From: Alistair on
Despite Pete frequently proclaiming the death of Cobol someone out
there is in search of a trainer. Unfortunately, for me, it is the
wrong kind of Cobol:

http://www.cwjobs.co.uk/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=48202373
From: HansJ on
On 12 Aug., 13:38, Alistair <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Despite Pete frequently proclaiming the death of Cobol someone out
> there is in search of a trainer. Unfortunately, for me, it is the
> wrong kind of Cobol:
>
> http://www.cwjobs.co.uk/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=48202373

Alistair,

I checked the HP site for COBOL training and did not find it, so what
does that tell you about COBOL in that environment?

Regards HansJ
From: Pete Dashwood on
Alistair wrote:
> Despite Pete frequently proclaiming the death of Cobol someone out
> there is in search of a trainer. Unfortunately, for me, it is the
> wrong kind of Cobol:
>
> http://www.cwjobs.co.uk/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=48202373

Sigh... I have never "proclaimed the death of COBOL".

In 1996 or thereabouts I predicted that by 2015 COBOL would not be in use as
a major development language. (This was met by general derision and many
quotes that this had been predicted before etc...Nobody actually believed
me. They didn't believe me when I advised people to expand their skill sets,
learn Java, learn OOP. Some of those "unbelievers" are now out of work or
forcibly retired. It's not something I'm glad about being right about.)

It's happened sooner than I thought. The days of the one stop COBOL shop are
already gone. Even mainframe sites are mixing COBOL with other things and
COBOL is being phased out. A new generation of programmers is coming in and
they want OO. COBOL can do it, but not as well as other languages can and
the result is what we are seeing.

I have ALWAYS said there would be a place for COBOL in batch programming.
However, I don't personally believe that batch programming has a future
either. The increasing power of processors and parallell processing means
that data warehouses can do everything in real time. If you CAN do it in
real time why wouldn't you?

It is just the way of the world. Things move on. The procedural paradigm has
largely been replaced by newer tools and approaches.

I spent 25 years making a living from COBOL when it WAS the "only game in
town". I don't regret a minute of it, but I enjoy my work more today.

As for the "death of COBOL" I suppose it will happen sometime, just as all
things pass. Does a single ad for a trainer mean that COBOL is alive and
thriving? I don't know. Have you looked on Jobserve recently?

Beat me up in 2015 if you really think I was wrong.

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


From: HansJ on
On 12 Aug., 15:11, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
> > Despite Pete frequently proclaiming the death of Cobol someone out
> > there is in search of a trainer. Unfortunately, for me, it is the
> > wrong kind of Cobol:
>
> >http://www.cwjobs.co.uk/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=48202373
>
> Sigh... I have never "proclaimed the death of COBOL".
>
> In 1996 or thereabouts I predicted that by 2015 COBOL would not be in use as
> a major development language. (This was met by general derision and many
> quotes that this had been predicted before etc...Nobody actually believed
> me. They didn't believe me when I advised people to expand their skill sets,
> learn Java, learn OOP. Some of those "unbelievers" are now out of work or
> forcibly retired. It's not something I'm glad about being right about.)
>
> It's happened sooner than I thought. The days of the one stop COBOL shop are
> already gone. Even mainframe sites are mixing COBOL with other things and
> COBOL is being phased out. A new generation of programmers is coming in and
> they want OO. COBOL can do it, but not as well as other languages can and
> the result is what we are seeing.
>
> I have ALWAYS said there would be a place for COBOL in batch programming.
> However, I don't personally believe that batch programming has a future
> either. The increasing power of processors and parallell processing means
> that data warehouses can do everything in real time. If you CAN do it in
> real time why wouldn't you?
>
> It is just the way of the world. Things move on. The procedural paradigm has
> largely been replaced by newer tools and approaches.
>
> I spent 25 years making a living from COBOL when it WAS the "only game in
> town". I don't regret a minute of it, but I enjoy my work more today.
>
> As for the "death of COBOL" I suppose it will happen sometime, just as all
> things pass. Does a single ad for a trainer mean that COBOL is alive and
> thriving? I don't know. Have you looked on Jobserve recently?
>
> Beat me up in 2015 if you really think I was wrong.
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete,
I can totally agree to your position, though COBOL is not dead, but is
getting there faster as expected.

We are doing all new developments with Java and COBOL is still used at
a number of sites we do business with (even on NonStop systems).

Sites running COBOL today are asking about automated COBOL to Java
conversion (which I know works well from a number of sites). There are
good reasons to argue that this might not be a good idea, but there
are reasons to do it. The projects that I know about do not regret
this step at all.

COBOL is not dead now, but it is getting there...

Regards Hans
From: Alistair on
On Aug 12, 2:06 pm, HansJ <hans.i...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 12 Aug., 13:38, Alistair <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Despite Pete frequently proclaiming the death of Cobol someone out
> > there is in search of a trainer. Unfortunately, for me, it is the
> > wrong kind of Cobol:
>
> >http://www.cwjobs.co.uk/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=48202373
>
> Alistair,
>
> I checked the HP site for COBOL training and did not find it, so what
> does that tell you about COBOL in that environment?
>
> Regards HansJ

They haven't woken up to the wonders of the web yet? I'v seen jobs
advertised by agencies and not by the employer before now.