GOBACK (was: Perform Thru/Go to vs. Perform - Compile Speed

"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40a14cb9.58773361@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
<snip>
> 
>
> GOBACK has been legitimized in the 2002 Standard. Acknowledged may be a be
tter
> word; it has been available on most compilers for longer than 20 years.
>

When you say "most compilers" - on what basis do you claim this?  I know tha
t
most (all?) IBM compilers and those with "early"  IBM-emulation mode provide
 it
(i.e. Micro Focus, Fujitsu, and CA-Realia).  However, I don't know of ANY of
 the
non-IBM "emulation" compilers with it currently - much less for 20 years (e.
g.
HP, DEC, Tandem, Unisys).  It is certainly possible that some do (that I adm
it
to being unfamiliar with) - but I do question the "most compiler" statement
above.

It was (for those not familiar with the history) this type of generalization
based on limit data that caused previous problems with RW.


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

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40a14cb9.58773361@news.optonline.net... 
><snip> 
better 
>
>When you say "most compilers" - on what basis do you claim this?  I know th
at
>most (all?) IBM compilers and those with "early"  IBM-emulation mode provid
e it
>(i.e. Micro Focus, Fujitsu, and CA-Realia).  However, I don't know of ANY of[/color
]
the
>non-IBM "emulation" compilers with it currently - much less for 20 years (e
.g.
>HP, DEC, Tandem, Unisys).  It is certainly possible that some do (that I ad
mit
>to being unfamiliar with) - but I do question the "most compiler" statement
>above.
>
>It was (for those not familiar with the history) this type of generalizatio
n
>based on limit data that caused previous problems with RW.

It has been available on most compilers I've worked on, which have generally
been the 'IBM emulation' ones -- IBM, Micro Focus, Realia (a long-time love
affair) and Fujitsu. I would have said 'mainstream compilers' except Chuck
Stevens would have objected to the slight against Unisys. He's very sensitiv
e on
the subject.

Last year *you* championed GOBACK as a universal return mechanism. I agreed,
without comment. Now that I speak on the subject, you have a tergiversation 
-- a
reversal of opinion.

This is pure politics. It's not about the merits of GOBACK, it's about
discrediting me (RW).

In article <40a16cfb.67032548@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> 

[snip]

>It has been available on most compilers I've worked on, which have generall
y
>been the 'IBM emulation' ones -- IBM, Micro Focus, Realia (a long-time love
>affair) and Fujitsu.

Mr Wagner, it might be fruitful to consider the difference between 'most
compilers' (your original assertion) and 'most compilers I have worked on'
(what you state when asked for the basis of your original assertion).

[snip]

>Last year *you* championed GOBACK as a universal return mechanism. I agreed
,
>without comment. Now that I speak on the subject, you have a tergiversation
 -- a
>reversal of opinion.

Mr Wagner, to 'champion' something is not the same, I believe, as
asserting that it is implemented in 'most compilers'.  You made an
assertion about 'most compilers' and when asked for the basis of this you
cited 'most compilers I have worked on'.

>
>This is pure politics. It's not about the merits of GOBACK, it's about
>discrediting me (RW).

Mr Wagner, anyone who, when asked to supply a basis for a 'most' they
employed respond with a 'most that I have worked on' does not frequently
need, in my opinion, anyone else's efforts to discredit them.

DD

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>
>On 12-May-2004, robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote:
> 
>
>Sort of like saying "most operating systems have a start button that you pr
ess
>when you want to shut down the computer".

Haven't you seen the prompt "Press Enter to exit"?

 
>
>What relation does "Over 90% of production Cobol running today" have to do 
with
>"most compilers"?

Answered in  my response to Chuck Stevens.

>How many compilers run on IBM mainframes, vs how many compilers run on PC's
,
>mini computers, and other Mainframe computers?

If number of compilers available or installed was relevant, a free compiler
downloaded by 1,000,000 people (but used by few) would be 33 times more
significant than the estimated 30,000 IBM mainframe Cobol compilers worldwid
e.

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40a1f7c7.102569347@news.optonline.net...
> 
>90% 
>
>I would be surprised were that the case.   What is the basis for this
>figure?   Is that 90% of COBOL source lines worldwide, 90% of production
>COBOL programs in the United States, 90% of the COBOL shops in Armonk that
>have been using GOBACK since the days of DOS COBOL, 90% of the logic touche
d
>during transaction processing worldwide?

I meant source lines and logic touched in the US and Canada. Assuming equal
productivity and turnover (human nature being fairly constant), we can deter
mine
relative usage from job ads. I just went to DICE and entered search keys all
beginning with "cobol and (programmer or developer) and ..". To find IBM
mainframe, I used "(mainframe or cics) and not unisys and not unix". To find
Unisys, I used "unisys and not unix and not cics". The results were:

IBM mainframe      217
AS/400                 35     67% IBM
Unix                      46
PC (xp or nt)          36
client-server           19    27% MF & a little IBM
Tandem                 12
Unisys                     9
Accu Cobol              2
Fujitsu                     0
Realia                     0
Siemens                  0
Total                   376

This shows 94% of professional programmers are using IBM or MF.
Under-represented are programmers working solo, for very small companies and
 in
academic settings.

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40a1f7c7.102569347@news.optonline.net... 
><snip> 
90% 
>
>Yes, I dispute that.
>
>I think that RM, AcuCOBOL, HP (Including former DEC and TANDEM), and Unisys
(not
>to mention OpenCOBOL, KOBOL, etc) constitute a FAR greater per centage than
 10
>per cent.

I tried to provide evidence in reply to Chuck Stevens. A search for  "cobol 
and
(rm or liant)" found zero.  Accu Cobol and  Unisys were previously reported.
"cobol and (dec or vax)" found three, one of which was a 'migration' away fr
om
former DEC. "cobol and hitachi" (said to be a mainframe power outside the US
)
returned one hit .. for a PC programmer.

HP does have their own compiler. The two HP (3000) shops I worked at recentl
y
both used Micro Focus in preference to HP's.

OpenCOBOL, KOBOL and the like are toy compilers for hobbiests.

It is possible that job boards -- DICE and similar net-temps, monster, jobs,
etc. -- may be biased in that they look primarily for contractors as opposed
 to
employees. That means employers tend to be large (F-100) companies and
government agencies powered by politics and little concern for efficiency.

Can you make a case for 'right thinking' companies using other Cobol compile
rs?

> In fact, I think that Fujitsu and Micro Focus combined probably
>constitute less than 20 per cent of all production code today.

That's in the ballpark. I've heard, from several sources, that Fujitsu is 'v
ery
popular' outside the US. I can't think of a way to quantify that.

> (As far as IBM
>COBOL goes, I think that a medium-larger part is on OS/400 - which has VERY
>different syntax support than what RW tends to assume that "all" IBM COBOL
>supports)

How odd it doesn't use the same 'front end' as other IBM compilers. On secon
d
thought not so odd because AS/400 people like to think they have 'better ide
as'
than everyone else. Kinda like Apple people, who don't have any Cobol and le
ss
than 5% of market share.

I'm now on a project 'migrating' a major system from AS/400 to Unix. My
incidental exposure to AS/400 technology shows the debugger to be Grade C. S
ame
for the touted Integrated Database, which allows VSAM-oriented programmers t
o
conduct business-as-usual under the guise of being 'modern'. Database concep
ts
are out the window; it requires a program change every time a column is chan
ged.

AS/400 had its genesis in a 1970 revamp of S/360 to something called NS (New
System). IBM management scrapped that plan and replaced it with S/370, a big
ger
faster 360. NS resurfaced ca. 1980 as the AS/400. It has stagnated since the
n,
trying to use '80s technology to compete with Microsoft and Unix innovations
.

>HOWEVER, I also admit that all that I state above is "only a feeling" and that[/col
or]
I
>don't have hard evidence to back this up.  On the other hand, the problem w
ith
>your (RW's) contention is that I don't think YOU have any evidence (other t
han
>your own experience) to back up your statement either.
>
>This is the problem I have always had with your "generalizations" - that yo
u
>make them based on your experience - but "phrase them" as if they were fact.[/color
]

It's not about experience, it's about reality. Reality is what keeps us hone
st.
It's the common ground we can't dispute, despite our emotional feelings favo
ring
other explanations.

Robert

robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote

> I meant source lines and logic touched in the US and Canada.

Yet another different 'I meant'.

> Assuming equal
> productivity and turnover (human nature being fairly constant),

Human nature is far from constant.  Productivity and turnover may be
vastly different between sites.

> we can determine relative usage from job ads.

What complete nonsense.  Job ads are for desks that are empty.  Empty
desks do not use compilers.

> IBM mainframe      217
> AS/400                 35     67% IBM

AS/400 is a quite different beast.  Your assertion was '90%' had the
same syntax.  What have you done to establish that AS/400 has the same
syntax as the big iron ?

> Unix                      46
> PC (xp or nt)          36
> client-server           19    27% MF & a little IBM

You seem to assume that _all_ Unix and PC is MF just because it is not
given.  This is certainly not true.

> This shows 94% of professional programmers are using IBM or MF.

No. It shows that there are empty desks.

> Under-represented are programmers working solo, for very small companies a
nd in
> academic settings.

Over represented are positions for which there are multiple ads.

robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
 

> If number of compilers available or installed was relevant, ...

Which is exactly why you have had to back pedal from your original two
claims from their complete irrelevancy.

On 12-May-2004, robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote:
 
>
> Haven't you seen the prompt "Press Enter to exit"?

Not that I recall.  If I did recall it I probably would understand your poin
t
though.

 
>
> If number of compilers available or installed was relevant, a free compile
r
> downloaded by 1,000,000 people (but used by few) would be 33 times more
> significant than the estimated 30,000 IBM mainframe Cobol compilers worldwide.[/co
lor]

I see three ways to evaluate the statement "most compilers".
1.   Most instances of a compiler (the 1,000,000 mentioned above).
2.   The majority of platforms that run on various platforms - Univac 1100, 
vs
Sun, vs IBM mini, vs IBM mainframe, vs PC
3.   Subsets of the above, including all of the various versions of the CoBO
L
compiler that runs on system 390.

What I don't see is that we should evaluate "significant" before we decide w
hat
"most compilers" means.

On 12-May-2004, robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote:

> I meant source lines and logic touched in the US and Canada.

What is the relationship between "most compilers" and "most source lines and
logic touched in the US and Canada"?

I bet there are a lot of those Mainframe CoBOL source programs using
alternatives to GOBACK, such as CALL EXIT.   Plus lots have one exit for ver
y
long programs.