are written every year And the guy who's doing it has severe carpal tunnel syndrome... This is such a horrific misquote it beggars belief. Gartner said (in year 2000, that they expected 5 billion lines of COBOL (notice they did NOT say "more than 5 billion") to be written each year for the next 4 years. NOT every year for as long as you like... Systems are being converted, COBOL programmers are retiring, it is highly unlikely that in 2007 there will be 5 billion lines of COBOL being written, but the fact is that nobody knows for sure. So why include unverifiable speculation in an official document, and claim that it is FACT? Exactly how does this improve the image and credibility of J4? >· 75% of the world's business data is in COBOL. It was once. 25 years ago. What really annoys me about this is that it isn't hard to find sources and they simply don't stack up with Gartner. (In fact, even Gartner themselves have revised their year 2000 estimates.) For example, (read the complete article at: http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug121406-story03.html it is very interesting...): "If you want to get a second opinion on the popularity of languages, Tiobe Software puts together an annual study of the popularity of programming languages, too. This survey is based on using Web search engines to find the phrases "Java programming," "COBOL programming," "C programming," and so on and averaging across the search engines. The average hits are counted up to give a ranking. This may not be scientific, but it is interesting. Card walloper languages like COBOL rank at number 18 (with 0.601 percent of hits) on the Tiobe chatter index, and RPG comes in at number 31 (with 0.238 percent). Java, by contrast, comes in number one with 19.9 percent of hits, followed by C at 16.6 percent, C++ at 10.4 percent, Visual Basic at 8.9 percent, PHP at 8.5 percent, and C# at 3.17 percent.:" If this is true, it would indicate that C# (a comparative Johnny-come-lately in the programming world) is over 5 times more popular than COBOL is... But I strongly doubt that there are 25 billion lines of C# being written every year (Ok, it is a much more powerful language, so you need less of it... :-) It seems that the author, completely unable to research anything remotely probable, has decided to simply drop a 7 year old Gartner press release into what is arguably the most important section of the document. What REALLY is the future for COBOL and what part do J4 see themselves playing in it? "Er... dunno, but here's something that looks impressive... Let's just boilerplate some bullshit and head off on another boondoggle..." >Continued evolution of the international standard for COBOL is essential to >provide the benefits of new technologies and new >environments to COBOL >users worldwide. These same users are voting with their feet as far as J4 is concerned, and who can blame them. If this document is a reflection of the Quality of the management at J4 there is absolutely no hope for COBOL. I wish I could laugh at it. I can't. Pete.
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 01:43:05 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >It was once. 25 years ago. What really annoys me about this is that it isn' t >hard to find sources and they simply don't stack up with Gartner. (In fact, >even Gartner themselves have revised their year 2000 estimates.) I don't even know what that means. Does it mean the data are in flat files, accessible by CoBOL? Does it mean the data are in databases accessible by CoBOL? Very little data are encapsulated with CoBOL code.
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)On 7 Jun, 14:43, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > "William M. Klein" <wmkl...@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in messagenews:v5N9i. 249145$oS7.209162@fe04.news.easynews.com...> If anyone is "interested" - you might want to check out the J4 "annual > > > > Sadly it isn't funny. > > I find it absolutely appalling that an official document, under the auspic es > of the official guardians of COBOL, can have a very important section of > itself that is simple bullshit and hearsay. > > I refer, of course to Section 8, which is the only part of the document th at > would be of any interest to me (and probably a number of other people...) > > I reproduce it here, with my comments: (Quoted lines are prefixed with a > single chevron) > > > There are no discernable technical activities under this heading... > > > Does it? Says who? I know a number of IT managers and none of them feels > this way. I know of no sites which are undertaking new development in > COBOL. I know of some who are re-engineering their existing COBOL. > > > Yes, that seems to be the case, but would it hurt to give some sources for > the figures? Even if the author simply said "In my opinion..." or "Accordi ng > to my observations" you could at least respect him/her for being honest. > This kind of sweeping statement should be confined to Usenet where we expe ct > bullshit, and not form part of an official report from a serious Authority . > > > FACTS????!!!! I am reminded of a definition of the term I once heard: > > "Fact" is a little furry animal that lives at the bottom of the sea and > strides around in seven league sea boots collecting fish farts to put in > spirit levels. And that's a fact" Nice definition (I'm going to start using it) but: Unfortunately, to pour cold water on this definition, I would like to point out that the only fish that has, as yet, been shown to fart is in fact (every pun intended) Clupea harengus (the herring) which swims in shoals near the surface of the sea. Therefore, the Fact would have a very lean time collecting farts at the bottom of the sea. Only one more comment (see below). > > "If you want to get a second opinion on the popularity of languages, Tiobe > Software puts together an annual study of the popularity of programming > languages, too. This survey is based on using Web search engines to find t he > phrases "Java programming," "COBOL programming," "C programming," and so o n > and averaging across the search engines. The average hits are counted up t o > give a ranking. This may not be scientific, but it is interesting. Card > walloper languages like COBOL rank at number 18 (with 0.601 percent of hit s) > on the Tiobe chatter index, and RPG comes in at number 31 (with 0.238 > percent). Java, by contrast, comes in number one with 19.9 percent of hits , > followed by C at 16.6 percent, C++ at 10.4 percent, Visual Basic at 8.9 > percent, PHP at 8.5 percent, and C# at 3.17 percent.:" > > If this is true, it would indicate that C# (a comparative Johnny-come-late ly > in the programming world) is over 5 times more popular than COBOL is... Bu t > I strongly doubt that there are 25 billion lines of C# being written every > year (Ok, it is a much more powerful language, so you need less of it... : -) > Very interesting figures, Pete. I don't think that web page tags, etc., can be used as a definitive indicator of the usage made of a language (Befunge may figure more highly than Cobol but no-one uses it for serious work) but they can, as you have, raise some serious questions. Maybe Cobollers don't want to talk about it too much (it must be a little like being in favour of the recently usurped dictator).
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)William M. Klein wrote: > If anyone is "interested" - you might want to check out the J4 "annual rep ort" > at: > > http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/07-0096.htm Well, you had question marks on the "for a laugh" part, but I didn't really laugh at all. There is progress in there, but it's slow going. It seems like maybe the processes that are in place are slow intentionally. I'm certainly not knocking the efforts of anyone on that committee. To change a language with new, useful features while ensuring that 40-year-old programs still compile and run as they did then, is an immense task. With the few members they have, they're doing well. It just seems that maybe they're using the waterfall approach, while other languages are using RAD or Agile development. No sooner had I bought "Learn Java 5 in 21 Days", Sun released Java 6! I'm sure there are ways to do a lot of things that other languages do in COBOL (yes, a good programmer can write FORTRAN in any language); it just that while the committee has been figuring out how to do it, other vendors have been giving it away. When a COBOL vendor *does* get it implemented, it's thousands of dollars for a working copy. When I was at my last assignment, we talked to Unisys and asked what people were asking for. Were they asking for 2002-standard COBOL features? Nope - they wanted JBoss, Tomcat, and a robust JDBC server. As it was, we were exercising parts of their compiler that hadn't been exercised (I'm extrapolating this from the number of fixes we initiated). It does seem, as Mr. Dashwood has said many times, that the world has moved on. The stats in section 8 seem a bit high - it's good for the language if they're accurate, but I think they might be embellished. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~ ~ _ /\ | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~ ~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~ ~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~ ~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)Pete, without going into each point that you raise (not because I am lazy - I just feel that they are not all relevant, and in my opinion, reflect something other than objective comments on COBOL and Development in general) some comments: (prefixed with "Dons Comment") Pete Dashwood wrote: > I find it absolutely appalling that an official document, under the auspi= ces > of the official guardians of COBOL, can have a very important section of > itself that is simple bullshit and hearsay. > > I refer, of course to Section 8, which is the only part of the document t= hat > would be of any interest to me (and probably a number of other people...) > > I reproduce it here, with my comments: (Quoted lines are prefixed with a > single chevron) > > > There are no discernable technical activities under this heading... > nd > > Does it? Says who? I know a number of IT managers and none of them feels > this way. I know of no sites which are undertaking new development in > COBOL. I know of some who are re-engineering their existing COBOL. Dons Comment: we work with around 600 companies that use COBOL in their IT. All of them are are doing ongoing COBOL development and major maintenance. This past w, we met with 3 (for us new) companies, working on diverse platforms, who are all designing new COBOL applications. > > > Yes, that seems to be the case, but would it hurt to give some sources for > the figures? Even if the author simply said "In my opinion..." or "Accord= ing > to my observations" you could at least respect him/her for being honest. > This kind of sweeping statement should be confined to Usenet where we exp= ect > bullshit, and not form part of an official report from a serious Authorit= y=2E Dons Comment: you only have to look at what the COBOL companies are doing to see that this comment is correct. I dont know of any COBOL manufacturer who is developing anything that companies out there are not asking for - and this is primarily Web Interface work. > > FACTS????!!!! I am reminded of a definition of the term I once heard: > > "Fact" is a little furry animal that lives at the bottom of the sea and > strides around in seven league sea boots collecting fish farts to put in > spirit levels. And that's a fact" > > It would seem the author is operating on the same definition of a fact. > > ons > > Gosh, where have I heard this before? > > > Gosh, where have I heard this before? > read > > No, 100 billion of them are being retired... It's a fact... I just said > it... > > > And the guy who's doing it has severe carpal tunnel syndrome... This is > such a horrific misquote it beggars belief. Gartner said (in year 2000, t= hat > they expected 5 billion lines of COBOL (notice they did NOT say "more tha= n 5 > billion") to be written each year for the next 4 years. NOT every year f= or > as long as you like... Systems are being converted, COBOL programmers are > retiring, it is highly unlikely that in 2007 there will be 5 billion lines > of COBOL being written, but the fact is that nobody knows for sure. So why > include unverifiable speculation in an official document, and claim that = it > is FACT? Exactly how does this improve the image and credibility of J4? > > > It was once. 25 years ago. What really annoys me about this is that it is= n't > hard to find sources and they simply don't stack up with Gartner. (In fac= t, > even Gartner themselves have revised their year 2000 estimates.) Dons Comment: Yeah, you are right on this. This definition of facts is a very interesting one, and I don't think any one would be well advised to take it seriously. I believe they are only trying to justify their own roles - but that is also a subjective opinion from my side. Perhaps a problem is that the only open systems manufacturer I see referred to is Micro Focus, and the risk is that the only standards that get addressed are those that match Micro Focus objectives. But that is the fault of the other manufacturers. > > For example, (read the complete article at: > http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug121406-story03.html it is very > interesting...): > > "If you want to get a second opinion on the popularity of languages, Tiobe > Software puts together an annual study of the popularity of programming > languages, too. This survey is based on using Web search engines to find = the > phrases "Java programming," "COBOL programming," "C programming," and so = on > and averaging across the search engines. The average hits are counted up = to > give a ranking. This may not be scientific, but it is interesting. Card > walloper languages like COBOL rank at number 18 (with 0.601 percent of hi= ts) > on the Tiobe chatter index, and RPG comes in at number 31 (with 0.238 > percent). Java, by contrast, comes in number one with 19.9 percent of hit= s, > followed by C at 16.6 percent, C++ at 10.4 percent, Visual Basic at 8.9 > percent, PHP at 8.5 percent, and C# at 3.17 percent.:" > > If this is true, it would indicate that C# (a comparative Johnny-come-lat= ely > in the programming world) is over 5 times more popular than COBOL is... B= ut > I strongly doubt that there are 25 billion lines of C# being written every > year (Ok, it is a much more powerful language, so you need less of it... = :-) > Dons Comments: This is not very reliable. On this kind of "survey" you would probably find Adolf Hitler's name appearing a heck of a lot more often then Nelson Mandela's, but to draw the conclusion that Hitler is more popular ? This is of course also nonsense, but no more so that the so-called survey refered to above. > It seems that the author, completely unable to research anything remotely > probable, has decided to simply drop a 7 year old Gartner press release i= nto > what is arguably the most important section of the document. > > What REALLY is the future for COBOL and what part do J4 see themselves > playing in it? > > "Er... dunno, but here's something that looks impressive... Let's just > boilerplate some bullshit and head off on another boondoggle..." > to > Dons Comment: Fortunately for the COBOL users, what is reflected here is not reflected by the COBOL manufacturers activities. There is a lot of activity out there in tools development around COBOL, and even if compared to other languages it is not very high profile, it is, in my opinion, going in the right direction. Integration. COBOL has for us been an Integration Language for the last 10 years. Of course it won't be there for ever, and the main objective can, in my opinion, only be, to ensure those who have and are developing in COBOL can move their application knowledge forward without throwing it all away just to allow them to progress. > These same users are voting with their feet as far as J4 is concerned, and > who can blame them. If this document is a reflection of the Quality of the > management at J4 there is absolutely no hope for COBOL. Dons Comment: You probably have stated in ths forum what you would expect from COBOL to make it something for you. For the sake of the latecomers like myself, perhaps you would describe your "requirements" ? > I wish I could laugh at it. > > I can't. > > Pete. regards Don
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)<don_fitzgerald@web.de> wrote in message news:1181382599.317681.92110@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... Pete, without going into each point that you raise (not because I am lazy - I just feel that they are not all relevant, and in my opinion, reflect something other than objective comments on COBOL and Development in general) some comments: (prefixed with "Dons Comment") OK. Responses below. Pete Dashwood wrote: > I find it absolutely appalling that an official document, under the > auspices > of the official guardians of COBOL, can have a very important section of > itself that is simple bullshit and hearsay. > > I refer, of course to Section 8, which is the only part of the document > that > would be of any interest to me (and probably a number of other people...) > > I reproduce it here, with my comments: (Quoted lines are prefixed with a > single chevron) > > > There are no discernable technical activities under this heading... > You ignored this? > > Does it? Says who? I know a number of IT managers and none of them feels > this way. I know of no sites which are undertaking new development in > COBOL. I know of some who are re-engineering their existing COBOL. Dons Comment: we work with around 600 companies that use COBOL in their IT. All of them are are doing ongoing COBOL development and major maintenance. This past w
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)Hey Pete, Are you a Microsoft salesman incognito ? :-) Seriously though, I take many of your points on COBOL and comparisons to Micrsosoft and licensing etc. as valid. What we all shouldn't forget for even one minute is that Microsoft's (and any other company) mission is also about making money. We work closely with Microsoft, and they are very open (at least in our relationship) that their objective is to sell licences for all the products they possibley can, especially to ISVs. As an aside, and not really related to this, I believe that the Microsoft products have mostly become very good, are getting better due to the competition that they face in the areas that they are addressing oustide of the classical "Office" area, (although there as well of course). Anyway, I am working on understanding where you are coming from on the whole COBOL issue. Maybe I will figure it out sometime. In the meantime, I will follow your contributions with interest ! BTW: coming to France for the Rugby World Cup ? Don
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)<much snippage>
but see below for one specific topic
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5cvrk4F329bghU1@mid.individual.net...
>
<snip>
> Fair enough. So why isn't a comment to that effect included in the report?
> What ARE some fo these Technical Activities that are going on in the COBOL
> World and how is J4 involved in supporting and promoting them?
>
<snip>
> Personally, I have no problem with MicroFocus monopolising COBOL. I'd rath
er
> see it in their hands than J4's.
<snip>
>
<snip>
****
Bill's comment.
I know the exact roles and rules for the various Standards bodies is NOT
something that people in this forum know or need to know - and in fact (IMHO
)
they are part of the PROBLEM, but I did want to make it clear that,
J4's exclusive roles (today) are:
1) "design" revisions of the Standard to do what WG4 (the ISO working group)
TELLS them to do
2) draft "fixes" and "interpretations" of the existing ('02) Standard for th
e
international process to approve or disapprove
3) (for the J4-TAG which is limited to "US domiciled members") to set US
positions (or recommendations) when international votes, meetings, etc occur
J4 is *NOT* the group that "sets direction" or "selects" features or facilit
ies
to be implemented.
This is why I (so often) post notes in this forum telling people to "contact
your local national standards body).
It is worth noting that (like member participation in J4), the number of
countries participating in COBOL (and ALL programming languages) development
and
processing is decreasing. (For example, when I know that when Pete contacted
the
New Zealand group, they indicated that they an "observer" country for COBOL
and
not a "participating" country).
Post Follow-up to this message Re: for a laught (???)<don_fitzgerald@web.de> wrote in message news:1181406713.476081.129140@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > Hey Pete, > > Are you a Microsoft salesman incognito ? :-) Not at all. I've been using Fujitsu COBOL ever since the VISOC fiasco. > > Seriously though, I take many of your points on COBOL and comparisons > to Micrsosoft and licensing etc. as valid. What we all shouldn't > forget for even one minute is that Microsoft's (and any other company) > mission is also about making money. We work closely with Microsoft, > and they are very open (at least in our relationship) that their > objective is to sell licences for all the products they possibley can, > especially to ISVs. Well, that's partly my point. If someone is up front and honest, you can deal with them (even if you may not be in agreement with all of their goals and the methods they use to attain them.) It certainly worked with me. Instead of spending several thousand dollars with Fujitsu to buy DotNET COBOL for DotNET, Microsoft got a sale for VS 2005 and I got more than I could have dreamed of. They far exceeeded my expectations... Why wouldn't I give repeat business to a company that does that? > > As an aside, and not really related to this, I believe that the > Microsoft products have mostly become very good, are getting better > due to the competition that they face in the areas that they are > addressing oustide of the classical "Office" area, (although there as > well of course). > I have no complaints about their toolset; it is value for money. > Anyway, I am working on understanding where you are coming from on the > whole COBOL issue. Maybe I will figure it out sometime. > I'm sorry if it isn't clear. Here's some background... I started programming computers in 1965 and writing COBOL in 1967. I did it for decades and loved it (still do...). Even after my career progressed into management and consultancy I still enjoyed programming and writing applications, mainly in COBOL, but also other languages. By the 1990s, still waiting for a new COBOL standard to replace the 1985 one (which became a landmark), it became apparent to me that COBOL was in the doldrums and the new industry trends were not being picked up by the language or the community. Then Fujitsu released their OO COBOL and it was good. Amazingly (to me, at least), the community simply rejected it. I could understand the mainframe people being skeptical, and they had little opportunity to use an OO compiler anyway, but there was fierce resistance to even the idea of looking at new concepts. There was an atmosphere of complacency and smug satisfaction that COBOL was king, procedural programing was the way to go (OO was just a re-invention of modular programming) and there was no need for anyone to learn anything new, or change what they were doing in the slightest. There were plenty of COBOL jobs on Jobserve and the contract market for COBOL was still buoyant, just sliding off the peak it had enjoyed in the mid eighties. I foresaw that many people would lose their jobs unless they upskilled quickly, and I tried very hard to encourage people here to do so. I moved my own career path from programming to management and consultancy at that time, but also developed skills in OO, Java, and Project Management. Suggestions here from me, that people look at OO and relational DBs were, in general, met with scorn and sometimes vitriol. A very few of us got into OO and realised the power of it. I moved on to components and ActiveX, usng Fujitsu COBOL and thoroughly enjoying it, although I didn't make much money at it :-) (I still needed my "proper job" to make a living...) By the end of the 90s we were still waiting for a COBOL standard; there was argument as to whether it would include OO or not, and the Network (which was based almost exclusively around Java, a pure OO language) was starting to seriously erode the mainframe powerbase. Acadaemia was already into OO and component based design, and more and more Universities dropped COBOL courses. There was a renewal of interest for the Millennium and again, many people thought this would be enough to restore COBOL's fading star. It wasn't of course, and there was still no sign of an official standard that would provide direction and let us know whether COBOL was going to be viable into the new century. By now I was starting to understand that the Internet was going to change everything irrevocably. I was building web sites and using components written with Fujitsu COBOL, for CGI. It worked but it was not facile. There was still a lot of stuff that needed embedded scripts for it to work properly. (As an aside, let me say that the web development I am currently undertaking uses C# and ASP.Net exclusively. Web pages are simply pages written in ASP; all of the "intelligence" is moved to a "code-behind" page (there is one for each displayable page on the site), which is pure C# code (not script). As such, the web site uses compiled code running on the server, not scripts embedded in the client. This is much more secure and stable than the older model, but it requires more round trips to the server. Moore's Law is taking care of this and making the approach feasible.) By 2005, it was apparent to me that the Net and OO had won the paradigm battle. There is simply no place in today's world for a non-OO, procedural based language, apart from some big sequential processing jobs, and maintaining the legacy built up over forty odd years. The days when every company had its COBOL shop are numbered; I predicted it would stop by 2015 but it may be much sooner than that. You say you are in touch with 600 companies who are still undertaking development in COBOL (and I believe you) but I wonder how many of them see a 10 year future for that COBOL development? They will be forced by market forces (they have to remain competitive) to move away from COBOL. So, summing up: 1. It is no longer viable to employ programmers to write code one line at a time, and make changes to it whenever there is a change in policy or market model. It simply costs too much (that's why it is being outsourced to the third world, but even that has a limited lifetime, and is rapidly becoming more expensive) and is too ponderous to build flexible, responsive systems. This, more than anything else, spells the end of COBOL. (Objects and reuse, functional programming, and agile or RAD development simply cream the old waterfall; they are MUCH cheaper, faster, more powerful, and grow in strength the longer you use them. They deliver functionality to end users quickly and in a way that means change is welcomed, rather than resisted. No contest.) 2. What is my position on COBOL? I have great affection for it. It fed and clothed me for many years and gave me a lifestyle that has been thoroughly enjoyable. But it is time to move on. I'd like to see it go with dignity. I still have a pretty hefty investment in COBOL components so I won't be throwing my COBOL compiler away any time soon (but I haven't moved it to my current development platform either; all COBOL stuff is on a separate, older, notebook...) 3. Why do I frequent a COBOL forum if I believe the language is at the end of its useful life? Well, CLC is not JUST about COBOL. We discuss wide ranging topics here and sometimes people need technical help. Apart from that, I am genuinely interested to see what people who are still using COBOL are doing with it, and maybe assist them with the inevitable transition they must make at some point in the future. I realise, that for some, it may be a few years off, but I have been here for more than a decade now and plan on being here for some time to come... I have earned the right to comment :-) > In the meantime, I will follow your contributions with interest ! Good, then my time here is not wasted :-) > > BTW: coming to France for the Rugby World Cup ? No, I don't think so. Not entirely sure, as my movements after July are not certain. If I'm back in Europe at the time it is on, I would certainly try and attend. France are currently touring NZ and were soundly thrashed by the ABs in the first test last w
Post Follow-up to this message
Sponsored Links
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2006 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
