From: Howard Brazee on
On 11 Feb 2010 14:06:32 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

>Probably because everyone thinks the world will end in 2012 anyway. :-)

My calendar ends sooner than that, so I'm not planning that far ahead.

--
"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: Bill Gunshannon on
In article <7tii47Fc57U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <7tif6vFrfqU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
>> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> In article <7th403Fc2uU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
>>>> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <7bd3dcc0-272e-4f8d-8332-8b2e8e682772(a)c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> "john(a)wexfordpress.com" <john(a)wexfordpress.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 4:28 am, "Pete Dashwood"
>>>>>>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Brian Tiffin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There is a new COBOL manual in town.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A very complete programmer's guide for OpenCOBOL. This robust
>>>>>>>>> compiler now comes with robust documentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://add1tocobol.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=73
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 200+ pages of beautiful, printable documentation suitable for
>>>>>>>>> new and expert COBOL coders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Brian Tiffin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, Brian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wish you well with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like Jimmy, I would need to see support for OO before I could
>>>>>>>> consider it viable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>>>>>>> It seems we now have two audiences, the proceduralists (of which
>>>>>>> I am one) and the
>>>>>>> Object Oriented folks. And COBOL itself exists in two quite
>>>>>>> different forms. I suggest that
>>>>>>> trying to cram both forms into one compiler makes it too heavy,
>>>>>>> both for the compiler writer and the programmer.
>>>>>>> I remember Grace Hopper saying at a ACM meeting that she did not
>>>>>>> want to use COBOL for the things FORTRAN was good for for nor use
>>>>>>> FORTRAN for the things COBOL was good for. Some of the code I see
>>>>>>> on this list is quite unreadable to me. And I have been doing
>>>>>>> COBOL for many years. What the Standards people have done is
>>>>>>> create a totally new language and called it COBOL. I would have a
>>>>>>> better chance of reading Java or Php, two languages I do not
>>>>>>> know, than something written in Objective COBOL.
>>>>>>> We are also feeding the vices of the academic community. They
>>>>>>> never liked COBOL to start with. They taught students to code in
>>>>>>> a clumsy fashion that mimicked other languages, nested ifs
>>>>>>> beyond all reason and the like. I hired some of these folks
>>>>>>> years ago and their real education began on the job.
>>>>>>> The virtues and vices of the OO approach to programming are not
>>>>>>> the point. COBOL was designed so that programmer A could pick up
>>>>>>> a program written some years back by programmer B and have some
>>>>>>> hope of understanding what was going on. That is the real world
>>>>>>> situation. Programs need not only to be written but maintained.
>>>>>>> Systematically the standards people have added new features and
>>>>>>> subtracted old ones in COBOL 2002 and following to the point that
>>>>>>> it is now a different language. Old programs may still compile.
>>>>>>> That is not the issue. The issue is that the Standards people
>>>>>>> have created a tower of babel, where we can no longer understand
>>>>>>> each other.
>>>>>>> The C progamming language has now three defined variants. One can
>>>>>>> write in C, Objective C, and C++. Each is considered a separate
>>>>>>> entity, although the same base compiler supports each, just as a
>>>>>>> C compiler supports Open Cobol, Tcl and so on. I have no hope of
>>>>>>> dissuading those who want to turn COBOL into something
>>>>>>> different, a clone of some other language, but I do suggest that
>>>>>>> we fork the language.
>>>>>>> Open Cobol and Tiny Cobol are the only successful non-commercial
>>>>>>> COBOL compilers out there. The existence of a manual for one of
>>>>>>> them is a significant achievement. I will be happy to print out
>>>>>>> the manual. And I am sorry that there is not an internet group
>>>>>>> for those who view, as I do, COBOL 85 as the last real COBOL,
>>>>>>> true to the original design objectives of a writable language, a
>>>>>>> readable language, and a business orientation.
>>>>>>> Maybe I'll start that group.
>>>>>>> John Culleton CCP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that I am not the only one who laments what has been done
>>>>>> to COBOL (and other languages as well). As one who works in
>>>>>> academia, I can agree 100% with John's comments. As for
>>>>>> "standards", the Standards
>>>>>> Bodies have one and only one real purpose. To perpetuate their
>>>>>> own existence and they do that by creating "standards" wether the
>>>>>> real world wanted or needed them and usually with total disregard
>>>>>> for what the real world is doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be truly interesting to know what percentage of the
>>>>>> millions and millions of lines of existing COBOL actually use
>>>>>> anything beyond COBOL 85. My guess would be a very small number
>>>>>> as shops that use COBOL tend to be more interested in getting
>>>>>> their specific job done rather than pushing the paradigm envelope.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the number of these shops is evaporating like brandy on a
>>>>> hotplate, you better run your survey quickly... :-)
>>>>
>>>> You keep saying this but my experience is quite different. I know
>>>> one in particular (I actually interviewed there but it turned out
>>>> they were interested in my Unix skills and my lack of current CICS
>>>> experience made them uninterested in my COBOL experience) who are
>>>> always hiring and have more than doubled their staff in the last
>>>> couple years. And, knowing what they do for a business, I don't see
>>>> them going away or changing the way they do business anytime soon.
>>>> And then, we have the insurance industry....
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact, the only obstacle facing being a COBOL
>>>> programmer here in the US is you must also have current IBM
>>>> Mainframe experience.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to be misunderstanding my point. Probably due to the
>> differences in our native languages. :-)
>>
>>> Ever wondered why that is hard to come by? 30 years ago it wasn't.
>>
>> Hard to come by how? The company in question had no problem filling
>> 100 and some jobs. They wre able to be selective enough to not even
>> consider my application. It is a shortcoming in my current resume,
>> not in the COBOL industry. Oh, I could fix that, but I am neither
>> in a position or inclined to go back to an entry level position (and
>> salary) in order to garner current CICS experience. I don't see
>> myself staying in the job market long enough for it to be worth it.
>>
>>>
>>> As for the insurance industry, the last project I managed here a few
>>> years back was for just such a company. They were replacing their
>>> mainframe COBOL system, running on Unisys. They are not alone; their
>>> main competitor had already done so.
>>>
>>> Obviously, our perceptions differ, Bill.
>>
>> Obviously. I know a number of insurance companies here inthe US and
>> they are all still primarily COBOL shops. Usually fronted by Web
>> Apps that are written in things like Java, but the bulk of the real
>> work is still done with COBOL middleware and DB backends.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, I was once told by someone locally that a certain
>> major insurance company with a large IT operation locally was
>> re-writting all their COBOL in Java. I spoke to a manager in the IT
>> department and asked. He never stopped laughing long enough to
>> answer the question.
>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't make either of us wrong. It just means things are
>>> different in different places. :-)
>>
>> I think that is probably the case, buit then you have to look at the
>> potential scale in those two places. :-)
>>
>>>
>>> I believe there is a long term trend and it is becoming more
>>> obvious. When I first suggested that COBOL would not be the language
>>> of choice and that the "COBOL shop" would be gone by 2015, back in
>>> 1997, I was met with scorn and derision. That has died down of
>>> late... no idea why, if things are as bouyant as you say.
>>
>> Probably because everyone thinks the world will end in 2012 anyway.
>> :-)
>>
>>>
>>> The "billions of lines of COBOL " that are supposed to be running
>>> everything are being replaced and removed by automated software and
>>> that legendary base is eroded every year.
>>
>> I have not seen any signs of this, as I have stated. And I have seen
>> recent white papers supporting my understanding of the COBOL world. I
>> have even seen at least one repiort calling for Universities to start
>> teaching COBOL again because of a perceived shortfall in needed COBOL
>> programmers in the not to distant future.
>>
>>>
>>> Sure, there will be some shops that cling to it. Some places are
>>> simply bewildered and not sure where to go next. Many companies are
>>> "outsourcing" their IT, not necessarily to the Asian sub continent,
>>> but to packages and service companies. Most are finding that the
>>> cost of IT in general, and COBOL in particular is just non-viable.
>>> There never used to be any alternative; now there is.
>>
>> While I don't agree with most of this, the one big question I have
>> is why do you think the cost of COBOL is non-viable? What would
>> make a COBOL program more expensive than any other? Considering the
>> clarity of the language and the ease of maintenance (as compared to
>> languages like C, PHP, Java, etc.) I would expect quite the opposite.
>> Unless your reason is due to a lack of quality COBOL programmers and,
>> as stated above, that does not seem to be a real problem, yet.
>>
>>>
>>> Market forces will do what they always do.
>>>
>>> I see no point in being upset by it (I was for a little while).
>>> Might as well get upset about the mediaeval decline of Latin.
>>>
>>> Adapt and survive, or don't, and take your chances. That is really
>>> about the size of it.
>>>
>>> In 1984 COBOL had around 70% of the world wide commercial software
>>> development market. (IBM figures)
>>>
>>> Today it is around 4%.(Based on web figures and Job availability.)
>>
>> Probably true. But, in 1984 there were probably 10 languages in
>> common use. Today, over a hundred i would guess. There were
>> probably a couple thousand computers. Today, several million (if not
>> billion). One of
>> the problem with statistics is you can make them support prety much
>> any hypothesis you want by not stating some of them.
>>
>>>
>>> Don't take my word for it. Just go and look at your favourite Job
>>> site.
>>
>> Do all the time. As I have said, finding COBOL jobs is not hard.
>> Finding COBOL jobs that will hire me is a little more difficult.
>> But that is due to my shortcomings not any shortcoming in the COBOL
>> job market. But then, I live in a place a tad larger than you and
>> that probably pads the market a bit.
>>
>> bill
>
> I think these are fair and excellent responses, Bill.
>
> I'm really sorry you didn't get placed; I think you'd be a valuable guy to
> have around.
>
> As you say, you are heading for retirement anyway, so maybe it isn't so
> important.
>
> I don't think either of us will change our minds, but that's OK too... It's
> Usenet; minds seldom get changed :-)
>
> I would ask you though... If a young person came to you and said they were
> considering a career in COBOL, would you advise them to go that way?

Hard question to answer. Would I advise someone to learn/do COBOL and
damn all the rest? Certainly not. COBOL is not and never has been the
only horse in my stable.

Would I tell someone to turn down 6 figures doing COBOL cause it has no
future? What do you think? (And, yes, I know of 6 figure jobs doing
COBOL. With the same impediment I mentioned previously!) I have no
doubt that COBOL will go the way of Algol-68 (and, believe it or not
I have seen a recent job posting looking for someone with Algol-68
experience!!) but I don't think that point is as near as you do.

>
> Obviously, I wouldn't (and haven't on several occasions, even before I moved
> off COBOL myself).

When I advise students on job prospects I put all the cards on the
table. I tell them the good and the bad. And then, when they have
all the info they are in a position to make their own reasonable
decision.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: Bill Gunshannon on
In article <q868n5dip3ua23r0ec0ik73q2vsob8rgol(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> writes:
> On 11 Feb 2010 14:06:32 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> wrote:
>
>>Probably because everyone thinks the world will end in 2012 anyway. :-)
>
> My calendar ends sooner than that, so I'm not planning that far ahead.

My calendar has always ended on Dec 31st every year. But luckily the
Department Secretary always seems to find me a new one. :-)

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: Howard Brazee on
On 11 Feb 2010 17:00:09 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

>Would I tell someone to turn down 6 figures doing COBOL cause it has no
>future? What do you think? (And, yes, I know of 6 figure jobs doing
>COBOL. With the same impediment I mentioned previously!) I have no
>doubt that COBOL will go the way of Algol-68 (and, believe it or not
>I have seen a recent job posting looking for someone with Algol-68
>experience!!) but I don't think that point is as near as you do.

I don't think it will be that far gone in the next decade or two. But
I am sure that no young person will start and retire from a career
programming in one language.

--
"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: Bill Gunshannon on
In article <3dh8n5ppgde750ucu816mavmhqn11o3a5f(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> writes:
> On 11 Feb 2010 17:00:09 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> wrote:
>
>>Would I tell someone to turn down 6 figures doing COBOL cause it has no
>>future? What do you think? (And, yes, I know of 6 figure jobs doing
>>COBOL. With the same impediment I mentioned previously!) I have no
>>doubt that COBOL will go the way of Algol-68 (and, believe it or not
>>I have seen a recent job posting looking for someone with Algol-68
>>experience!!) but I don't think that point is as near as you do.
>
> I don't think it will be that far gone in the next decade or two. But
> I am sure that no young person will start and retire from a career
> programming in one language.

Considering that we didn't do that in the past when there were
a lot less languages to choose from and they didn't change more
often than shirts that kind of goes without saying. :-)

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: ANN: OpenCOBOL Programmer's Guide
Next: Justice for all