Re: Program templates as Object Classes

Lueko Willms wrote:

>JJG> You are no doubt well versed in other OO languages,
>
>   unfortunately not
>
>
>
That's a real bummer. I was sure you made some reference to using Ada
(?). It would appear that your ideas with regard to OO are
conceptual/abstract. Unfortunately when you go for a particular language
and how it is structured then you design/code within the constraints of
that language - but the objective is common to all OO languages.

Not much point in my pursuing Exception Handling here, you are
conceptualizing in a general sense, and Pete Dashwod is no longer
interested. The only other I can think of directly is Donald using both
F/J and M/F - and we'd probably get more out of it if we communicated
privately. Although not into OO specifics as regards COBOL, there are
probably others who could have contributed with general and sensible
observations.

Here's the problem with OO COBOL - it is still very incomplete.. Back
around '93 the earliest OO Compilers  were released,  based on the
general format for OO COBOL syntax that J4 had determined - there have
been minor changes since, one such is REPOSITORY used to identify the
classes you will be invoking from your current program as opposed to the
Micro Focus syntax CLASS-CONTROL. There were three, IBM (Visual Age),
Hitachi and Micro Focus - some while later Fujitsu joined the fray so
their very first version included the syntax REPOSITORY.

The latter three, realized that OO was incomplete without support
classes (utilities), so each in their own  way introduced  varying
degrees of support utilities, string handling for objects, arrays,
collections etc. Each of the three introduced their own versions of GUI
tools.  All their creations were *extensions* to COBOL, plus the COBOL
Standard does not acknowledge different operating systems - so any
GUI/Webbing features are 'alien', not universal to COBOL - and yet it is
really difficult to perceive any PC application that doesn't need, as a
minimum, some form of GUIs, plus a link to the Internet if you get into
Webbing.

It's about two years ago a former, retired M/F Manager, (not Bill Klein
;-) ), said any OO language without support classes was doomed to
failure. He was well aware of what I spell out for Fujitsu, Hitachi and
Micro Focus above - but he was referring to the fact that Standard
COBOL, (COBOL 2002) does not have the above.  He *was* excluding GUIs
from his comments. He didn't spell it out but was probably also
contemplating things like Open Source routines - we are all aware of
third-party routines written for other languages and the availability
through the Internet.

Bearing in mind OO COBOL was formulated back in '93, it is only now that
J4 are seriously looking at Collections ONLY - and the initial objective
appears to have been KISS, (Keep it simple), tentatively at this time
going for three collection types Ordered, Unordered and KeyedCollection,
(the latter being a Java Map, or in Smalltalk/Net Express parlance -
Dictionary). I wont hide the fact that I was *extremely* annoyed the
above doesn't include SortedCollection - which is at least 80% of my
usage - and I've said so to J4. Remains to be seen what happens.

This whole biz is a topic first tackled by a Russell Clarke in Australia
- an ENORMOUS effort put in - and the damn thing went into a cryogenic
state until resurrected by Bill Klein, then a J4 member. Bill is not
enamoured of OO but just wanted the *best* for COBOL. Russell's paper
title "Standard Classes". First crack at the resurrected topic the title
became "Standard Collections" - jaundiced maybe but I felt we were being
handed the Fujitsu format - when I had stressed back in 2000 - we should
have 'horse-trading' between F/J, Hitachi and M/F to take the best from
all three - Pete may recall my phrase 'horse trading'. I specifically
made that same point to J4 back in 2000.. (Subsequent to the
'resurrection'  event Fujitsu drops out of J4 - I can only make the
wildest guess - they have put their eggs into the dotNet basket ? Just
introduce, as necessary,  their own non-Standard syntax to handle
dotNet.  M/F have done exactly the same with features like TRY...,
CATCH...., END-TRY. But at this stage I believe M/F are still very
committed to non-dotNet COBOL - there's a whole slew of of us that fit
in that category).

I'm not sure about Fujitsu, but both Hitachi and M/F introduced support
utilities which changes our title from 'Standard Collections' back to
'Standard Classes'. The reason - both based their initial design on the
Smalltalk model which has in excess of 1,000 support classes. I've never
checked but some of the Smalltalk classes may possibly be no bigger than
one method - a parallel in COBOL, and still not yet introduced by any
vendor - our UDFs (User Defined Functions). Trouble with that - "Which
class has methods that I feel are appropriate ?" - requires a lot of
searching.

(Note for Pete - having read Will Price on M/F and dotNet - I'm
inclined to think F/J dotNet would be overkill for you, as you just want
components. However, and I'm sure it is dotNet based, as you start to
type in a class name the IDE gives you a treeview of all methods
applicable to that class - nice feature. Via dotNet you get 'overload'
on the amount of detail for Exceptions - but you can select what you want).

Well aware of the M/F support class structure, and how it applies to
collections, I initially went with the abbreviated 'Standard
Collections' approach, because I got the feeling J4 wanted KISS.

OK guys recall Alain Reymond, Belgium wanting to produce some Open
Source with Postscript ?. Commendable idea, and I waved a few warning
flags about being 'neutral'. In subsequent private e-mail, Alain wrote,
"No I wont be using any GUIs but I do want to  use the M/F  Class
CharacterArray, and *hope* there is some F/J equivalent, say like String
class).

Frankly I think Alain is scuppered - the M/F class CharacterArray is a
SUPPORT Class.
The M/F Collection classes draw off this support class as necessary. In
addition when you look at the start of the source code for Class
CharacterArray there are a whole daffy of other M/F support classes
which are invoked, dependent upon the methods you use in CharacterArray.
Unless Alain is a wizard - to my mind - game over ! (I'm not going to
write Alain off - he may well be a wizard from le Pays Bas !).

Clicking into Alain's problem - the very probable difficulty of
producing  portable, 'universal code' I've suggested to J4 they have a
think about 'Standard Classes'. In reference to something I wrote it was
Robert who commented, "Why should vendors provide you portability, allowing
you to easily switch compilers ?" Cynical if you like, but deadly accurate !

I feel no need to impress others, wrapping my thoughts and comments  in
a false 'academic' style, nor do I s out Thesaurus for a nice
alternate word - so as a developer, plugging away at this stuff on a
daily basis,  I just tell it like it is - hopefully without insulting
anybody. So quoting Robert anonymously, I wrote to J4 suggesting they
had two options :-

(a) Go for just Standard COLLECTIONS - ignoring support classes, (which
are then implementer defined) - and I wrote, "no criticism of vendors -
you are not non-profit charitable organizations", or

(b) Acknowledge/Agree  that we need a set of Standard  CLASSES, (which
would include Collections), which are portable across different compilers.

Bearing in mind J4 is now down to 6 members, four of whom are  vendor
reps, IBM. HP, M/F and Unisys - whether they go (a) or (b) above remains
to be seen. It's their decision - and unless somebody is a real
muck-raker and visionary on ISO (the WG4 Committee),  I think the ball
on a decision will remain with J4. Anyway I'm reasonably certain Team
USA for ISO = WG4, consists of the 'producers',  the the four J4 vendors
= ANSI = USA :-). Germany may or may not include Artur Reimann, (active
as a J4 member until an illness in 2000),  and Karl Kistler, Chief
Architect for Fujitsu-Siemens, (a corporate partnership between the two,
not directly associated with the Fujitsu we are more familiar with).
Other than Japan, (Hitachi), any other countries producing compilers ?.

If they go with 'implementer defined'  - there wont ever be OO COBOL
Open Source. One more nail in COBOL's coffin. Can you seriously perceive
"Java/C++ kids" - jumping for joy at having access to Open Source for
Procedural COBOL ? Meanwhile as COBOLers we can access their Open
Source, when available, including picking-up on GUI techniques/routines
- funny thing though, the developers who advocate this approach are the
same people who are adamant that COBOL should *never ever* have GUIs.

All the above aside, having read up Will Price on M/F and dotNet - I
have a clearer picture on Exception Handling. Doesn't quite fit what I
would like but I think I can do a mock-up using the existing M/F
Exception Handler class (primarily used for Validation checks as
described in M/F on-line). So I think I'm now able to make a suggestion
to J4 on how Exceptions could work in Standard OO COBOL - doesn't
compete with dotNet, and no reason it should - dotNet is unique to ONE
O/S - Windows.

Regardless of whether J4 goes for Standard CLASSES or Standard
COLLECTIONS - I feel in my bones we do need an Exception class for OO.
Whether the same techniques could be rolled-over to be be used with
Procedural code - I just don't know.

One thing I should add - I'm acutely aware of my own limitations and I
am extremely embarrassed that I'm the only one to raise this issue with
J4 - it is a large topic, which should benefit from more than one
person's input.

Still - would have been real nice if I could have generated a think-tank
here first to test my ideas.
/
/Jimmy

"James J. Gavan" schrieb:

> Bearing in mind OO COBOL was formulated back in '93, it is only now that
> J4 are seriously looking at Collections ONLY - and the initial objective
> appears to have been KISS, (Keep it simple), tentatively at this time
> going for three collection types Ordered, Unordered and KeyedCollection,
> (the latter being a Java Map, or in Smalltalk/Net Express parlance -
> Dictionary). I wont hide the fact that I was *extremely* annoyed the
> above doesn't include SortedCollection - which is at least 80% of my
> usage - and I've said so to J4. Remains to be seen what happens.

see J4/04-0206, new chapter 5!

> Germany may or may not include Artur Reimann, (active
> as a J4 member until an illness in 2000),  and Karl Kistler,
?????

Karl Kiesel
Fujitsu Siemens Computers, München

Karl Kiesel wrote:

>"James J. Gavan" schrieb:
>
>
> 
>
>see J4/04-0206, new chapter 5!
>
>
>
Thanks for the heads-up Karl. Don't check on a daily basis, but would
have gotten around to it.
Nice to know, perhaps, that one's two cents worth may have contributed.
As a current  UK saying goes, "It's sorted" :-)

*LOTS* of changes, plus the addition of the new Exception Handling
class. Will have to print-out to digest.

As 'Chief Scribe', clarification from Chuck please. From the J4 minutes,
you were forwarding the predecessor document to ISO/WG4 for
consideration (October ?). Obviously some reaction at WG4, and the
minutes indicated you were going to take WG4 comments into account at a
J4 meeting (December ?). Did this result in a quick update from Bob
producing  J4/04-0206, and  is that document  more or less a reasonably
final conclusion of both WG4 and J4 thoughts. (Haven't yet looked at it
in detail) . Or as one can comment, is the topic still up for grabs ?

Really don't want to flog myself to death, putting in a lot of thought
and writing into it, (been there, done that),  if J4/04-0206 is a done deal.

Jimmy

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:44Lrd.411007$nl.399672@pd7tw3no...

> As 'Chief Scribe', clarification from Chuck please. From the J4 minutes,
> you were forwarding the predecessor document to ISO/WG4 for
> consideration (October ?). Obviously some reaction at WG4, and the
> minutes indicated you were going to take WG4 comments into account at a
> J4 meeting (December ?). Did this result in a quick update from Bob
> producing  J4/04-0206, and  is that document  more or less a reasonably
> final conclusion of both WG4 and J4 thoughts. (Haven't yet looked at it
> in detail) . Or as one can comment, is the topic still up for grabs ?

The Collection Class Library and XML Syntax proposals aren't final and
aspects of them are still being discussed, and they were brought to WG4 by
J4 with the sense "This is the direction we're planning to go.  Is that OK?
Have you any major or minor complaints with the direction?  How about the
details?", not "We think this is done; is this OK with you?"  (there were a
few of those).

"J4/04-0207, Collection classes -- historical discussion" is intended to
capture the history of this proposal (keeps from cluttering up the actual
proposal), and Bob has updated it to include the outcomes of both of the
teleconferences on the subject as well as the WG4 discussion; I suggest you
check it out.

Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*,   As both XML and Collection
Classes are Technical Reports (rather than proposals for the next standard)
that can apply to the 2002 standard as well, they precede the discussion of
the other 2008 changes in the agenda (J4/04-0205) for the meeting
(dynamic-capacity tables, any-length items, date/time formats, structured
constants, etc.)   For that reason, preliminary comments at your earliest
convenience would be appropriate if you want your suggestions discussed at
that meeting!  The next one is in February, and J4 is working really hard to
get the first draft out for international review by next summer in order to
meet WG4's request that the next standard be published no later than 2008.

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens wrote:

Hmm....

>The Collection Class Library and XML Syntax proposals aren't final and
>aspects of them are still being discussed, and they were brought to WG4 by
>J4 with the sense "This is the direction we're planning to go.  Is that OK?
>Have you any major or minor complaints with the direction?  How about the
>details?", not "We think this is done; is this OK with you?"  (there were a
>few of those).
>
>"J4/04-0207, Collection classes -- historical discussion" is intended to
>capture the history of this proposal (keeps from cluttering up the actual
>proposal), and Bob has updated it to include the outcomes of both of the
>teleconferences on the subject as well as the WG4 discussion; I suggest you
>check it out.
>
>
>
Not sure Bob's 04-0207 helped much as background. A lot was a rehash and
as I stepped through, it initially indicated the old class structure.
Wasn't until I read further on that SortedCollections are spelled out.,
My view at least is,  that the re-hash as a history only needed  to make
reference to UnorderedCollecitons by stating that this feature was
dropped in favour of SortedCollections.

Now not being in the loop - suddenly confronted with something new -
"Exception Class" - and that is entirely restricted for use with
Collections, at the moment.

Then there is the reference in the agenda for the meeting you refer to
below, "take into account comments from WG4....". Again, playing it in
the dark - what was commented upon. In Russell's case, which Bill
resurrected,  there was a document showing you where WG4 took kicks at
Russell's proposal.

>Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*,   As both XML and Collection
>Classes are Technical Reports (rather than proposals for the next standard)
>that can apply to the 2002 standard as well, they precede the discussion of
>the other 2008 changes in the agenda (J4/04-0205) for the meeting
>(dynamic-capacity tables, any-length items, date/time formats, structured
>constants, etc.)   For that reason, preliminary comments at your earliest
>convenience would be appropriate if you want your suggestions discussed at
>that meeting!  The next one is in February, and J4 is working really hard t
o
>get the first draft out for international review by next summer in order to
>meet WG4's request that the next standard be published no later than 2008.
>
>
>
Here we go again -

"Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*...". Rough guess, took me abo
ut three months back in 2000. The recent ones, rushed like mad to get as nea
r to your J4 meeting date as possible - didn't make it. The rush resulted in
 a lot of repetition which
I didn't have time to delete editorially.

There's no way  I can beat the clock, nor do I have an overall handle on
your direction; then throw in Karl's latest editorial comments for
consideration. I would really like to*actually* do some programming.

I don't hear any change clinking. OK so apart from J4 you have other
duties at Unisys. But there's a difference - imagine a visual cash
register on each of our desks. In Chuck's case that cash register is
merrily pinging away, regardless of what duties he is performing ,
getting all set-up to post entries to Payroll so that Chuck gets his
bank direct credit. Even with Christmas coming up, I wont get one single
jingle on mine :-) .

I'll take a look, to see if I think there are any bloopers, but without
some *detailed* background, the major part of 04-0206 still looks
comparatively much like the original. Haven't looked yet, but Bob's
example methods under 'Concepts' would appear to clarify it somewhat.

On a practical note - and *assume*  you had the TR ready for Jan 2006 -
as an M/F user, how long before M/F implement. There's an awful lot of
code out there already written using  their existing  Collections. Even
if they provide the feature, M/F users are not going to fall over
themselves to implement the new J4 syntax. There's another problem  - I
get the feeling that both F/J and M/F would very much like their
developers to jump to dotNet. Money, whether Pete on F/J or me with M/F,
roughly about $3,500 each to get up-to-date.

OK so J4 Collections are *not* about F/J and M/F - but which other
compilers are up and running with this feature.

Jimmy

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Zc5sd.405645$Pl.340771@pd7tw1no...

> Not sure Bob's 04-0207 helped much as background. A lot was a rehash and
> as I stepped through, it initially indicated the old class structure.
> Wasn't until I read further on that SortedCollections are spelled out.,
> My view at least is,  that the re-hash as a history only needed  to make
> reference to UnorderedCollecitons by stating that this feature was
> dropped in favour of SortedCollections.

J4/04-0207 is intended as a *chronological* history reflecting, in the order
in which they occurred, the additions, improvements, amendments and changes
in direction that took place during the course of the development of the
proposal whose current instantiation is J4/04-0206.  That you had to look
somewhere other than the *beginning* of this document to find discussions
about what took place *subsequent* to the beginning of the development
process should not be a surprise!

> Here we go again -

Who be "we"?  The meeting schedule is well publicized.   It is also well
known that WG4 wanted these Technical Reports all done and in the 2008 draft
by *this month*; we've delayed the process quite a bit as it is!

> "Note that the J4 meeting starts *Monday next*...". Rough guess, took me
about three months back in 2000. The recent ones, rushed like mad to get as
near to your J4 meeting date as possible - didn't make it. The rush resulted
in a lot of repetition which I didn't have time to delete editorially.

I wasn't on the committee back then, and there's not much I can do about it
now.

> There's no way  I can beat the clock, nor do I have an overall handle on
> your direction; then throw in Karl's latest editorial comments for
> consideration. I would really like to*actually* do some programming.

Bob Karlin is producing the document.  I have repeatedly suggested you
*talk* to him.  It is certainly not clear *to me* what your specific
objections *to the proposal are*.   We *have* studied your papers, and I for
one can't figure out *precisely* what it is you think Bob needs to change in
his proposal to satisfy your requests, nor can I figure out how to apply the
suggestions you have made to the current documents to come up with a legible
standard.  I've tried.

>  I don't hear any change clinking. OK so apart from J4 you have other
> duties at Unisys. But there's a difference - imagine a visual cash
> register on each of our desks. In Chuck's case that cash register is
> merrily pinging away, regardless of what duties he is performing ,
> getting all set-up to post entries to Payroll so that Chuck gets his
> bank direct credit. Even with Christmas coming up, I wont get one single
> jingle on mine :-) .

I don't know what I, as a Unisys employee or as a member of J4 am expected
to do about this.  I have repeatedly suggested you *talk* to the author of
the Collection Class document.   His contact information is available from
the J4 website.   I am not in a position to act as an intermediary.

As to the fact that I am indeed employed, although I survived the most
recent round of voluntary and involuntary layoffs at Unisys, I have not all
that much confidence that that will continue to be the case indefinitely.
I'm not sure what involvement in, or responsibility for, your current
employment situation I have!

> I'll take a look, to see if I think there are any bloopers, but without
> some *detailed* background, the major part of 04-0206 still looks
> comparatively much like the original. Haven't looked yet, but Bob's
> example methods under 'Concepts' would appear to clarify it somewhat.

Well, I hope that's progress!  I suggest you *call* Bob with any questions
or comments!

> On a practical note - and *assume*  you had the TR ready for Jan 2006 -
> as an M/F user, how long before M/F implement.

I can't address that, Jimmy; I don't work for Micro Focus nor am I privy to
their corporate strategies.  Heck, I'm not even privy to *Unisys'* corporate
strategies.

> There's an awful lot of
> code out there already written using  their existing  Collections. Even
> if they provide the feature, M/F users are not going to fall over
> themselves to implement the new J4 syntax.

This isn't new syntax, it's more like a support library as I see it.

> There's another problem  - I
> get the feeling that both F/J and M/F would very much like their
> developers to jump to dotNet. Money, whether Pete on F/J or me with M/F,
> roughly about $3,500 each to get up-to-date.

And what exactly do you expect me, as a Unisys employee or as a J4 member,
to do about this?

> OK so J4 Collections are *not* about F/J and M/F - but which other
> compilers are up and running with this feature.

I can't address this.  But as I see it the standard collection class
*library* isn't a part of the compiler itself, it's intended as a basic
standard set of *support* software adjunct to it.

Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, in a position to act as an
intermediary between you and the folks who wrote J4/04-0206 and its
predecessors.  I strongly recommend you talk to the authors and see if you
can clarify *to them* what your objections are.   If you don't choose to do
that, don't blame *me* for their failure to rewrite the proposal to suit
your desires!

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck,

a very fair, reasoned,  and valid response. It's a pity you weren't on J4
earlier. They were ly lacking in judgement, decision making, and
leadership. If you had been there ten years ago it might have made a
difference. I wish you luck with your current endeavour, even though I
cannot support it.

I considered putting in some comments about the XML additions but I realised
it would be pointless, and I honestly don't have time to waste. J4 will go
wherever J4 thinks it ought to go. COBOL has already been dismembered by
attempts to keep up with the Joneses, and pointless additions to the
language do not improve the situation.

Adding OO to it was a fantastic achievement (a far from pointless adition
(unlike intrinsic XML and Collections)) and it still leaves me gasping at
the people who did it, but look at the reaction: Nothing. The user base
simply didn't DESERVE to have what was produced. Their resistance to change
and entrenched conservatism shot it down before it could ever fly. Why spend
time adding collections as part of the standard, when all they have to do is
go OO, and they can have all the collections they could ever want, of
whatever type they want?

Same with XML. The external free facilities to handle XML are more than
adequate (if you use OO). In fact they are totally rich, and they are free,
for ANY language that implements a COM/CORBA interface, including OO COBOL.
I can't see the point in using valuable resources to provide people with
something that is already provided, if they were prepared to invest in some
training and re-thinking their attitude. How much time, effort, and money is
being spent by J4 to provide these facilities through a standard that will
be far too late, for a language that will be virtually dead by the time this
standard is ready?

If that time and effort was spent in getting the 2000 standard fully
implemented NOW, (maybe even a joint development project between
J4/ANSI/ISO/whatever and a vendor) and promoting the fact that COBOL was
made viable for future development by the addition of these facilities, you
wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

Jimmy,

how long does it take to realise you are flogging a dead horse?

Let it go.

Pete.
(Top Post no more.)

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:cor13k$117m$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Zc5sd.405645$Pl.340771@pd7tw1no...
> 
>
> J4/04-0207 is intended as a *chronological* history reflecting, in the
order
> in which they occurred, the additions, improvements, amendments and
changes
> in direction that took place during the course of the development of the
> proposal whose current instantiation is J4/04-0206.  That you had to look
> somewhere other than the *beginning* of this document to find discussions
> about what took place *subsequent* to the beginning of the development
> process should not be a surprise!
> 
>
> Who be "we"?  The meeting schedule is well publicized.   It is also well
> known that WG4 wanted these Technical Reports all done and in the 2008
draft
> by *this month*; we've delayed the process quite a bit as it is!
> 
> about three months back in 2000. The recent ones, rushed like mad to get
as
> near to your J4 meeting date as possible - didn't make it. The rush
resulted
> in a lot of repetition which I didn't have time to delete editorially.
>
> I wasn't on the committee back then, and there's not much I can do about
it
> now.
> 
>
> Bob Karlin is producing the document.  I have repeatedly suggested you
> *talk* to him.  It is certainly not clear *to me* what your specific
> objections *to the proposal are*.   We *have* studied your papers, and I
for
> one can't figure out *precisely* what it is you think Bob needs to change
in
> his proposal to satisfy your requests, nor can I figure out how to apply
the
> suggestions you have made to the current documents to come up with a
legible
> standard.  I've tried.
> 
>
> I don't know what I, as a Unisys employee or as a member of J4 am expected
> to do about this.  I have repeatedly suggested you *talk* to the author of
> the Collection Class document.   His contact information is available from
> the J4 website.   I am not in a position to act as an intermediary.
>
> As to the fact that I am indeed employed, although I survived the most
> recent round of voluntary and involuntary layoffs at Unisys, I have not
all
> that much confidence that that will continue to be the case indefinitely.
> I'm not sure what involvement in, or responsibility for, your current
> employment situation I have!
> 
>
> Well, I hope that's progress!  I suggest you *call* Bob with any questions
> or comments!
> 
>
> I can't address that, Jimmy; I don't work for Micro Focus nor am I privy
to
> their corporate strategies.  Heck, I'm not even privy to *Unisys'*
corporate
> strategies.
> 
>
> This isn't new syntax, it's more like a support library as I see it.
> 
>
> And what exactly do you expect me, as a Unisys employee or as a J4 member,
> to do about this?
> 
>
> I can't address this.  But as I see it the standard collection class
> *library* isn't a part of the compiler itself, it's intended as a basic
> standard set of *support* software adjunct to it.
>
> Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, in a position to act as an
> intermediary between you and the folks who wrote J4/04-0206 and its
> predecessors.  I strongly recommend you talk to the authors and see if you
> can clarify *to them* what your objections are.   If you don't choose to
do
> that, don't blame *me* for their failure to rewrite the proposal to suit
> your desires!
>
>     -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>

Pete Dashwood wrote:

Chuck,

Although frustrated with the whole shebang, I tried to keep that Irish
temper in check - hope I was reasonably successful. Let me remind you I
first got into this game as a SYSTEMS ANALYST  - i.e., being analytical.
This (still primarily) analyst is not satisfied with the lack of
information, i.e. what led up to the creation of the document to date
and some indication, in summary at least, where you are heading - AS AN
EXTERNAL READER - not in the know.

So one of your agenda items for this current w is to review current
recipients on your circulation list. The list currently includes Bill
Klein - fair enough. It also includes Russell  Clarke. Russell Who ? He
gave up down in Ozzie after his magnificent effort to produce a
collection paper - and now merrily codes away in Java.

Similarly, you have Ray Obin on the list - one of the 'originals' on the
OCTG. Can't be sure - but I think he got dumped at M/F Newbury as a
result of the Merant fiasco.  I can only imagine how enthused he might
be about COBOL as a topic.

From Newbury days, (Summer 2000), some ten J4 members now down to six.
The leavers :-

- Bill Klein (self) - financial/health
- Artur for F/J - health
- EDS - they've taken a financial whack - what "change" were they
getting by  contributing.
- Wim (self)  Netherlands - retired
*********
- Fujitsu - why ?
- Hitachi - (ITSCJ - Watara Takagi) - why  ?
- John Piggott (self) - why ?
- Stephen Spiro (self)  - why ?

I may well be wrong, but I have the deepest suspicion that the latter
group didn't like the concept of "The bureaucrats are in charge".

Let me remind you I HAVE written to Bob Karlin  TWICE and you were cc'd
on one of the e-mails - replies ZILCH !

>Jimmy,
>
>how long does it take to realise you are flogging a dead horse?
>
>Let it go.
>
>
>
As the saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". And as I once
wrote to you, "Like it or not, they are the only game in town".  In a
mood of, "the cup is half full", I reluctantly went along with current
set-up. Oh I "realised", quite some time back it probably was futile. I
regrettably now see the 'cup as only a 1/4 full', and in the long-run,
empty.

Let's put the dead horse in the bone yard - requiescant in pace.

Positively the *LAST*  from me on Standards - I'll see if I can convince
myself that threads here with "Infinite Loops" are worth following, (I
somehow don't think so). Added first item on agenda next Monday, with a
sip from a cup of coffee, "Whoopee-do! We've disposed of the two
J4-Bashers, Dashwood and Gavan".

Yes I *was* enthused about Open Source, just like you observed. I can
say it now - had Open Source been viable, rather than a hobby - it was
my hope that a sophisticated and developer heavily-supported
compiler/standard would eventually replace the current carnival.

(Just think we could have had two Open Source documentation standards,
(1) The Biggie - the version which would have allowed the 'contest'
between Richard and Robert to continue ad nauseum, and (2) The Short
version - say 100 pages, that the rest of us could use).

Jimmy.

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DAasd.425603$nl.186843@pd7tw3no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> Although frustrated with the whole shebang, I tried to keep that Irish
> temper in check - hope I was reasonably successful.

It is commendable. Pleased to see it. You will now enjoy your time here
more, without endangering your health, and without finding yourself painted
into corners you never really intended to be in <G>.

> Let me remind you I
> first got into this game as a SYSTEMS ANALYST  - i.e., being analytical.
> This (still primarily) analyst is not satisfied with the lack of
> information, i.e. what led up to the creation of the document to date
> and some indication, in summary at least, where you are heading - AS AN
> EXTERNAL READER - not in the know.
>

Don't be too hard on Chuck. He is not he enemy here. As he pointed out, what
can you reasonably expect him to do about it?

If I were in your position (and I could easily have been, except that I
chose some years back not to be <G> ) I would address your concerns to the
person who IS responsible. That would be the award  accepting current Chair.
He is quite OK with accepting awards for the non-performance of this group
so maybe it is time he did something to let the rest of see that he is
capable of doing something. (I'm not suggesting that Don is the "enemy"
either, but he should never have accepted an award for being years late and
contributing to the death of COBOL. It isn't personal; I've never met him,
but his doing that made me (as a COBOL user) feel like my  nose was being
rubbed in the dirt by J4 and I've never gotten over it.) Anyway, my personal
feelings aside, you would do well to at least give Don a chance to do
something about your concerns. He has the authority to do so. (Well, he had
the authority to accept the award, so I guess he does...)

> So one of your agenda items for this current w is to review current
> recipients on your circulation list. The list currently includes Bill
> Klein - fair enough. It also includes Russell  Clarke. Russell Who ? He
> gave up down in Ozzie after his magnificent effort to produce a
> collection paper - and now merrily codes away in Java.
>
See, not all Ozzies are dumb kangaroos...some are wombats... <G>

> Similarly, you have Ray Obin on the list - one of the 'originals' on the
> OCTG. Can't be sure - but I think he got dumped at M/F Newbury as a
> result of the Merant fiasco.  I can only imagine how enthused he might
> be about COBOL as a topic.
>
>  From Newbury days, (Summer 2000), some ten J4 members now down to six.
> The leavers :-
>
> - Bill Klein (self) - financial/health
> - Artur for F/J - health
> - EDS - they've taken a financial whack - what "change" were they
> getting by  contributing.
> - Wim (self)  Netherlands - retired
> *********
> - Fujitsu - why ?
> - Hitachi - (ITSCJ - Watara Takagi) - why  ?
> - John Piggott (self) - why ?
> - Stephen Spiro (self)  - why ?
>
> I may well be wrong, but I have the deepest suspicion that the latter
> group didn't like the concept of "The bureaucrats are in charge".
>
Speculation, Jimmy. It could have been any number of reasons. Part of the
problem seems to be that NOBODY was "in charge"...the whole thing was
plagued by red tape and committees.

> Let me remind you I HAVE written to Bob Karlin  TWICE and you were cc'd
> on one of the e-mails - replies ZILCH !
>
Chuck's suggestion was that you call him (Bob). Maybe he isn't good with
e-mail...
 
> As the saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". And as I once
> wrote to you, "Like it or not, they are the only game in town".  In a
> mood of, "the cup is half full", I reluctantly went along with current
> set-up.

Optimism is by far the most useful attitude to attain to. It enables
achievement. There may be no guarantee of success in a given enterprise, but
there is always a guarantee of failure if you do not believe you can achieve
what you are attempting. However, it is also important to "pick your
battles". I considered this one was unwinnable, (no matter how optimistic I
may be by nature), and I cannot subscribe to "if you can't beat 'em, join
'em" when they represent things I really cannot endure.

They are the "only game in town" as long as vendors empower that position.
Vendors are not stupid, and the COBOL marketplace is hard and getting
harder... Think again about why some household name vendors have withdrawn
from the committee... Why would you spend big bucks to empower a committee
that has lost all credibility, consistently underperformed, and is
answerable to no-one?You are better off spending the money on retention
(and, hopefully, expansion) of your existing  customer base, listening to
what THEY want, and then providing it.



> Oh I "realised", quite some time back it probably was futile. I
> regrettably now see the 'cup as only a 1/4 full', and in the long-run,
> empty.
>
> Let's put the dead horse in the bone yard - requiescant in pace.
>
> Positively the *LAST*  from me on Standards - I'll see if I can convince
> myself that threads here with "Infinite Loops" are worth following, (I
> somehow don't think so).

Fortunately, it is not the only thread here... <G>

>Added first item on agenda next Monday, with a
> sip from a cup of coffee, "Whoopee-do! We've disposed of the two
> J4-Bashers, Dashwood and Gavan".
>
It never gives me any pleasure to bash anything. I have always tried to
explain why my attitude to the COBOL standards has been consistently
negative.

> Yes I *was* enthused about Open Source, just like you observed. I can
> say it now - had Open Source been viable, rather than a hobby - it was
> my hope that a sophisticated and developer heavily-supported
> compiler/standard would eventually replace the current carnival.
>

It would be nice if ANYTHING replaced the current carnival, however,
eventually the carnival is over, and we can all go home. Usually with
lighter pockets...


> (Just think we could have had two Open Source documentation standards,
> (1) The Biggie - the version which would have allowed the 'contest'
> between Richard and Robert to continue ad nauseum, and (2) The Short
> version - say 100 pages, that the rest of us could use).
>
And both would no doubt have proved valuable in one way or another... <G>

Pete.

Pete Dashwood wrote:

>It is commendable. Pleased to see it. You will now enjoy your time here
>more, without endangering your health, and without finding yourself painted
>into corners you never really intended to be in <G>.
>
>
Not going to go through the whole damn thing again, but it is
communication - that's what EDP is about. Take the following *truly*
hypothetical. :-

Yours truly decides he would like to be a member of J4 - pay my
membership dues and cough up $200 for the coming w's attendance. I
arrive ( ouch - air fare, taxi, hotel ) and show up at the meeting.
Pleasantries all round but Don looks a bit sombre. Then he drops a
bombshell, Bob's wife phoned him the previous night - Bob Karlin dropped
dead. They sort of muddle through, but Don eventually poses the question -

"Jimmy, you've shown interest in Collections, do you want to head it up
?".  I'm delighted of course, a topic I like.

"Sure, I'd be delighted, but what do I need from you folks  by way of
background ?'

"Nothing, you already have it. It's in Bob's 04-0205 and 04-0206, plus
you can look at the preceding documents".

"That's it - just the latest interim drafts ? What about original ideas.
Where did Thane start this, which other languages were looked at.  Did
you look at the three COBOL compilers currently providing collections.
What was the reasoning to have UnorderedCollections but ignore Sorted, (
*** which they have now swapped, by the way ***).  What was the reaction
you got from WG4 when you submitted your draft to them. etc...... etc.....".

Pete - am I getting it across  ? Another B-I-G bloody hypothetical -
it's not me at that meeting but *Pete Dashwood*.  Would you accept the
above - no way. With lack of information you would tell 'em, "I'll do it
but I'll start the bloody thing from scratch ".

Most certainly wasn't expecting Chuck to be an intermediary merely
trying to convey the sense of me and the hypothetical above.. As to your
various suggestions, no names no pack drill, but I *have* written to
various people - with a complete lack of success.

Balls to Mr. Bangelstein, Bangelstein, Bangelstein
da, da, da ,da
etc.....

Nope - I'll stick with what I've got. If and when a revised Collection
format was available - I have *exactly* the same problem as you with
upgrading to F/J dotNet - a small item like $3.5K. I've said it before.
I see no advantage to you considering F/J dotNet,  particularly as you
are focused on Components. The dotNet represents a Microsoft  'easy in'
to other languages, with them in charge of course - but that is already
achievable for you. Anyway  if you did get stuck, Richard , from his
vast inventory of "stuff", could suggest either free or cheap
alternatives :-)

Screw this thread - let's get back to the real world - your passing
parameters in OO and your latest intriguing response to Leuko. I'll
stick with your Christmas tree concept. BTW, just down the hill from me
at a local, small, Deer Valley Shopping Centre - roughly a w ago,
fenced off some of the parking area with chain link, and put in the
fresh trees. As you can imagine, firs are not a rare item in the Great
White North. The site has a sign, "XMAS TREES. SCROOGE APPROVED".

As president, CEO, chief cook and bottle washer, I now have to nip off
and get my wife's lunch before she goes to her job at the Bay (retail).
Nothing exotic like you did with that porker (?)  on a spit - but with a
mother who was an excellent cook and a father who was a chef - I'm a
pretty dab hand in the cooking arena.

Jimmy