From: Paul on
I absolutely hate it when Pete's prognostications come true, but COBOL
is becoming near impossible to get and use on mainstream (i.e. Windows
and Linux) platforms.

A lot of my (personal) software is written in IBM VisualAge COBOL, and
for very good reasons. IBM gave Partners a REALLY big break on the
price, making development feasible, and it doesn't have any runtime
cost. Worked great. But it does not run on any modern version of
Windows, at least not the GUI developer.

I ported the software to VMS COBOL, which I love. I was thinking this
would give me another 5 to 10 years. But the only machines my customers
can buy that it runs on are Itanium based servers from HP. My customers
are screaming for Windows and Macs refusing to buy Itaniums.

I have mainframe software, but IBM no longer sells a mainframe for the
"entry level" market. My customers on Flex and MP3K's are running out
of time and have no place to go - but they sure know where they WANT to
go - Windows, Macs, or Linux.

I have AS/400 software, but the darn platform is going into oblivion -
take it's new name for instance "i". Of course, there is still AIX
COBOL, but that is being pushed hard and heavy by Linux.

Then you go talk to the existing COBOL vendors today. Microfocus
wants $4K for the NetExpress Developer - and $22K per server. Perhaps
that is *per core* - I don't know, I was so shocked by their price
increase I didn't bother asking. And they have sucked up both AcuCOBOL
and Liant/RM. No options.

Veryant COBOL sounds interesting, but they want a great deal of money
for their development platform, and their runtimes are "half the cost"
of MicroFocus. $11 per core is not cheap. :/

These Alchemy guys that took over NetCOBOL from Fujitsu are arrogant
beyond belief. After just a short interaction with them, I think I
would bite myself in the small of my back before I would send them
money.

All these vendors seem to have hit upon the idea of making COBOL
"exclusive." Or something. Charge high for it and people will flock to
buy it. Good luck with that.

The sole exception that *I* have found is PerCOBOL. They seem to be
excited about what they are doing, and lo and behold, they can and will
talk intelligently with a person! Even discuss the benefits of
competing products. I've not yet purchased their development set, but
we may come to mutually happy agreement. I like their compiler, and it
is a *easy* entryway to Java for a COBOL programs. (You guys might want
to check it out if you are doing projects. I'm not affiliated with them
in any way, but just the fact they will talk to you and try to help you
understand their products is a very big plus in my book.)

But back to Pete's ideas - darn if one of the best options for porting
my COBOL code to something a bit more modern hasn't turned out to be
Microsoft C#. :) The object orientation is not the draw for me, it is
the really good support (albeit only under Windows) and the low cost of
entry. No runtimes, and a minimum of $199 for the standard version of
Visual Studio. $600 for the "Professional" version, which adds a few
nice touches.

So to me, the COBOL world, in which vendors where accommodating,
welcoming, developer friendly, and interested in their customers has
virtually disappeared, with the possible exception of the new PerCOBOL
people.

The future looks bleak folks- I sure hate this.

Anyone else getting a different picture of the COBOL world? I would
sure love to hear about it if you are.

-Paul

(Passing virtual six-pack over to Pete now... :)

From: Pete Dashwood on
Paul wrote:
> I absolutely hate it when Pete's prognostications come true, but COBOL
> is becoming near impossible to get and use on mainstream (i.e. Windows
> and Linux) platforms.

I don't always like it either, Paul... :-)

Nevertheless, there is no denying reality.


>
> A lot of my (personal) software is written in IBM VisualAge COBOL, and
> for very good reasons. IBM gave Partners a REALLY big break on the
> price, making development feasible, and it doesn't have any runtime
> cost. Worked great. But it does not run on any modern version of
> Windows, at least not the GUI developer.
>
> I ported the software to VMS COBOL, which I love. I was thinking this
> would give me another 5 to 10 years. But the only machines my
> customers can buy that it runs on are Itanium based servers from HP.
> My customers are screaming for Windows and Macs refusing to buy
> Itaniums.
> I have mainframe software, but IBM no longer sells a mainframe for the
> "entry level" market. My customers on Flex and MP3K's are running out
> of time and have no place to go - but they sure know where they WANT
> to go - Windows, Macs, or Linux.
>

It's a lot like the old VHS vs Betamax... the best product doesn't always
win. As long as the product can do what most people want, and given enough
marketing clout, there is a fighting chance it will succeed. Often, once the
field has been won, the very success of the product causes it to get better.
We have seen this with Windows. Windows 7 is a far cry from Win 3.1. (And no
matter what else you may think about it, at least it isn't Vista... :-)) OK,
that's not fair... Vista did finally improve and today's Vista is much
bettere than the early releases.)

Given that you are looking at migrating COBOL to Windows, maybe .NET long
term, I think I can help.

There are some options that I don't want to discuss publicly, that might be
of interest to you.


> I have AS/400 software, but the darn platform is going into oblivion -
> take it's new name for instance "i". Of course, there is still AIX
> COBOL, but that is being pushed hard and heavy by Linux.
>
> Then you go talk to the existing COBOL vendors today. Microfocus
> wants $4K for the NetExpress Developer - and $22K per server. Perhaps
> that is *per core* - I don't know, I was so shocked by their price
> increase I didn't bother asking. And they have sucked up both AcuCOBOL
> and Liant/RM. No options.

Yes, it is a rough world out there and the demeanour of vendors seems to be
changing as the screw turns. It may well be that for the market Michael
described as being prime Micro Focus target, these prices are reasonable and
even good value, but for a small business they are simply not viable. (I
know from my own experience...)

I remember working on contract for Rank Xerox in Germany many years ago. For
around 25 years, they held the copyright to the photo copying process. Only
game in town... they were rolling in it and their "salesmen" were really
just "order takers". Then the copyright expired and suddenly there were
other players in the market. They posted a loss of 25 million DM. First time
in decades. I remember a Manager saying: "It's not important. To a company
like us that is no big deal..." I asked him how many photo copies you need
to make to get 25 million DM. He went very quiet.

A small business has to ask the same kind of question. Before I spend 22K
for my Net Express server, how long will it take to pay for itself? What
other options do I have that could get me a similar result for less?

The notebook I am writing this on gets replaced every 3 years (I'm acquiring
quite a few of them :-)) But before I go and buy a new one, I think about
how it will pay for itself. Writing software and articles can generate
revenue but there is no guarantee that it will. Fortunately, the price of a
notebook is not so high that I can't reasonably take a punt on it. This one
has paid for itself many times over, so I guess it owes me nothing... But I
never just go and buy one when 3 years is up. It has to justify its purchase
or I make do with the old one a bit longer...

>
> Veryant COBOL sounds interesting, but they want a great deal of money
> for their development platform, and their runtimes are "half the cost"
> of MicroFocus. $11 per core is not cheap. :/

It is a market place. If people will pay these prices, then vendors will
charge them. They are relying on the fact that most people just want to keep
on doing what they've always done. Change requires effort. And time. Most of
the existing COBOL market is simply bewildered by new technology, can't
understand where all the COBOL went, and don't realise that as the COBOL
world dries up, it is a smaller pond and vendors who want to fish in it HAVE
to charge more. On the other hand they see the Windows pond (for example)
becoming an Ocean where Microsoft can afford to GIVE development tools away
for FREE! (I don't know how much longer this can last...I'm thinking they
will start charging for these products once they are sure that Java is not a
threat... That's another reason why I'm urging people to move now, rather
than later. Get it while its free... :-))

I liked the attitude and enthusiasm of Veryant when we discussed their
isCOBOL product, even though their tech guy couldn't understand what I
said... :-) (antipodean accents don't render well on a poor connection...)

>
> These Alchemy guys that took over NetCOBOL from Fujitsu are arrogant
> beyond belief. After just a short interaction with them, I think I
> would bite myself in the small of my back before I would send them
> money.

That has, sadly, been my own experience with them too. It is a shame. The
products are excellent and there is no runtime fee. I continue using the
products but I am under no illusion as to what would happen if I ever needed
maintenance. Fortunately, I don't. I have become quite adept at sorting out
their software and really don't need their support. I'm using version 6 of
NetCOBOL, which is the last one I licensed. I have helped people with
problems in later versions and it seems to me there is very little
difference between V6 and V9. I can understand people not being happy to pay
$800 a year for something that doesn't change significantly. As for support,
it was abysmal anyway (hopefully Alchemy will have addressed this; Fujitsu
USA was just hopeless after they fired the people who knew anything.) and
you have more chance of getting free answers from this forum than you ever
had from the official sources.

>
> All these vendors seem to have hit upon the idea of making COBOL
> "exclusive." Or something. Charge high for it and people will flock to
> buy it. Good luck with that.

They really don't have much choice. As the pond evaporates the price of
water has to go up... The answer (for me at least) is move to a different
pond...
>
> The sole exception that *I* have found is PerCOBOL. They seem to be
> excited about what they are doing, and lo and behold, they can and
> will talk intelligently with a person! Even discuss the benefits of
> competing products. I've not yet purchased their development set, but
> we may come to mutually happy agreement. I like their compiler, and it
> is a *easy* entryway to Java for a COBOL programs. (You guys might
> want to check it out if you are doing projects. I'm not affiliated
> with them in any way, but just the fact they will talk to you and try
> to help you understand their products is a very big plus in my book.)
>
> But back to Pete's ideas - darn if one of the best options for porting
> my COBOL code to something a bit more modern hasn't turned out to be
> Microsoft C#. :) The object orientation is not the draw for me, it is
> the really good support (albeit only under Windows) and the low cost
> of entry. No runtimes, and a minimum of $199 for the standard version
> of Visual Studio.

Yes, I worked with VS Express for nearly a year and it was no hardship. That
version is free. I treated myself to the Enterprise Edition when I realised
I could get a whole lot more done (web development, mobiles, the whole nine
yards...)


$600 for the "Professional" version, which adds a
> few nice touches.
>
> So to me, the COBOL world, in which vendors where accommodating,
> welcoming, developer friendly, and interested in their customers has
> virtually disappeared, with the possible exception of the new PerCOBOL
> people.
>
> The future looks bleak folks- I sure hate this.

But we knew about it 15 years ago... It wasn't like it was a big surprise.
People just wouldn't read the writing on the wall.

I don't think it's bleak. Not even for COBOL. The chances of making a living
as a one trick COBOL pony are pretty bleak, but there is an argument that
says we shouldn't have done that anyway... If people are allowed to move off
COBOL in a measured way the future can be bright.
>
> Anyone else getting a different picture of the COBOL world? I would
> sure love to hear about it if you are.
>
> -Paul
>
> (Passing virtual six-pack over to Pete now... :)

Thanks Paul, I needed a beer after that... :-)

Pete.

--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


From: Howard Brazee on
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:56:51 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>> The future looks bleak folks- I sure hate this.
>
>But we knew about it 15 years ago... It wasn't like it was a big surprise.
>People just wouldn't read the writing on the wall.

Some people wouldn't read it - but others read it quite accurately.

If a genie gives us the ability to predict the future, the story
usually has us creating that future, despite everything we do to
change it. But I don't see that happening here - we were just
powerless to change it.

That's not to say that changing it is necessarily smart. There are
reasons things have changed that have nothing to do with the
stubbornness of mainframers not switching to OO CoBOL.

>I don't think it's bleak. Not even for COBOL. The chances of making a living
>as a one trick COBOL pony are pretty bleak, but there is an argument that
>says we shouldn't have done that anyway... If people are allowed to move off
>COBOL in a measured way the future can be bright.

CoBOL hasn't been replaced by an other language. But people can no
longer expect one technical skill to be sufficient for their IS
career.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: rtwolfe on
Paul:

The Flexus COBOL Tools are compiler independent and support the latest
versions of Windows, and Linux, UNIX and UNIX derivatives as well as
OpenVMS, provide client/server and web browser user interface
capability as well as a host of modern features. Don't give up on
COBOL. Contact us.

The best part is that our pricing is very reasonable.

send an e-mail or contact us through the web site www.flexus.com.
I'll be happy to provide you with answers to your questions.

Thanks.


On Sep 10, 10:16 pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote:
> I absolutely hate it when Pete's prognostications come true, but COBOL
> is becoming near impossible to get and use on mainstream (i.e. Windows
> and Linux) platforms.
>
> A lot of my (personal) software is written in IBM VisualAge COBOL, and
> for very good reasons. IBM gave Partners a REALLY big break on the
> price, making development feasible, and it doesn't have any runtime
> cost. Worked great. But it does not run on any modern version of
> Windows, at least not the GUI developer.
>
> I ported the software to VMS COBOL, which I love. I was thinking this
> would give me another 5 to 10 years. But the only machines my customers
> can buy that it runs on are Itanium based servers from HP. My customers
> are screaming for Windows and Macs  refusing to buy Itaniums.
>
> I have mainframe software, but IBM no longer sells a mainframe for the
> "entry level" market. My customers on Flex and MP3K's are running out
> of time and have no place to go - but they sure know where they WANT to
> go - Windows, Macs, or Linux.
>
> I have AS/400 software, but the darn platform is going into oblivion -
> take it's new name for instance "i". Of course, there is still AIX
> COBOL, but that is being pushed hard and heavy by Linux.
>
> Then you go talk to the existing COBOL vendors today.   Microfocus
> wants $4K for the NetExpress Developer - and $22K per server. Perhaps
> that is *per core* - I don't know, I was so shocked by their price
> increase I didn't bother asking. And they have sucked up both AcuCOBOL
> and Liant/RM. No options.
>
> Veryant COBOL sounds interesting, but they want a great deal of money
> for their development platform, and their runtimes are "half the cost"
> of MicroFocus.  $11 per core is not cheap. :/
>
> These Alchemy guys that took over NetCOBOL from Fujitsu are arrogant
> beyond belief. After just a short interaction with them, I think I
> would bite myself in the small of my back before I would send them
> money.
>
> All these vendors seem to have hit upon the idea of making COBOL
> "exclusive." Or something. Charge high for it and people will flock to
> buy it.  Good luck with that.
>
> The sole exception that *I* have found is PerCOBOL.  They seem to be
> excited about what they are doing, and lo and behold, they can and will
> talk intelligently with a person! Even discuss the benefits of
> competing products. I've not yet purchased their development set, but
> we may come to mutually happy agreement. I like their compiler, and it
> is a *easy* entryway to Java for a COBOL programs. (You guys might want
> to check it out if you are doing projects. I'm not affiliated with them
> in any way, but just the fact they will talk to you and try to help you
> understand their products is a very big plus in my book.)
>
> But back to Pete's ideas - darn if one of the best options for porting
> my COBOL code to something a bit more modern hasn't turned out to be
> Microsoft C#. :) The object orientation is not the draw for me, it is
> the really good support (albeit only under Windows) and the low cost of
> entry. No runtimes, and a minimum of $199 for the standard version of
> Visual Studio.  $600 for the "Professional" version, which adds a few
> nice touches.
>
> So to me, the COBOL world, in which vendors where accommodating,
> welcoming, developer friendly, and interested in their customers has
> virtually disappeared, with the possible exception of the new PerCOBOL
> people.
>
> The future looks bleak folks- I sure hate this.
>
> Anyone else getting a different picture of the COBOL world?  I would
> sure love to hear about it if you are.
>
> -Paul
>
> (Passing virtual six-pack over to Pete now... :)

From: Clark F Morris on
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:16:15 -0500, Paul
<paul-nospamatall.raulerson(a)mac.com> wrote:

>I absolutely hate it when Pete's prognostications come true, but COBOL
>is becoming near impossible to get and use on mainstream (i.e. Windows
>and Linux) platforms.
>
>A lot of my (personal) software is written in IBM VisualAge COBOL, and
>for very good reasons. IBM gave Partners a REALLY big break on the
>price, making development feasible, and it doesn't have any runtime
>cost. Worked great. But it does not run on any modern version of
>Windows, at least not the GUI developer.
>
>I ported the software to VMS COBOL, which I love. I was thinking this
>would give me another 5 to 10 years. But the only machines my customers
>can buy that it runs on are Itanium based servers from HP. My customers
>are screaming for Windows and Macs refusing to buy Itaniums.
>
>I have mainframe software, but IBM no longer sells a mainframe for the
>"entry level" market. My customers on Flex and MP3K's are running out
>of time and have no place to go - but they sure know where they WANT to
>go - Windows, Macs, or Linux.
>
>I have AS/400 software, but the darn platform is going into oblivion -
>take it's new name for instance "i". Of course, there is still AIX
>COBOL, but that is being pushed hard and heavy by Linux.
>
>Then you go talk to the existing COBOL vendors today. Microfocus
>wants $4K for the NetExpress Developer - and $22K per server. Perhaps
>that is *per core* - I don't know, I was so shocked by their price
>increase I didn't bother asking. And they have sucked up both AcuCOBOL
>and Liant/RM. No options.
>
>Veryant COBOL sounds interesting, but they want a great deal of money
>for their development platform, and their runtimes are "half the cost"
>of MicroFocus. $11 per core is not cheap. :/
>
>These Alchemy guys that took over NetCOBOL from Fujitsu are arrogant
>beyond belief. After just a short interaction with them, I think I
>would bite myself in the small of my back before I would send them
>money.
>
>All these vendors seem to have hit upon the idea of making COBOL
>"exclusive." Or something. Charge high for it and people will flock to
>buy it. Good luck with that.
>
>The sole exception that *I* have found is PerCOBOL. They seem to be
>excited about what they are doing, and lo and behold, they can and will
>talk intelligently with a person! Even discuss the benefits of
>competing products. I've not yet purchased their development set, but
>we may come to mutually happy agreement. I like their compiler, and it
>is a *easy* entryway to Java for a COBOL programs. (You guys might want
>to check it out if you are doing projects. I'm not affiliated with them
>in any way, but just the fact they will talk to you and try to help you
>understand their products is a very big plus in my book.)
>
>But back to Pete's ideas - darn if one of the best options for porting
>my COBOL code to something a bit more modern hasn't turned out to be
>Microsoft C#. :) The object orientation is not the draw for me, it is
>the really good support (albeit only under Windows) and the low cost of
>entry. No runtimes, and a minimum of $199 for the standard version of
>Visual Studio. $600 for the "Professional" version, which adds a few
>nice touches.
>
>So to me, the COBOL world, in which vendors where accommodating,
>welcoming, developer friendly, and interested in their customers has
>virtually disappeared, with the possible exception of the new PerCOBOL
>people.
>
>The future looks bleak folks- I sure hate this.
>
>Anyone else getting a different picture of the COBOL world? I would
>sure love to hear about it if you are.

To add to your gloom, IBM mainframe COBOL doesn't support decimal
floating point, IEEE floating point or the new data types in the 2002
standard. It communicates to Java through a kludge. Somehow the bean
counters, not the long run strategists are in charge. The Computer
Science idiots and shortsighted bean counters are winning.
>
>-Paul
>
>(Passing virtual six-pack over to Pete now... :)