[OT] - Does Bill think COBOL is Boring?

Just thinking out loud here.

I believe that often top posts labelled [OT] originate from a long winding
thread where people lose their place in the line and instead of finding it,
start anew.  I also note, that most spammers, people who would have you
believe Britney had died, and people looking for work (or trolling due to
not posting a pay rate) generally don't mark their posts as such.

I am noticing a new trend...the Bill thread.  Now why would we have these
innocent looking threads ?

Is COBOL boring?
Is Religion exciting?
Is it a subversive distraction while he works in secret updating the FAQ?

I think it could be all three, but I've yet to see *factual* evidence to
support the first item, and I'm basing the third one on an unnamed
source....the second one, I have subjective evidence suggesting that it may
be true....I'm glad to see a resurgence of IBM COBOL questions though...(two
by my count)... as it does seem to indicate that there is life outside of
GoldenGate Capital in the COBOL world.

I apologize for wasting your time :-)

JCE

I assume you mean me (not Bill Gates, for example).

If so, I don't find it "boring" (although not "working for a living" DOES al
low
me time to concentrate on Square Dancing rather than COBOL <G> ).

I also (personally) find most of the religion, "what's right for the US" and
similar OT posts semi-boring in that they rarely seem to "go anywhere".
(Reminds me of SECTIONS vs PARAGRAPHS <G> ).

Yes, I do hope (eventually) to get back to updating the COBOL FAQ. It seems 
to
me that we don't get many questions to this forum that would actually get
ANSWERED by an update to it (and much of the information will get you pointe
d in
the "right direction" - even if the specific product and release information
 is
out-of-date).

If anyone wants to see what I do work on (higher priority than COBOL FAQ), y
ou
can check out:

http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/SQD/SQDHome.htm

(counter reset recently, so don't worry about "low number")

I also would be happy to send anyone one of my LENGTHY "RCF's" (Readers Comm
ent
Forms) on the recently released (IBM) CICS TS V3.1 documentation.  (I had fu
n
visits to both Newbury/Micro Focus and Hursley/IBM when I was in the UK earl
ier
this month).

***

FINALLY,  I am not really in the "COBOL is moribund" camp.  However, it does
seem to me that:
COBOL lives in the "Enterprise" IT environment and only "peripherally" in th
e
Workstation and web-based  areas
Enterprise-type COBOL programmers rarely visit C.L.C.
Enterprise-type COBOL programmers have "internal" resources for answering
their questions (and, YES, many of them are programming as if the 1980's - m
uch
less later - had never happened)

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ulz9e.10705$_t3.1406@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Just thinking out loud here.
>
> I believe that often top posts labelled [OT] originate from a long winding
> thread where people lose their place in the line and instead of finding it
,
> start anew.  I also note, that most spammers, people who would have you
> believe Britney had died, and people looking for work (or trolling due to 
not
> posting a pay rate) generally don't mark their posts as such.
>
> I am noticing a new trend...the Bill thread.  Now why would we have these
> innocent looking threads ?
>
> Is COBOL boring?
> Is Religion exciting?
> Is it a subversive distraction while he works in secret updating the FAQ?
>
> I think it could be all three, but I've yet to see *factual* evidence to
> support the first item, and I'm basing the third one on an unnamed
> source....the second one, I have subjective evidence suggesting that it ma
y be
> true....I'm glad to see a resurgence of IBM COBOL questions though...(two 
by
> my count)... as it does seem to indicate that there is life outside of
> GoldenGate Capital in the COBOL world.
>
> I apologize for wasting your time :-)
>
> JCE
>
>

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:10:51 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

Snip
>If anyone wants to see what I do work on (higher priority than COBOL FAQ), 
you
>can check out:
>
>  http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/SQD/SQDHome.htm
>
Some links are incorrect.
e.g.
home.comcast.com
and
home.concast.net
are both wrong.


>FINALLY,  I am not really in the "COBOL is moribund" camp.  However, it doe
s
>seem to me that:
>   COBOL lives in the "Enterprise" IT environment and only "peripherally" i
n the
>Workstation and web-based  areas
>   Enterprise-type COBOL programmers rarely visit C.L.C.
>   Enterprise-type COBOL programmers have "internal" resources for answerin
g
>their questions (and, YES, many of them are programming as if the 1980's - 
much
>less later - had never happened)

What would you call Enterprise programmers?





Frederico Fonseca
ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com

"Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-in-msg-spam@email.com> wrote in message
 news:a7jd61deo8aclg95f4c22qu8ttaorit8u5@
4ax.com...
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:10:51 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
<snip> 
>
> What would you call Enterprise programmers?
>

I am used to large IBM (usually z/OS, formerly OS/390, formerly MVS) shops -
 but
would certainly also include VSE sites.  (I don't know of many - any? - site
s
actually doing VM production work today).

I would also include the "Tandem" portion of HP - and both sides (I think) o
f
Unisys.

I would not (personally) consider most OS/400 (sorry about that <G> ) or many
 of
the existing HP (Unix-variation) shops in this category.

This is talking about the Enterprise-type environments where COBOL is still
"alive" (often - not always - thriving).  There are LOTS of other
"enterprise-type" sites that have moved ot web/server (non-COBOL) environmen
ts
as well.

There are also (and I think this is where you come from) a reasonable number
 of
sites with minimal in-house programming (e.g. many - not all - OS/400 and so
me -
not all - HP shops) where they DO buy "written in COBOL" off-the-shelf
applications.

All of this is GROSS generalization and I know there are exceptions both wit
h
and without COBOL.



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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:41:12 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-in-msg-spam@email.com> wrote in message
> news:a7jd61deo8aclg95f4c22qu8ttaorit8u5@
4ax.com... 
><snip> 
>
>I am used to large IBM (usually z/OS, formerly OS/390, formerly MVS) shops 
- but
>would certainly also include VSE sites.  (I don't know of many - any? - sit
es
>actually doing VM production work today).
>
>I would also include the "Tandem" portion of HP - and both sides (I think) 
of
>Unisys.
>
>I would not (personally) consider most OS/400 (sorry about that <G> ) or man
y of
>the existing HP (Unix-variation) shops in this category.
I can agree with the Unix, but maybe not the OS400.

My current shop has a mainframe (z/OS, not sure about version), and
all the current AS400s will move during this year to two OS400
machines. Each machine with 8 LPARs, such the each LPAR is bigger than
our current production box (350 GB main memory).
We have currently 10 different development teams, with an average of
20 people per team.

what level would you consider the above?




Frederico Fonseca
ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com

"William M. Klein" wrote:
>    Enterprise-type COBOL programmers rarely visit C.L.C.
>    Enterprise-type COBOL programmers have "internal" resources for answeri
ng
> their questions (and, YES, many of them are programming as if the 1980's -
 much
> less later - had never happened)
>
> --

Ummm .... generalizations are treacherous things - can you name any such
or give us a count of them; and what percent of the active Cobol
programmers of the world would you say they represent?

Also; accepting your statement at face value: are the programs they are
writing or maintaining working properly?  If so, does it matter what
styles they're using?

By way of an analogy:
Way back when, I was an I/T manager, we had a UNIVAC 90/60.  We'd
regularly get salesmen from other manufacturers who'd inform me with
great concern that we were running on an obsolete machine (more or less
true).  They were never able to tell me why that should be important.
The results were correct and that's all that counted until our contract
ran out.
PL

I only have "close" contact with IBM mainframe shops (except via this forum
<G> ).

From attendance at SHARE (IBM mainframe user group - with "sister" organizat
ions
in Europe and Asia),  I would say that there are significant numbers of shop
s
still creating new (as well as maintaining OLD) COBOL applications.  Such sh
ops
(and their programmers ) are "seriously" under-represented on CLC.  (Sorry a
bout
that Arnold, Frank, and a few other "regulars").  IBM has been doing "R&D" t
o
meet such customers need (e.g. XML PARSE/GENERATE and WSED)

The groups that I know does NOT include the "Indian and Russian" off-shore
outsourcing COBOL programmers - but that is another group that I know exists
.

OBVIOUSLY, this is a gigantic generalization (and if I didn't make that clea
r in
my last post, sorry about that).

I don't know if this answers your question at all - but it may help you
understand where I am "coming from" in what I said.

P.S.  Another factor is the fact that
- Micro Focus seems to be marketing to "enterprise" COBOL shops
both for development offloading  (MFEEE product)
and
for "lift and shift" for migrating mainframe applications (in part or
whole) to workstation and/or servers
and this BUSINESS plan seems (to me) to be working

while
Fujitsu seemed (to me) to be MORE targeted at (or at least including)
"individual" COBOL developers and this business plan does NOT seem (to me ag
ain)
to be working.

Again, these are generalizations but more accurately are my IMPRESSIONS.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4266ECF1.B71BE64E@mb.sympatico.ca...
> "William M. Klein" wrote: 
>
> Ummm .... generalizations are treacherous things - can you name any such
> or give us a count of them; and what percent of the active Cobol
> programmers of the world would you say they represent?
>
> Also; accepting your statement at face value: are the programs they are
> writing or maintaining working properly?  If so, does it matter what
> styles they're using?
>
> By way of an analogy:
> Way back when, I was an I/T manager, we had a UNIVAC 90/60.  We'd
> regularly get salesmen from other manufacturers who'd inform me with
> great concern that we were running on an obsolete machine (more or less
> true).  They were never able to tell me why that should be important.
> The results were correct and that's all that counted until our contract
> ran out.
> PL

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:xwC9e.537418$za2.83502@news.easynews.com...
>I only have "close" contact with IBM mainframe shops (except via this forum
><G> ).
The idea of a mainframe shop in IBM is shifting dramatically as time moves
on though.  Definite shift to the "other IBM".  Internally, I think COBOL
must be going away sooner or later, and the skills will exist only on some
of their outsource deals with companies like AT&T...or is that SBC yet?

I do like your optimism though for COBOL though. It offsets my callous take
on the world.

<Totally OT whine>:
I've found "MASSIVE GENERALIZATION" coming, that COBOLers are more business
savvy than other programmers.  I believe for a lot of COBOL programmers
there is a business role available should COBOL start going away.  I don't
know why this is, it just appears to me that the younger generation is
technology obsessed.  It may be a fallout from the current corporate
policies where employee loyalty doesn't exist.  It may be that they think
you can hire on at Company A with Java skills...but sheeple think that there
is no job value to knowing how Company B does business.

Maybe COBOL encourages you to think through business rules issues more -
I'll have to think about this.
</Totally OT whine>

> From attendance at SHARE (IBM mainframe user group - with "sister"
> organizations in Europe and Asia),  I would say that there are significant
> numbers of shops still creating new (as well as maintaining OLD) COBOL
> applications.  Such shops  (and their programmers ) are "seriously"
> under-represented on CLC.  (Sorry about that Arnold, Frank, and a few
> other "regulars").  IBM has been doing "R&D" to meet such customers need
> (e.g. XML PARSE/GENERATE and WSED)

I'm surprised in a way that IBM is not trying to cash in on more of the lift
and shift markets.
They could sell their "little" DB2, their p and x servers, and WSED to
assist with the development and integration.
Maybe I just miss the marketing, or like you say, these people are also
misrepresented in CLC.

> OBVIOUSLY, this is a gigantic generalization (and if I didn't make that
> clear in my last post, sorry about that).
You'd think by now we'd let people say things without having to make that
qualification :-)

> I don't know if this answers your question at all - but it may help you
> understand where I am "coming from" in what I said.
>
> P.S.  Another factor is the fact that
>  - Micro Focus seems to be marketing to "enterprise" COBOL shops
>      both for development offloading  (MFEEE product)
>            and
>     for "lift and shift" for migrating mainframe applications (in part or
> whole) to workstation and/or servers
> and this BUSINESS plan seems (to me) to be working

Businesses do what they do to make money while....

> while
>   Fujitsu seemed (to me) to be MORE targeted at (or at least including)
> "individual" COBOL developers and this business plan does NOT seem (to me
> again) to be working.

Developers to things to get educated or for fun.  What's fun about COBOL? I
did download their IDE years ago, and just found it plain out frustrating.
WSED is much nicer - especially as you can switch, COBOL to Java and back
again ....and the debugging is sweet.  Criticism of it : runs like a dog on
anything but a tricked out pc.

> Again, these are generalizations but more accurately are my IMPRESSIONS.
I find your impressions often come across as more "professional" than the
core CLC (myself included).  I think you're arguments or discussions are
always well thought out.  That is of course a generalization and my
impressions.

JCE

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:vzz9e.4970253$Zm5.772506@news.easynews.com...
>I assume you mean me (not Bill Gates, for example).
>
> If so, I don't find it "boring" (although not "working for a living" DOES
> allow me time to concentrate on Square Dancing rather than COBOL <G> ).
I would assume that the owner of a FAQ would not.  It is a service you
provide that has taken some time away from SQD.

> I also (personally) find most of the religion, "what's right for the US"
> and similar OT posts semi-boring in that they rarely seem to "go
> anywhere". (Reminds me of SECTIONS vs PARAGRAPHS <G> ).
I find them interesting for a while...I just get lost in the maze.  Once we
get to the "this is my position and I'm sticking with it" it tends to become
trite.  The threads remind me of the great method of panto audience
engagement -
"He's behind you"
"Oh, no he isn't"
"Oh yes he is!"
"Oh no he isn't".....

I saw one in America a couple of years back though - the crowd didn't know
what to do...it was bizarre...I thought _everyone_ knows how pantos work.

> Yes, I do hope (eventually) to get back to updating the COBOL FAQ. It
> seems to me that we don't get many questions to this forum that would
> actually get ANSWERED by an update to it (and much of the information will
> get you pointed in the "right direction" - even if the specific product
> and release information is out-of-date).
It's not about answering questions, it's about providing a service.  People
should see things like WSED existing, or Eclipse having projects for COBOL
etc.

> If anyone wants to see what I do work on (higher priority than COBOL FAQ),
> you can check out:
>
>  http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/SQD/SQDHome.htm
>
> (counter reset recently, so don't worry about "low number")
BTW website worked for me...I'm somewhat surprised...I thought that square
dancing was exactly one dance like "electric boogaloo" or the "mashed
potato".....

> I also would be happy to send anyone one of my LENGTHY "RCF's" (Readers
> Comment Forms) on the recently released (IBM) CICS TS V3.1 documentation.
> (I had fun visits to both Newbury/Micro Focus and Hursley/IBM when I was
> in the UK earlier this month).
I used to know some people down in Hursley that worked in the MQ Series
camp.  I think that they used to work closely with the CICS group (I once
applied for a job doing support for MQ/CICS in Raleigh for IBM so I know
they were related).

> FINALLY,  I am not really in the "COBOL is moribund" camp.  However, it
> does seem to me that:
>   COBOL lives in the "Enterprise" IT environment and only "peripherally"
> in the Workstation and web-based  areas
>   Enterprise-type COBOL programmers rarely visit C.L.C.
>   Enterprise-type COBOL programmers have "internal" resources for
> answering their questions (and, YES, many of them are programming as if
> the 1980's - much less later - had never happened)
Funny you should say that - I write code that uses a  new function and they
say "how did you know that".
Some people haven't read/looked at a manual since 1980 :-)  I have actually
requested a compiler upgrade when I have seen how back level they were - so
the rule even applies to system support roles.

JCE

It's sort of like going to the golf course, playing a fine round of golf, an
d
then, at the 19th hole (the club house), quaffing a beer and shooting the bu
ll.
It doesn't mean the golf was boring - it means there's more of life to enjoy
than just that.