Cobol's File System Vs. RDBMs...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL: Don`t Call It a Comeback
Next: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
From: Anonymous on 27 Jul 2008 09:38 In article <6f316dF9eg4oU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:g6gd22$pel$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <6f1ohgF9fdocU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >>>Despite your constant repetition of the "answering a question with a >>>question is no answer at all" mantra, it simply isn't true. >> >> Nothing is true at all times in all places, Mr Dashwood... including this >> statement. >> >>>Trotting out >>>cliched boilerplate as if it is Holy Writ, with the only basis for it's >>>validity being constant repetition, is unworthy of you. >> >> Mr Dashwood, my memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall addressing a >> posting to you and getting a response from you in this forum about this >> very matter. You might want to take a look at >> ><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/fd7a4badfe33496c?dmode=source> >> and the repetition of it posted in >> ><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/c5ffed30915f7f6b?dmode=source> >> and a variant of it posted nearly a decade back in >> ><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.year-2000/msg/34b3233328d534e1?dmode=source&hl=en> >> > >Sure, I remember those posts and they demonstrate the difference between >what you said then and what you actually do now. Ahhhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when answering a question with a question could be seen as no answer such at *ten* such answerings cannot, today! > >At that time you correctly pointed out that answering a question with a >question CAN be employed as a dodge or prevarication ... you gave some >examples and finished with the statement: > >"... and such a situation, at time, might just possibly be avoided by the >judicious invoking of 'Answering a question with a question is no answer >at all' ..." > >But, in practice, you DON'T do it "judiciously" you simply trot it out >parrot fashion (as if it were deep wisdom), whenever anyone responds to your >questions, with a question. Mr Dashwood, no hypocrite I; I've been know supply it when my questions are not involved, such as in the postings in this thread which seems to have knotted your dainty-wear. > >If I'm wrong about this, perhaps you can provide a reference from within >this forum where a question was asked, someone responded to it with another >question, and you then responded WITHOUT using this cliche. I believe you'll >be hard pressed to find such a reference. You're requesting proof of a factual negative, Mr Dashwood... but I'm willing to try. Please be so kind as to provide what you think might be a workable method to determing the condition which would satisfy your request, ie how would one find out the full set of poetings ' within this forum where a question was asked, someone responded to it with another question'. If, of course, you posit a condition for fulfillment which is impossible to meet then... well, there's room for you in a Corner Office, I'm sure. > >Fortunately, like most cliches, overuse simply devalues it and instead of >having any useful meaning, it just becomes boring. > >There ARE times when answering a question with a question is no answer, but >there are also times when it is useful. You seem to have lost sight of >this, although you once recognised it. If I once recognised it, Mr Dashwood, then you should, yourself, be able to come up with examples that prove or disprove your own. It seems to me that you are looking to do something else here instead of garnering Greater Knowledge. DD
From: Michael Mattias on 27 Jul 2008 09:46 Amazing how many of these long and tortured threads which wander from hell to breakfast start off with the equivalent of " I am having trouble using something for a purpose for which it was not designed," isn't it? MCM
From: Pete Dashwood on 27 Jul 2008 10:33 "Michael Mattias" <mmattias(a)talsystems.com> wrote in message news:K__ik.2764$zv7.666(a)flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com... > Amazing how many of these long and tortured threads which wander from hell > to breakfast start off with the equivalent of " I am having trouble using > something for a purpose for which it was not designed," isn't it? > > MCM > Yes. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 27 Jul 2008 12:08 In article <K__ik.2764$zv7.666(a)flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>, Michael Mattias <mmattias(a)talsystems.com> wrote: >Amazing how many of these long and tortured threads which wander from hell >to breakfast start off with the equivalent of " I am having trouble using >something for a purpose for which it was not designed," isn't it? Perhaps not to one who has learned from the experience of a few such threads, Mr Mattias. DD
From: Clark F Morris on 27 Jul 2008 20:31
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:56:22 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > >"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message >news:kd3k84tv8vk3fq82r7m0j87mrf8ttia2up(a)4ax.com... >> much snipped > >> While it is easier to control most >> kinds of access using a DBMS (network, hierarchical or relational) a >> good query mechanism probably can handle files as well. While you may >> be comfortable with all privileged users being able to do things on >> the fly, I have memories of the parsing of the word sales and whether >> or not a given transaction was a sale or reduction to sales. Part of >> the problem is that we do not set up systems that allow users to test >> their assumptions nor are many properly set up for good audit train on >> corrective action. People are not trained on the nuances of the >> systems that exist (I had one case where I was asked to write a >> special run to delete a data base row and by investigating how the >> system worked, I was able to tell the requester how she could do it >> herself). Newer systems have tools for help creation so it isn't as >> hit or miss as it was with the old CICS systems, especially with >> packages. >> >> I totally support giving people the tools to do their jobs. > >Good. Me too :-) Files which contain a description of their own structure do >that; files that don't, need more work. > >> I firmly >> believe that packages should provide the capabilities for ad hoc >> queries but there must be adequate support within the organization for >> people to truly understand what they are asking. > >I would manage that on the basis of "What queries are users running that >consume vast resources?" then fix it. > I am much more concerned with them getting the quality of answer they think they are getting. In my question about what is a customer, the answer determines how many customers an organization has when the question of how many customers are there is asked. Making IT the focal point for queries can be useful if the question has multi-department implications or the nature of the data is not completely reliable. In one place where I worked getting a definition of sales and reduction to sales was interesting and depended on the purpose of the use. > >> Is the customer the >> individual store within the chain, the division within the chain, the >> chain, or the conglomerate that owns the chain? >>> > >Any or all of the above, depending on who needs a service. > >Pete. |