OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:cmo66b$oc1$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> On  6-Nov-2004, "Peter E.C Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
of 
>
> Of course some people assume that if they switch to another tool, that
tool will
> last them until retirement.   CoBOL will die - but it may out-live many of
the
> current "popular" languages.
>
I don't disagree , Howard.

The point I have been trying to make is that it is no longer a contest
between languages. It is a contest between design and build philosphies. The
days of writing thousands of lines of procedural code in order to implement
a commercial computer system are definitely numbered. It is simply too
expensive, too error prone, and too time consuming. A luxury that industry
can no longer afford. As long as there was no alternative (most of the
latter half of the twentieth century) there was no choice and they HAD to do
it. Now they don't. MANY companies don't WANT to be in IT. They were in it
because they had no choice. Now it can be safely outsourced and there are
better and quicker approaches than trying to build and maintain systems
in-house.

Sadly, they have woken up to what many of us found out pretty early in our
careers (about the time you found yourself writing the same application in
three different companies...): "Although I may tell myself my business needs
are unique, they are not. My systems have to achieve exactly what my
competitors systems have to achieve. Modern packages can deliver a better
than 90% solution to my core admin. processes. Why would I maintain a costly
IT department for 10% of my needs?"

Add to this the influx of "smarter" business users, many of whom have grown
up with personal computers, and the outlook for procedural computer
programming approaches looks much less attractive.

Don't take my word for it (it's Ok...I know you don't <G> )... just look
around. How many instances of outsourcing, package implementation, and
user-developed spreadsheet/database applications to do the rest, have you
seen personally in the last year? How many major new developments undertaken
in COBOL? (I am talking commercial enterprises here, not institutes of
learning where they probably still teach Latin out of academic interest.)

The computer programming boom is over; the computer usage boom is poised to
start.

I foresee people taking their computers everywhere (just like their
wristwatches), software becoming so user friendly it may be unrecognisable
as software (smart jewellery, for instance... earrings or glasses that
whisper people's names and salient details to you as the person approaches
at a party...).

In the workplace we can look for higher interactivity with software to solve
business problems. Skills in demand will not be programming, rather people
who know the business and its processes, intimately.They will simply
interact iteratively with a computer until it "understands" what they
require and produces it instantly. From then on, the only interaction
required would be when a Business process changes. At last, the dog wags the
tail...

I guess, if I was being unkind, I'd call it "the revenge of the users". For
decades they were put down by supercilious techno freaks, who showed little
patience or understanding, saw users as PITAs who were never happy and were
always requiring changes, and thinly veiled their contempt for them. Now its
payback time... They don't need experts any more. The whole industry has
been (and is continuing to be) de-skilled.

Eventually, ( I calculate around 75 years and am really sorry I won't be
here to see it...) the ultimate goal of software developers will be
attained, the goal that made a group of commercial competitors sit around a
table in 1959 and put aside their petty differences in a desire to build
something that would benefit EVERYBODY in commerce, and bring the dream of
computer resource availability for every single person on the planet a step
nearer. That CODASYL group caught a glimpse of something fine and gave us
COBOL. Eventually, through our own smugness and inertia, we lost it.  But
the dream they glimpsed goes on...

"One day, EVERY single human being will have access to, and be able to
communicate easily with, a computer that has the power to help him/her solve
problems and improve their life. The world will be changed for the better by
cyber technology."

We are seeing the beginning of it. We ain't seen nothin' yet...

Pete.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:14:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Sadly, they have woken up to what many of us found out pretty early in our
>careers (about the time you found yourself writing the same application in
>three different companies...): "Although I may tell myself my business need
s
>are unique, they are not. My systems have to achieve exactly what my
>competitors systems have to achieve. Modern packages can deliver a better
>than 90% solution to my core admin. processes. Why would I maintain a costl
y
>IT department for 10% of my needs?"

That last 10% DOUBLES the cost. Several of my recent projects followed
this pattern:

1. In-house system.
2. Management decision to replace in-house system with SAP.
3. Recognition that SAP R/3 cannot handle or is poor at --
rebates/discounts, supply chain optimization (which is why they offer
the APO system, also lacking), environmental regulation, R&D
management, the list goes on and on.
4. Decision to retain in-house system for those functions.
5. Former development programmers now  writing interface programs that
feed data from SAP to Legacy and from Legacy to SAP, often
cross-platform which requires new skills (contractors).
Former legacy maintenance programmers still maintaining.

The result is a costly IT department PLUS millions spent on SAP PLUS
interfaces.

OK, Robert. So who do you blame for this (if we were going to blame anyone,
and we all know that assigning blame is a pretty pointless exercise anyway)?

If managers buy a package from the vendor who bought them the best lunch
<G>, instead of properly evaluating the business requirements against the
package facilities... did they get anything less than they deserved?

Pete.

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
 news:d903p0t5ivups1c5vk21utbcllj5vf7h4r@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:14:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
our 
in 
needs 
costly 
>
> That last 10% DOUBLES the cost. Several of my recent projects followed
> this pattern:
>
> 1. In-house system.
> 2. Management decision to replace in-house system with SAP.
> 3. Recognition that SAP R/3 cannot handle or is poor at --
> rebates/discounts, supply chain optimization (which is why they offer
> the APO system, also lacking), environmental regulation, R&D
> management, the list goes on and on.
> 4. Decision to retain in-house system for those functions.
> 5. Former development programmers now  writing interface programs that
> feed data from SAP to Legacy and from Legacy to SAP, often
> cross-platform which requires new skills (contractors).
>     Former legacy maintenance programmers still maintaining.
>
> The result is a costly IT department PLUS millions spent on SAP PLUS
> interfaces.
>

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:57:11 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>OK, Robert. So who do you blame for this (if we were going to blame anyone,
>and we all know that assigning blame is a pretty pointless exercise anyway)?[/color
]

In politics, assigning blame is everything.

>If managers buy a package from the vendor who bought them the best lunch
><G>, instead of properly evaluating the business requirements against the
>package facilities... did they get anything less than they deserved?

I support the decision to replace in-house systems with SAP. The fault
is in failing to deal with the devil in the details. Turning it over
to middle-managers produces the expected result -- business as before.
Well-managed companies tolerate the legacy system near-term, until the
phase-out plan can be executed .. typically in 1-2 years.

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
 news:kis7p09gorss1t3a7j8nqeh6godujnlm2s@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:57:11 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
anyone, 
anyway)?
>
> In politics, assigning blame is everything.
>
That's one reason why many democracies are not happy with their politicians.
The avoidance of blame also promotes the avoidance of responsibility.

We have an interesting situation on tonight's news here in NZ. The Prime
Minister was driven at high speed by a number of senior and well qualified
police officers, in order to attend a Rugby match. (You have to understand
that Rugby in New Zealand is not a sport, it is a Religion, (like many
religions, a Big Business...) and the whole country goes into mourning when
the All Blacks lose... It is therefore pretty important to the PM to be
there for a major match).

Anyway, half a dozen senior policemen are now charged with dangerous driving
(anything over 120 KPH is considered "dangerous"; these cars averaged 140KPH
for around 90 minutes). They were in the South Island so the risk was pretty
low (You can drive on some South Island roads and not see another car for
over an hour...) but they each stand to lose their licences for a minum 6
months, plus whatever other disciplinary measures their Bosses and/or the
Courts see fit to impose.

Wouldn't you think the PM might say something on their behalf? Maybe: "My
fault, I asked them to hurry..." or some such? Not a bit of it. She is
keeping a very low profile and refusing reporters with: "It's sub judice, I
can't comment."

Her spin doctors are putting as much distance between her and the escort as
possible, saying she was working in the back seat of the limousine and had
no idea how fast it was travelling...

Gives you a real warm feeling to see a female politician who is so caring...
<G>. I'm glad our country is in good hands.

(I guess a lot of my American friends are feeling that way since recent
events there. There were several thousand applications by Americans for
emigration to NZ when the results were announced. Particularly from Gays.
Gay marriage is legal here and socially acceptable. The PM is generally
accepted to be a Lesbian (she neither confirms nor denies, but does admit
that she only got married for the sake of her political career). Apparently,
we are portrayed  in the US as an unspoilt natural paradise where Gays can
cavort with Hobbits and Elves, and everything is pink or lavender.

Not where I live. I have one friend who is Gay and he has never come on to
me in any way, so we have stayed friends for years.)
 
>
> I support the decision to replace in-house systems with SAP. The fault
> is in failing to deal with the devil in the details. Turning it over
> to middle-managers produces the expected result -- business as before.

Only if those middle managers are not properly managed... <G>

> Well-managed companies tolerate the legacy system near-term, until the
> phase-out plan can be executed .. typically in 1-2 years.
>

I thought about this, Robert, and I'm inclined to agree with you. It is a
good (if expensive) strategy. A major corporation I worked with in the U.K.
did exactly that. I was responsible for managing their legacy systems (a
team of around 15) WHILE they implemented the Siebel replacement (a team of
around 40). It took around 18 months. We were not allowed to enhance the
existing systems, but we sure had them running smoothly by the time the
Siebel solution struggled to its feet.  On reflection, I think it was a
pretty good management strategy, but they could afford to pay £5 million a
year to keep things running, as well as £24 million for Siebel... Many
(especially smaller) companies couldn't do that.

Packages often fail when they are thrust into companies overnight, without
proper regard for the Business, and are under the control of middle managers
who are resisting change anyway. I think that was your point?

Pete.

In article <2vjbvtF2j3ndaU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:kis7p09gorss1t3a7j8nqeh6godujnlm2s@
4ax.com... 
>That's one reason why many democracies are not happy with their politicians
.
>The avoidance of blame also promotes the avoidance of responsibility.

Notice, Mr Dashwood, how Mr Wagner responded to a direct question of
'who(m) do you blame' by avoiding it entirely and redirecting the
disussion to a different subject.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> (Loving vs Virginia was decided on XIV Amendment grounds but it contains
> statements like 'The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
> the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by
> free men.' and 'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
> fundamental to our very existence and survival.'; civil rights, as I
> understand them, are not to be readily abridged on grounds of race, creed
> or gender... it may make for a very interesting challenge, I'd say.)

Which is why I'm *so* glad the election came out the way it did.

1.  The freedom to marry has also long been recognized as, in its final
state, husband and wife.  (Surely they weren't arguing for same-sex
marriage on the basis of *tradition*, were they?  I guess now I've seen
it all...)

2.  "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" is procreation -
now how is a same-sex couple going to ensure either our existence or our
survival?

<rant>Same-sex marriage is nothing more than people wanting the state to
approve of their aberrant behavior, and "stick it to" all those
"closed-minded" people who call it for what it is.</rant>


--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          LXi0007@Netscape.net          ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~         I do not read e-mail at the above address           ~
~    Please see website if you wish to contact me privately   ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 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++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <217e491a.0411161253.52b5e188@posting.google.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote
> 
>
>No. Governments make laws.

Most governments I am aware of, Mr Plinston, are composed of people.

>
>If people made laws then there would be no taxes.

Some of the people who make laws have a sense of Tradition, Mr Plinston,
and that Tradition just might include Alexander Pope's 'Whoever hopes a
faultless tax to see, hopes what ne’er was, is not, and ne’er will be.'

> 
>
>No. Courts may modify them, or at least 'clarify their interpretation'
>and set precedent.  Only Governments can change them.

See above about the composition of governments, Mr Plinston.

DD

In article <IDvmd.211$3K3.9@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote: 
>
>Which is why I'm *so* glad the election came out the way it did.
>
>1.  The freedom to marry has also long been recognized as, in its final
>state, husband and wife.  (Surely they weren't arguing for same-sex
>marriage on the basis of *tradition*, were they?  I guess now I've seen
>it all...)

What was argued was 'marriage'... nothing about the gender of the
participants (and specific reference to 'happiness by free men').

>
>2.  "Fundamental to our very existence and survival" is procreation -
>now how is a same-sex couple going to ensure either our existence or our
>survival?

My eyes are not what they used to be... can you point out where in the
opinion of Loving vs Virginia procreation is mentioned at all?  Given the
logic procreation provides you must be as steadfastly against geriatrics
marrying as you are against same-sex marriages.

>
><rant>Same-sex marriage is nothing more than people wanting the state to
>approve of their aberrant behavior, and "stick it to" all those
>"closed-minded" people who call it for what it is.</rant>

This smells remarkably like the rant issued by the trial judge who
suspended the Lovings' jail sentence on the condition that they leave the
State of Virginia and not return for 25 years:

'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and
He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with
His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that
He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.'

Quite the ''close-minded' person calling it what it is', no doubt... and
no doubt overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
If you want Congress to start bringing a religion into things, Mr Summers,
there's a little bit of the Constitution that needs changing.

DD

In article <cncaen$kv6$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-C64B47.02200616112004@knology.usenetserver.co
m>,
> Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote: 
>
> Mr Zitzelberger, you seem to be ignoring just a few minor laws which
> confer upon a spouse a direct legal status different than any other
> person... have you ever heard of, say, 'spousal privelege' applied to
> abstaining from offering legal testimony?

Does there exist a federal exemption?  I have heard of states which have
such things, and states which do not have such things.

 
>
> There are a few more laws that one might need to attend to, Mr
> Zitzelberger... but that's a *lovely* little hobbyhorse you've ridden in,
> have you painted it recently?
>
> DD

Indeed I have -- it is a bright and happy red color.