J4 (INCITS aka ANSI COBOL) Committee update

Subject should have had "J4" not "J$" (Freudian slip???)

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Roger While" <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote in message
news:e3p1im$6lu$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hmm, Link to INICITS/RD-3 within the doc doesn't appear to work.
>
> Roger While
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:YLS7g.431109$7i1.123759@fe06.news.easynews.com... 
>
>

Actually, unlike some, I am ENCOURAGED by this.  It seems to me (and I *know
*
others will disagree - and some agree) that the current J4 process has total
ly
lost contact with what can/should be done with COBOL.  Work on the '08 Stand
ard
continues (see Chuck's separate note) with (as far as I can tell) ZERO atten
tion
to the fact that there are no implementations of the '02 Standard.  Furtherm
ore,
the "quick and tentative" TR process has bogged down (just as the previous
amendment process did) and J4 seems to be spending more time (and resources)
 on
the XML TR than on the '08 Standard OR interpretations of the '02 Standard.

****

Once upon a time (and long ago) there were two groups:
CCC (CODASYL COBOL Committee) - that created a "futuristic" (not implemented
)
JOD
and
X3J4 a "technical committee" that worked with real implementable standards a
nd
its interpretation

When the 2 merged (under the X3J4 - soon after J4) title, the INTENT was to
bring these two closer together - with the thought this would be closer to w
hat
was actually wanted and in use - and to provide "timely" enhancements.

What ended up was an "ivory tower" delayed specification that must be useful
 for
someone or some organization - but certainly doesn't (to me) seem to have an
y
relationship to current (or future) COBOL usage.

When (if) INCITS "closes down" J4, it would be my hope (not necessarily
expectation) that COBOL vendors (those remaining) will separately or togethe
r
support a programming language meeting the needs of their customers (current
 and
future).

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
news:4cbs69F14rcseU2@individual.net...
> William M. Klein<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> 05/08/06 8:03 PM >>> 
> 
> consider 
> most 
>
> Wow, that certainly is discouraging, though not all that surprising.  I'm
> guessing you aren't going to volunteer?
>
> Frank
>
>
> ---
> Frank Swarbrick
> Senior Developer/Analyst - Mainframe Applications
> FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO  USA

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BB88g.367116$4P2.306208@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> Actually, unlike some, I am ENCOURAGED by this.  It seems to me (and I
> *know* others will disagree - and some agree) that the current J4 process
> has totally lost contact with what can/should be done with COBOL.

Hear! Hear! They lost it years ago.


> Work on the '08 Standard continues (see Chuck's separate note) with (as
> far as I can tell) ZERO attention to the fact that there are no
> implementations of the '02 Standard.  Furthermore, the "quick and
> tentative" TR process has bogged down (just as the previous amendment
> process did) and J4 seems to be spending more time (and resources) on the
> XML TR than on the '08 Standard OR interpretations of the '02 Standard.

I would expect nothing less. The XML facility is a stupid and pointless
addition which is simply unnecessary. Even if it were, there are many things
deserving of higher priority attention (like getting the 02 standard
implemented and ironed out).

No lessons have been learned; no efort to communicate with the tools
available in this day and age to find out what is needed and wanted from the
user base. Nanny knows best.

Oops... I'm getting myself  with someone who cares...

>
>    ****
>
> Once upon a time (and long ago) there were two groups:
>  CCC (CODASYL COBOL Committee) - that created a "futuristic" (not
> implemented) JOD
>        and
>  X3J4 a "technical committee" that worked with real implementable
> standards and its interpretation
>
> When the 2 merged (under the X3J4 - soon after J4) title, the INTENT was
> to bring these two closer together - with the thought this would be closer
> to what was actually wanted and in use - and to provide "timely"
> enhancements.
>
> What ended up was an "ivory tower" delayed specification that must be
> useful for someone or some organization - but certainly doesn't (to me)
> seem to have any relationship to current (or future) COBOL usage.

Beautifully expressed and right on the button.:-)
>
> When (if) INCITS "closes down" J4, it would be my hope (not necessarily
> expectation) that COBOL vendors (those remaining) will separately or
> together support a programming language meeting the needs of their
> customers (current and future).

The only reason you can still buy COBOL is because the vendors have done
that right through. Unfortunately, the high cost of producing the software,
coupled wih some short-sighted marketing in some quarters and dreadful
support in others, has simply nailed the coffin shut. Support for the legacy
will keep it going for a while, but it is no longer viable as a language of
choice for modern development. IBM are encouraging Java/Websphere, and they
can be considered the last bastion of Fortress COBOL. I believe the other
players will either withdraw or diversify, or go bust if they are a "one
trick COBOL pony" shop, within the next few years.

Yes, there were/are many factors that contributed to the death of COBOL, but
putting it into the hands of a totally useless and out-of-touch standards
committee that simply wrapped it in red tape while deciding which resort to
hold their next meeting at, has to have been a major one.

There were some good people who put in a lot of effort, but nothing valuable
was achieved. These thngs are judged by results. If you have no
answerability or responsibility, but simply set (and move) your own
schedule, it is hardly surprising that nothing gets done.  It smacks of
appalling Management. There was no attempt to question or change the
antiquated procedures that had everybody hogtied, no communication with the
User Base, no reporting of progress. It was like:"You'll get it when we've
done it and be thankful..."

The demise of this committee is a breath of fresh air.

Pete.

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BB88g.367116$4P2.306208@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> 
>
>
> Hear! Hear! They lost it years ago.

And lost it even more recently ! I haven't commented before but take a
quick gander at :-

http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/index.asp?bhcp=1

The second group of documents "J4 - Standing Documents"

J4-02-0102 - Technical Report Styles - author, our buddy Thane

Pure bureaucratic bullshit !

Jimmy

"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:wYp8g.146805$WI1.11147@pd7tw2no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote: 
>
> And lost it even more recently ! I haven't commented before but take a
> quick gander at :-
>
> http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/index.asp?bhcp=1
>
> The second group of documents "J4 - Standing Documents"
>
> J4-02-0102 - Technical Report Styles - author, our buddy Thane
>
> Pure bureaucratic bullshit !
>
> Jimmy

Sorry Jimmy,

I didn't follow the link, but appreciate your posting it. If I go there I'll
just get wound up again and it really serves no useful purpose.

I've got to try and withold comment, and seeing more 'bureaucratic bullshit'
isn't going to assist that :-)

It is fair to say that I am heartsickened by the waste and the lost
opportunities. But it is water under the bridge.

Gotta get over it...:-)

Pete.

William M. Klein wrote:
> Actually, unlike some, I am ENCOURAGED by this.  It seems to me (and I *kn
ow*
> others will disagree - and some agree) that the current J4 process has tot
ally
> lost contact with what can/should be done with COBOL.  Work on the '08 Sta
ndard
> continues (see Chuck's separate note) with (as far as I can tell) ZERO att
ention
> to the fact that there are no implementations of the '02 Standard.  Furthe
rmore,
> the "quick and tentative" TR process has bogged down (just as the previous
> amendment process did) and J4 seems to be spending more time (and resource
s) on
> the XML TR than on the '08 Standard OR interpretations of the '02 Standard
.
>
>     ****
>
> Once upon a time (and long ago) there were two groups:
>   CCC (CODASYL COBOL Committee) - that created a "futuristic" (not impleme
nted)
> JOD
>         and
>   X3J4 a "technical committee" that worked with real implementable standar
ds and
> its interpretation
>
> When the 2 merged (under the X3J4 - soon after J4) title, the INTENT was t
o
> bring these two closer together - with the thought this would be closer to
 what
> was actually wanted and in use - and to provide "timely" enhancements.
>
> What ended up was an "ivory tower" delayed specification that must be usef
ul for
> someone or some organization - but certainly doesn't (to me) seem to have 
any
> relationship to current (or future) COBOL usage.
>
> When (if) INCITS "closes down" J4, it would be my hope (not necessarily
> expectation) that COBOL vendors (those remaining) will separately or toget
her
> support a programming language meeting the needs of their customers (curre
nt and
> future).
>
Bill, no one knows better than you that this is essentially what caused
the '1980 Standard' to become the '1985 Standard'...  All the idealism
and attempts by those to have no code to upgrade, nor interest in the
practical use of the language almost killed the process 20 years ago.
This time, it looks like they were successful.

Your presentations at SHARE about the state of the standard were well
attended and well received.  Users are interested in the future the
COBOL language.  But, they also did not start yelling and demanding that
the entire standard be implemented as happened back in 1985.  They saw a
few things that they liked, and I suspect that IBM will respond to those
needs.  I would be very surprised to ever see an IBM compiler provide
the whole 2002 standard.

While I have not kept a close eye on the implementation of the latest
FORTRAN standard, I've not heard of a mass move to upgrade the FORTRAN
market place.  It appears that 2002 COBOL has cloned the FORTRAN process
and the results.  As with any other business, lose sight of the
consumers' needs and lose the consumer.

So, I am also encouraged by what may happen with the 'standardization'
effort.  There may not be a new 'standard' but the users will get what
the need.

Just my US$0.02 worth...  [That the price, the cost is zero! ;-) ]
Carl

I just returned from the most recent meeting of INCITS/J4, and rumors of its
(at least immediate) demise are premature.  A member of the committee has
agreed to accept the responsibility of chairperson, and the appropriate
communications to this effect are in preparation.

I remain unconvinced that there is absolutely no value to a language
standard unless each and every implementation conforms to each and every
provision of that standard.  I do agree that having some sort of mechanism
whereby vendors are required to provide fully-conforming compilers in some
context -- e.g., the US Defense Department up until sometime in the
1980's -- contributes mightily to the availability of conforming products.
So does the availability of some sort of mechanism whereby compilers can be
tested to verify that they do indeed conform to that standard.

And I do not believe that the fact that neither of these situations obtains
today is any sort of demonstration of a failure on the part of J4 to do its
job.

I agree that some sort of conformance enforcement would be appropriate.  I
do not agree that it is the job of the half-dozen-or-so members of J4 (or
for that matter the National Bodies represented on WG4) to produce, out of
their goodness of their hearts, a complete conformance-validation suite.  As
I recall it, J4 has gone on record as welcoming any effort in that
direction.

Given the fact that the current standard, as well as the draft for the next
one, is first and foremost an *international* standard, I am of the opinion
that such a validation suite ought to come from somewhere outside the US,
particularly given the fact that the details of the standard are delegated
to a primarily-American committee (INCITS/J4) by ISO/IEC.

I think the actual production of such a suite would make an excellent
project for an academic institution somewhere, particularly one that
maintains some interest in COBOL (e.g., the Free University of Amsterdam).
Whether the existing suite (which as I understand matters hasn't been
updated to include the Intrinsic Function amendment of 1989) could serve as
a reasonable and appropriate base for a validation suite for the 2002
standard is doubtful in my opinion (I have studied a number of the old "GSA"
tests -- both for the '74 and the '85 standards -- in some depth, and remain
unconvinced of their thoroughness, or of their value as examples of what
today passes for good COBOL!).

Finding someone to fund the management of such a project is probably the
sticking point here.

Any of you guys interested in writing a validation suite for the 2002
standard as a contribution to the world of computing?

-Chuck Stevens

Well, of course, as always was, and, it appears always will be,
the "other side of the ocean" is absolutely ignored/forgotten.
(Or perhaps "the rest of the world")

Roger

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:e4kmjt$29rh$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>I just returned from the most recent meeting of INCITS/J4, and rumors of
>its (at least immediate) demise are premature.  A member of the committee
>has agreed to accept the responsibility of chairperson, and the appropriate
>communications to this effect are in preparation.
>
> I remain unconvinced that there is absolutely no value to a language
> standard unless each and every implementation conforms to each and every
> provision of that standard.  I do agree that having some sort of mechanism
> whereby vendors are required to provide fully-conforming compilers in some
> context -- e.g., the US Defense Department up until sometime in the
> 1980's -- contributes mightily to the availability of conforming products.
> So does the availability of some sort of mechanism whereby compilers can
> be tested to verify that they do indeed conform to that standard.
>
> And I do not believe that the fact that neither of these situations
> obtains today is any sort of demonstration of a failure on the part of J4
> to do its job.
>
> I agree that some sort of conformance enforcement would be appropriate.  I
> do not agree that it is the job of the half-dozen-or-so members of J4 (or
> for that matter the National Bodies represented on WG4) to produce, out of
> their goodness of their hearts, a complete conformance-validation suite.
> As I recall it, J4 has gone on record as welcoming any effort in that
> direction.
>
> Given the fact that the current standard, as well as the draft for the
> next one, is first and foremost an *international* standard, I am of the
> opinion that such a validation suite ought to come from somewhere outside
> the US, particularly given the fact that the details of the standard are
> delegated to a primarily-American committee (INCITS/J4) by ISO/IEC.
>
> I think the actual production of such a suite would make an excellent
> project for an academic institution somewhere, particularly one that
> maintains some interest in COBOL (e.g., the Free University of Amsterdam).
> Whether the existing suite (which as I understand matters hasn't been
> updated to include the Intrinsic Function amendment of 1989) could serve
> as a reasonable and appropriate base for a validation suite for the 2002
> standard is doubtful in my opinion (I have studied a number of the old
> "GSA" tests -- both for the '74 and the '85 standards -- in some depth,
> and remain unconvinced of their thoroughness, or of their value as
> examples of what today passes for good COBOL!).
>
> Finding someone to fund the management of such a project is probably the
> sticking point here.
>
> Any of you guys interested in writing a validation suite for the 2002
> standard as a contribution to the world of computing?
>
>    -Chuck Stevens
>

In article <e4kmjt$29rh$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Any of you guys interested in writing a validation suite for the 2002
>standard as a contribution to the world of computing?

Leaving aside, for the nonce, my utter inability to do such a thing...
must... resist... quoting... Drill... Sergeant... wisdom... about...
volunteering...

DD

In article <e4kn1k$6ko$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
Roger While <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote:
>Well, of course, as always was, and, it appears always will be,
>the "other side of the ocean" is absolutely ignored/forgotten.
>(Or perhaps "the rest of the world")

I'm sorry, maybe I missed something... where was it noted that
participation from *anyone* was ignored?  Who said 'Sorry, Siemens, no
room for you' or 'Back off, Groupe Bull'?  I, personally, may have my
own reservations about volunteering... but to say 'these people have
been ignored/forgotten' without there being any indication thus far that
'these people' attempted to participate seems, at least to me, to be
moderately deficient in a matter of fact or two... but I speak from the
standpoint of my own publicly-admitted ignorance.

Who was turned down, when and by whom, please?

DD