Java is becoming the new Cobol

The article is not making the point that Java is becoming the
corporate language of choice, as Cobol is/once was (choose one), but
that is is becoming obsolete as it is being replaced by newer
languages such as "Ruby, PHP, AJAX [sic]", and even C#.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07...ted-java_1.html

"""If you're a Java developer, now's the time to invest in new
skills."""

There was a quote from a quarter century ago or more that went "10
years ago there were 3000 languages and COBOL, today there are 300 and
COBOL. In 10 years time I expect there will be 30 and COBOL."

The question then is: Is Java just another fad language in the range:
Algol, Pascal, Modula2, Ada, C++, that will be replaced by the next
fad languages Ruby, PHP, C# which will then be replaced by the
next ...

Or will Java really become the next Cobol and will continue for
decades more ?

Or will COBOL become the new mainframe?  I seem to recall that mainframes
were pronounced dead a couple of decades ago.

PL


Richard <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:28b05ca0-c7a7-4ad5-b307-644da0ffc5fa@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> The article is not making the point that Java is becoming the
> corporate language of choice, as Cobol is/once was (choose one), but
> that is is becoming obsolete as it is being replaced by newer
> languages such as "Ruby, PHP, AJAX [sic]", and even C#.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/07...ted-java_1.html
>
> """If you're a Java developer, now's the time to invest in new
> skills."""
>
> There was a quote from a quarter century ago or more that went "10
> years ago there were 3000 languages and COBOL, today there are 300 and
> COBOL. In 10 years time I expect there will be 30 and COBOL."
>
> The question then is: Is Java just another fad language in the range:
> Algol, Pascal, Modula2, Ada, C++, that will be replaced by the next
> fad languages Ruby, PHP, C# which will then be replaced by the
> next ...
>
> Or will Java really become the next Cobol and will continue for
> decades more ?
>

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:28b05ca0-c7a7-4ad5-b307-644da0ffc5fa@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> The article is not making the point that Java is becoming the
> corporate language of choice, as Cobol is/once was (choose one), but
> that is is becoming obsolete as it is being replaced by newer
> languages such as "Ruby, PHP, AJAX [sic]", and even C#.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/07...ted-java_1.html
>
> """If you're a Java developer, now's the time to invest in new
> skills."""

It's true. It is even truer for COBOL developers.

>
> There was a quote from a quarter century ago or more that went "10
> years ago there were 3000 languages and COBOL, today there are 300 and
> COBOL. In 10 years time I expect there will be 30 and COBOL."
>
> The question then is: Is Java just another fad language in the range:
> Algol, Pascal, Modula2, Ada, C++, that will be replaced by the next
> fad languages Ruby, PHP, C# which will then be replaced by the
> next ...

Bad Question.

Algol, Pascal,Modula2 and Ada were NOT "fad languages", and neither are
Ruby, PHP, and C#.

They simply addressed different paradigms.
>
> Or will Java really become the next Cobol and will continue for
> decades more ?
>
Java will not become the new COBOL and neither will anything else.

COBOL belongs to an era when there was no Network and a centralised
mainframe only needed one or two high level languages to program it.

Those days are gone and COBOL is hanging on currently purely because of its
legacy applications. Even these are being slowly replaced. The only new
development in COBOL of any significance is  probably on less than 1% of
sites Worldwide, and most of this will be mainframe, and procedural batch
processing.

The trend is to replace COBOL.

Initially that will be with Java (for the most part), but the important
thing here is not the language, but the paradigm.

Java is an OO language and OO is the basis for future development. COBOL
missed this boat (not through any fault of the language or the vendors of
it, but through the shortsightedness and arrogance of the COBOL community)
and there is no way of catching up.

Once something has been refactored into objects, the languages used to
access the objects are irrelevant; it is the paradigm that is important.
Languages like Java, Ruby, PHP, and C# are designed around OO and are
therefore relevant. It isn't a fad; it is here to stay. Certainly, the
technology may move on from OO (it is already doing so with component based
systems), but the underlying base for the perceivable future will be OO, and
commercial sites will use whatever langiuages support this.

The idea of having ONE language is just stupid. We need different languages
for different purposes.

Most COBOL people simply haven't realised that the Holy Source Code is no
longer relevant. It is Holy Object code and Holy Objects that have inherited
the Earth, and we are seeing better IT systems because of it.

There will almost certainly be newer languages that will improve on areas
not beng well served by current ones, but they will be built around the OO
paradigm and they will not be mutually exclusive with existing languages
like Java.

For this reason, we are not going to see the "end of Java" anytime soon.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:cBSej.3950$M24.1987@newsfe17.lga...
>  Or will COBOL become the new mainframe?  I seem to recall that mainframes
> were pronounced dead a couple of decades ago.
>
> PL

Mainframes ARE dead in terms of doing anything interesting with them :-)

The best chance of survival they have is by attachment to the Network and
welcoming the Web. To the extent that they do this and become powerful
servers in a Network environment, they will have a future. The days when
they sat at the centre of things and controlled everything are long gone. To
that extent, the role they served decades ago is gone, so they ARE dead as
far as that goes.

Don't hold your breath for a resurgence of COBOL, in the role which it
served decades ago, either.

Fortress COBOL is in ruins. It has been sacked and looted. Whatever was of
value has been incorporated into the Brave New World and the barbarians on
their wiry little ponies have swept on...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Jan 3, 11:17 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cBSej.3950$M24.1987@newsfe17.lga...
> 
> 
>
> Mainframes ARE dead in terms of doing anything interesting with them :-)
>
> The best chance of survival they have is by attachment to the Network and
> welcoming the Web. To the extent that they do this and become powerful
> servers in a Network environment, they will have a future.

They've being doing that. That is what 'Linux on Mainframe' is for.


> The days when
> they sat at the centre of things and controlled everything are long gone. 
To
> that extent, the role they served decades ago is gone, so they ARE dead as
> far as that goes.

Actually that is what web servers, or clusters of them, do now.
Web2.0 is, in fact, servers sitting the centre and controlling things.

CICS is replaced by AJAX. gmail (or ant web based), goffice (or
whatever it is called) and AJAX applications accessible from anywhere.
Whether the centre is mainframe or cluster or 'cloud' is not
particularly important (except to the one buying and supporting it).

> Don't hold your breath for a resurgence of COBOL, in the role which it
> served decades ago, either.
>
> Fortress COBOL is in ruins. It has been sacked and looted. Whatever was of
> value has been incorporated into the Brave New World and the barbarians on
> their wiry little ponies have swept on...
>
> Pete.

Geez, Pete, have a rant.

> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5u2gsbF1f3om9U1@mid.individual.net...
>
[snip]
> Fortress COBOL is in ruins. It has been sacked and looted. Whatever was of
> value has been incorporated into the Brave New World and the barbarians on
> their wiry little ponies have swept on...
>

So we sabotage their latte supplies and kidnap their hairdressers.....

Richard wrote:
>
> """If you're a Java developer, now's the time to invest in new
> skills."""
....
> The question then is: Is Java just another fad language in the range:
> Algol, Pascal, Modula2, Ada, C++, that will be replaced by the next
> fad languages Ruby, PHP, C# which will then be replaced by the
> next ...

I don't think it's a fad language.  However, I do see much Java being
replaced on servers by C#.  Looking at the two languages, C# is Java,
take 2 - the syntax is *very* similar, but it leaves out some of the
verbosity of Java.  (heh - maybe it *is* the new COBOL!)

For example, if you wanted to access a property of an object which the
property of another object which is the property of another object
(whew!), in Java you have...

topObject.getSecondObject().getThirdObject().getProperty()

...whereas, in C#, it becomes...

topObject.SecondObject.ThirdObject.Property

(Plus, with the Visual Studio IDE, you only have to type like 5 or 6
characters to get that second line!  :> )

Another aspect that I like is the way that properties are defined.  In
Java, it's almost COBOL-like in the way properties are defined (at least
in our shop).  We have the property items in the top, then the
constructors, then the get and set methods after that.  In C#, you
declare the get and set method as part of the property.

I see C# and Java in one camp, and PHP and RoR in the other.  I *really*
like PHP's implementation of OO, although I'm sure it will mature more
in version 6.  They have a "magic" function __call($method, $arguments)
that is called (if defined) if a method is requested of an object that
does not exist.  Using this, if you just need a simple getProperty() or
setProperty() method, you don't have to define every single one of them!

Here's an example from a web site I've done...

public function __call($method, $arguments) {
$prefix   = strtolower(substr($method, 0, 3));
$property = strtolower(substr($method, 3, 1)) . substr($method, 4);

if ((empty($prefix)) || (empty($property))) {
return;
}

if ($prefix == "get") {
if (isset($this->$property)) {
return $this->$property;
}
else {
return "";
}
}

if ($prefix == "set") {
$this->$property = $arguments[0];
}
}

Voila!  :)  (Of course, a limitation of the above is that it will blow
up if you say setFoo("bar") and $foo is not actually a property.  I'm
sure I could put some error checking in for that, and probably will at
some point.)

So, in answering your question, I don't see PHP and RoR as Java-killers.
I see C# as a serious competitor, but I believe that until Mono
matures more, the Unix/Linux installations will continue to go with
Java.  However, the advice given in that first quote is good.  Innovate
or die (figuratively speaking, of course).

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ 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

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:11:02 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.ente
rnet.co.nz>
wrote:

>"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:28b05ca0-c7a7-4ad5-b307-644da0ffc5fa@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com... 
>
>It's true. It is even truer for COBOL developers.
> 
>
>Bad Question.
>
>Algol, Pascal,Modula2 and Ada were NOT "fad languages", and neither are
>Ruby, PHP, and C#.
>
>They simply addressed different paradigms. 
>Java will not become the new COBOL and neither will anything else.

I believe SQL is becoming the new Cobol, for these reasons:

.. It has been largely unchanged in 20+ years.
.. It faces little competition, because database servers cannot easily be a
ltered
to accept another language.
.. It successfully ignored OO additions in the '90s, analogous to Cobol.
.. Long running batch programs are being written in PL/SQL. There are whole
 shops,
mostly in data warehousing, that do 100% of development in PL/SQL, SQR and d
atabase
utilities.
.. A recent survey of job ads found PL/SQL is second highest skill in deman
d by big
companies, after Java.  It is higher than C++, C#, PERL, Ruby,  et al.
.. Attempts to replace the two dimensional relational model have not been s
uccessful in
the commercial marketplace.

>COBOL belongs to an era when there was no Network and a centralised
>mainframe only needed one or two high level languages to program it.

A network INCREASES the need for interoperability. When mainframes were isla
nds and data
was passed via flat files, it didn't matter what language the other shop was
 using. Now
that we pass data by setting a DbLink to the other shop's database, we must 
talk to it in
SQL. XML doesn't change that much because it is hierarchical rather than obj
ect model and
its schemas usually map closely with underlying database schemas.

>Those days are gone and COBOL is hanging on currently purely because of its
>legacy applications. Even these are being slowly replaced. The only new
>development in COBOL of any significance is  probably on less than 1% of
>sites Worldwide, and most of this will be mainframe, and procedural batch
>processing.

Generally true, but a non-trivial portion, maybe 30%. of Cobol runs on Big U
nix. For
instance PeopleSoft and Lawson.

>The trend is to replace COBOL.
>
>Initially that will be with Java (for the most part), but the important
>thing here is not the language, but the paradigm.
>
>Java is an OO language and OO is the basis for future development. COBOL
>missed this boat (not through any fault of the language or the vendors of
>it, but through the shortsightedness and arrogance of the COBOL community)
>and there is no way of catching up.

>Once something has been refactored into objects, the languages used to
>access the objects are irrelevant; it is the paradigm that is important.
>Languages like Java, Ruby, PHP, and C# are designed around OO and are
>therefore relevant. It isn't a fad; it is here to stay.

Agreed. But isn't it contradictory to say language doesn't matter while pron
ouncing Cobol
dead? Cobol can talk OO as fluently as other languages.

> Certainly, the
>technology may move on from OO (it is already doing so with component based
>systems), but the underlying base for the perceivable future will be OO, an
d
>commercial sites will use whatever langiuages support this.

Sometimes it appears they'll use whatever the Fad Language Of The Month Club
 sent last
month..

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
 news:r15on39djqv6a4tgdd360rcfp0jr3b50aq@
4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> I believe SQL is becoming the new Cobol, for these reasons:
>
> .. It has been largely unchanged in 20+ years.
> .. It faces little competition, because database servers cannot easily be
> altered
>   to accept another language.
> .. It successfully ignored OO additions in the '90s, analogous to Cobol.
> .. Long running batch programs are being written in PL/SQL. There are
> whole shops,
>   mostly in data warehousing, that do 100% of development in PL/SQL, SQR
> and database
>   utilities.
> .. A recent survey of job ads found PL/SQL is second highest skill in
> demand by big
>    companies, after Java.  It is higher than C++, C#, PERL, Ruby,  et al.
> .. Attempts to replace the two dimensional relational model have not been
> successful in
>   the commercial marketplace.
>
An interesting thought. I've managed teams using SQL as a programming
language and was imp[ressed by their tools and their productivity. I don't
disagree that SQL could be considered "the New COBOL", but I'd be a lot
surer of it if there weren't already moves to replace SQL as the "standard"
for data access. Personally, I believe it WILL be replaced by things like
Query Expression languages and functions (LINQ and Lambda functions, for
example...), which are much more powerful and platform independent.
 
>
> A network INCREASES the need for interoperability. When mainframes were
> islands and data
> was passed via flat files, it didn't matter what language the other shop
> was using. Now
> that we pass data by setting a DbLink to the other shop's database, we
> must talk to it in
> SQL. XML doesn't change that much because it is hierarchical rather than
> object model and
> its schemas usually map closely with underlying database schemas.
> 
>
> Generally true, but a non-trivial portion, maybe 30%. of Cobol runs on Big
> Unix. For
> instance PeopleSoft and Lawson.
> 
> 
>
> Agreed. But isn't it contradictory to say language doesn't matter while
> pronouncing Cobol
> dead? Cobol can talk OO as fluently as other languages.

No it can't.

It CAN talk OO (and I used it for nearly 10 years... it's impressive), but
NOT as FLUENTLY as, say, Java or C#.

Although OO COBOL has all of the OO features, and even exceeds other
languages in some regards (allowing multiple inheritance, for instance,
which Java doesn't...), it is NOT easily assimilable or easy to write. Since
using both OO COBOL and C# (and having dabbled some with Java) I am
persuaded there is no comparison between writing OO COBOL and writing C# or
Java. COBOL was never designed for OO and it suffers from its own verbosity.
The modern languages are quicker, have better tools and IDEs, and are more
concise and compact. It's really no contest, and I say this as someone who
loves COBOL and used it for decades; it simply doesn't compete in the world
of OO development.

Had it been widely adopted when it was first available, its life would have
been extended, but it still would have succumbed to the modern languages
eventually.

There is no need for "self-documerntation" when source is not important
anyway. The major benefit of using COBOL hinges on source code being
maintained. A modern component based approach does not hinge on that, so
there is no driving reason to use COBOL.

The other thing that would have killed it is the sheer expense of
maintaining source, when there are many thousands of lines of it to be
maintained... It isn't economically justifiable. Plugging components
together and reusing them is much cheaper.

> 
>
> Sometimes it appears they'll use whatever the Fad Language Of The Month
> Club sent last
> month..

That is certainly true when Management is based on what they read in
Computer Wly and in-flight magazines :-). However, whether this forum
acknowledes it or not :-), IT Management is generally improving, as is the
general level of  IT literacy in the population at large. Today's young IT
managers are likely to be Computing Science graduates with a background that
includes some programming. They are less likely to be influenced by fashion
than are managers to whom IT is a mystery, and who can only go by what
everyone else is doing...

Whichever way you cut it, COBOL's time has gone. I gave it until 2015 in
1996; I see no reason to revise that date.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:2dd38e51-75f6-4e35-8db8-92bf2594d844@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 3, 11:17 am, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: 
>
> They've being doing that. That is what 'Linux on Mainframe' is for.
>
> 
>
> Actually that is what web servers, or clusters of them, do now.
> Web2.0 is, in fact, servers sitting the centre and controlling things.
>
> CICS is replaced by AJAX. gmail (or ant web based), goffice (or
> whatever it is called) and AJAX applications accessible from anywhere.
> Whether the centre is mainframe or cluster or 'cloud' is not
> particularly important (except to the one buying and supporting it).
> 
>
> Geez, Pete, have a rant.

There was no anger in the above, only whimsy... :-)

I got over the Death of COBOL about a year ago and am no longer emotional
about it...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."