From: Anonymous on
In article <131sb8b2f0atpc7(a)corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote:
>
>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:585r42F2e105nU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>[snip]
>> We are then faced with the dilemma of whether we should convert or scrap
>> what we have and go back to square one, or continue with what we (now...)
>> know is a sub-optimum solution. Usually a balance is struck between these
>> two extremes... in this case it is a conversion from ISAM to RDB; probably
>> the best that can done under the circumstances.
>
>< http://www.microfocusworld.com/track_page.php?id=5 >
>"A partner will present a session that shows how a relational
>database can be used with a COBOL application using
>standard COBOL I/O statements, WITHOUT any changes
>to the code!"
>
>Perhaps the best is no conversion, at all! Just upgrade to the
>latest technology.

Mr Smith, come now... an organisation where the analyst recommends
timestamping records... errrr, rows in a database and the manager has to
turn to the UseNet for help will not, in my experience, embrace a solution
which requires Spending Money to upgrade technology or sending someone of
sufficient technical competence to benefit from the experience - as
opposed to, say, a Corner-Office Idiot - to the Royal Pacific Resort in
Orlando, FL, USA for three days.

(oh... and a rather common mis-spelling in the paragraph you quoted might
be seen, by some, as casting aspersions on the relibility of the claims)

DD

From: Alistair on
On 10 Apr, 00:39, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> <docdw...(a)panix.com> wrote in messagenews:
> > You might have checked other things as well... there's an Olde Joke you
> > might have stumbled across, say, at
> >http://www.dotnetspider.com/fun/Computer-Joke-838.aspx.
>
> Not sure what the point is here... we have a patently incompetent
> programmer, and a patently stupid Project Manager, neither of whom have any
> responsibility for their actions.
>
> As they are both idiots, whatever their interaction is, it is of little
> consequence. For this joke to work, it would be necessary to identify with
> one or other of the parties. This requires us to assume the same mantle of
> idiocy that they both display.
>
> Ah, now I see why SOME might find it amusing... :-)
>
> Pete

I have to take issue with your description of the Programmer as being
incompetent; he clearly answered the question posed in the most
accurate fashion possible, volunteering more information than is
strictly necessary. I wonder if there is a certain note of
defensiveness in your response?

I do, however, agree that the project manager is clearly incompetent
(at ballooning, at boy-scout preparation, at map-reading, at eliciting
information?).

;-)




From: Pete Dashwood on

"Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1176405267.687547.144160(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 10 Apr, 00:39, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>> <docdw...(a)panix.com> wrote in messagenews:
>> > You might have checked other things as well... there's an Olde Joke you
>> > might have stumbled across, say, at
>> >http://www.dotnetspider.com/fun/Computer-Joke-838.aspx.
>>
>> Not sure what the point is here... we have a patently incompetent
>> programmer, and a patently stupid Project Manager, neither of whom have
>> any
>> responsibility for their actions.
>>
>> As they are both idiots, whatever their interaction is, it is of little
>> consequence. For this joke to work, it would be necessary to identify
>> with
>> one or other of the parties. This requires us to assume the same mantle
>> of
>> idiocy that they both display.
>>
>> Ah, now I see why SOME might find it amusing... :-)
>>
>> Pete
>
> I have to take issue with your description of the Programmer as being
> incompetent; he clearly answered the question posed in the most
> accurate fashion possible, volunteering more information than is
> strictly necessary.

Really? By what strange definition of "competence" does a person standing
in a field, decide that his current location is at co-ordinates that are
several hundred miles off-shore in the Atlantic Ocean?

If this is your idea of the "most accurate fashion possible" I can
understand how getting a job may be ..... difficult.


> I wonder if there is a certain note of
> defensiveness in your response?


I wonder if there is a certain note of attempting to stir things in yours?


> I do, however, agree that the project manager is clearly incompetent
> (at ballooning, at boy-scout preparation, at map-reading, at eliciting
> information?).
>

Yes, on that we can agree.

Pete.


From: Rick Smith on

<docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:evleq8$o9j$1(a)reader2.panix.com...
> In article <131sb8b2f0atpc7(a)corp.supernews.com>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:585r42F2e105nU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> >[snip]
> >> We are then faced with the dilemma of whether we should convert or
scrap
> >> what we have and go back to square one, or continue with what we
(now...)
> >> know is a sub-optimum solution. Usually a balance is struck between
these
> >> two extremes... in this case it is a conversion from ISAM to RDB;
probably
> >> the best that can done under the circumstances.
> >
> >< http://www.microfocusworld.com/track_page.php?id=5 >
> >"A partner will present a session that shows how a relational
> >database can be used with a COBOL application using
> >standard COBOL I/O statements, WITHOUT any changes
> >to the code!"
> >
> >Perhaps the best is no conversion, at all! Just upgrade to the
> >latest technology.
>
> Mr Smith, come now... an organisation where the analyst recommends
> timestamping records... errrr, rows in a database and the manager has to
> turn to the UseNet for help will not, in my experience, embrace a solution
> which requires Spending Money to upgrade technology or sending someone of
> sufficient technical competence to benefit from the experience - as
> opposed to, say, a Corner-Office Idiot - to the Royal Pacific Resort in
> Orlando, FL, USA for three days.

Apart from your alleged experience, this latest
technology would reasonably permit one to identify
"rows in a database" as records since there would
be no difference with respect to a COBOL program,
where the concept "records in a file" is common.



From: Pete Dashwood on

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5834o5F2ecb3nU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:sNVSh.51648$6m4.42486(a)pd7urf1no...
> <snip>>
<snip>>>

>> If/when you get a paperback, or articles on design from the Web,
>> concentrate on the term 'Normalization' so that you have a handle on it.
>>
>
> A very important observation, Jimmy.
>
> I have some stuff on this somewhere... I'll see if I can post it to a web
> server so people can access it.
>
> Pete.
>
This has now been posted... Accessing the following link will reveal 3
documents that are worth reading if you are considering migrating ISAM to
RDB....

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dashwood/dashwood/RDBStuff/

Any or all feedback appreciated.

Pete.