Re: OO and "mainframes"

Chuck Stevens wrote:

>James Gavan wrote:
>
>
> 
>
>Actually, I wouldn't care whether it's DOD, GSA, DIN or ITSCJ that  made
>such a requirement -- the point right now is that there's no requirement.
>
>
I used DOD purely as an example, but I think the correct one is GSA ( is
that a 'Supplies' division in Washington DC ?).

>There's a chicken-and-egg problem here, too, and that has to do with the
>state of the validation suite:  I know for certain that no full 2002
>validation suite has been developed, and so far as I know the validation
>suite that *does* exist for the '85 standard doesn't even include provision
s
>for the Intrinsic Function amendment of 1989, much less the Corrections
>Amendment of 1994.
>
>The imposition of a requirement that vendors validate their compilers
>against a suite of programs has meaning only if such a suite of programs
>exists before the requirement is in force, and that suite does not currentl
y
>exist (at least for the new features in 2002 COBOL).  Barring a volunteer
>effort on the part of the COBOL community to provide the revisions to the
>current '85 validation suite, it pretty much falls to any agency demanding
>compliance to undergo the expense of ensuring that a means of validation wa
s
>available, and that obligation forms a significant disincentive to making
>the requirement in the first place.
>
>
>
Bureaucracy, yet again ! You have to have the ultimate before you can go
forward. On the assumption (????) that *most* compilers are at least
COBOL 85 compliant, (assuming each vendor has a COBOL 85) - isn't that a
reasonable starting point. I have no info on the existing test suite you
refer to - but taking that as the starting point,  GSA (?) stipulates
they will be writing 'additionals' that test the following new features
in COBOL 2002, not a 100% validation, but a sampling. Your compiler
fails, you are SOL, they wont buy your product  - but allow for an
appeal process.

Channel surfing last night and you have to be a masochist to watch the
channel - it's called CPAC - covers government meetings up here, (not
parliamentary sessions). Back shortly after dear Jean Chretien nearly
lost it to Quebec separatists, the government introduced a Sponsorship
Program to persuade Quebeccers that 'Canada is just great !'. It became
a slush fund for Liberal handouts to their buddies in Quebec, (can't
remember sum, but we are talking $millions) - picked up by the Auditor
General - handouts were made without *any* paper work trail in some
instances.. Investigations have been on-going  for some six months or
more. The latest is a judicial enquiry chaired by a judge.
The*suspected* villain (certainly not yet proven) is a Chuck Guitte - a
civil servant who *supposedly* dished out the largesse. So last night I
saw this eminence grise of an Anglo lawyer quizzing civil servants. The
thrust of his argument was the promotion of Monsieur Guitte. The lawyer
suggested that the process was speeded up, to go from one executive
level to another, by getting around 'the red tape'. Oh no ! Our smooth
civil servant department heads didn't like that one at all, replying
"Avoiding the red tape, implies breaking the rules".They were so
convincing even the judge was inclined to agree with them, (on a point
of law, if you like).

As you probably have already seen - and ignoring portability - I already
use the M/F feature, 'ignore the red tape' and can have a method :-

Method-id. "Pushbutton-ByName".
set PB-ByName to true
invoke self "createCollection"
End Method "Pushbutton-ByName".

Am I breaking the rules ? And even if I am , so...... ?

Most likely Monsieur Guitte will be dead from over indulgence in Arizona sun
shine before they arrive at a conclusion about *anything* ! Similarly, I'll 
probably be dead before portability has any significance to OO COBOL   :-)

PS: I'm not a rabid red-neck Westerner criticizing the Liberals. I have been
 a middle-of-the-road liberal (note small 'L'), since the early 50's.

Jimmy