Prev: Great Opportunities for Cobol Developers / Programmers
Next: Global Warming (yet again) (was: Vista
From: William M. Klein on 3 Jan 2008 12:46
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5u42k7F1g7ju4U1(a)mid.individual.net...
<snip>
>>> Fortress COBOL is in ruins. It has been sacked and looted. Whatever was of
>>> value has been incorporated into the Brave New World and the barbarians on
>>> their wiry little ponies have swept on...
>>>
>>> Pete.
>>
>> Geez, Pete, have a rant.
>
> There was no anger in the above, only whimsy... :-)
>
> I got over the Death of COBOL about a year ago and am no longer emotional
> about it...
>

Today is the two-week before the meeting deadline for submitting papers for the
J4 teleconference on reaffirming the ANSI 2002 COBOL Standard. (The ISO version
has already been reaffirmed). Unlike Pete, I still get emotional about the
whole thing (especially the lack of HONESTY in the standardization process -
from my perception). Some days I "get over it" - but others, I think I am
getting an ulcer. (Also, unlike Pete, I do think that IBM mainframe COBOL is
here for a LOT longer than until 2015, but I certainly agree that I could be
mistaken on this.)

I am trying to work on a document o submit that basically ask WHY the ANSI '02
Standard should be reaffirmed? It is so hard for me to write this is a way that
will be "properly" processed by J4, but I am TRYING to make them actually answer
the questions:

1) Is there any implementer who has given the slightest indication that they
will ever produce a fully conforming '02 compiler?

2) Is there any implementer who has indicated that whether or not there is an
'02 ANSI COBOL Standard will impact which individual features from the ANSI (or
ISO) Standard they will actually implement? (Does any implementer get user input
saying, please implement this BECAUSE it is in the '02 Standard?)

3) What COBOL programmers have indicated that the existence of an ANSI (not just
an ISO) COBOL Standard makes a difference to what they do? When they use COBOL?
What they expect from their COBOL supplier? How many programmers eve run with
"conformance" flagging turned on for '85 - or any other - Standard conformance?
Does this actually impact what features (extensions) they do and don't use?

4) Does the ANSI (INCITS, J4) structure have sufficient resources to actually
"maintain" (do defect processing, etc) the '02 Standard AS WELL as developing a
revision to this Standard?

5) In general, what DIFFERENCE does J4 see between a world with a reaffirmed
ANSI COBOL Standard and one without it:
- to programmers?
- to implementer?
- to managers selecting programming languages?
- to end users of "compiled" applications?
- even to the public perception of the state of COBOL?

* * * * *

Oh well, please do excuse my semi-rant. As I stated in an earlier post. Anyone
wanting to comment on whether the ANSI '02 COBOL standard should or should not
be reaffirmed should (ASAP now) send their comments to the J4 chair at:
bobkarlin <at> karlinskorner.com

Both comments FOR and AGAINST might help J4 make the "right" decision - whatever
that might be. (I know my opinion, but I also know that others have different
views.)

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com


From: Charles Hottel on 3 Jan 2008 19:26

"William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8c9fj.247172$WF3.208254(a)fe06.news.easynews.com...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5u42k7F1g7ju4U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> <snip>
>>>> Fortress COBOL is in ruins. It has been sacked and looted. Whatever was
>>>> of
>>>> value has been incorporated into the Brave New World and the barbarians
>>>> on
>>>> their wiry little ponies have swept on...
>>>>
>>>> Pete.
>>>
>>> Geez, Pete, have a rant.
>>
>> There was no anger in the above, only whimsy... :-)
>>
>> I got over the Death of COBOL about a year ago and am no longer emotional
>> about it...
>>
>
> Today is the two-week before the meeting deadline for submitting papers
> for the J4 teleconference on reaffirming the ANSI 2002 COBOL Standard.
> (The ISO version has already been reaffirmed). Unlike Pete, I still get
> emotional about the whole thing (especially the lack of HONESTY in the
> standardization process - from my perception). Some days I "get over
> it" - but others, I think I am getting an ulcer. (Also, unlike Pete, I do
> think that IBM mainframe COBOL is here for a LOT longer than until 2015,
> but I certainly agree that I could be mistaken on this.)
>
> I am trying to work on a document o submit that basically ask WHY the ANSI
> '02 Standard should be reaffirmed? It is so hard for me to write this is a
> way that will be "properly" processed by J4, but I am TRYING to make them
> actually answer the questions:
>
> 1) Is there any implementer who has given the slightest indication that
> they will ever produce a fully conforming '02 compiler?
>
> 2) Is there any implementer who has indicated that whether or not there is
> an '02 ANSI COBOL Standard will impact which individual features from the
> ANSI (or ISO) Standard they will actually implement? (Does any implementer
> get user input saying, please implement this BECAUSE it is in the '02
> Standard?)
>
> 3) What COBOL programmers have indicated that the existence of an ANSI
> (not just an ISO) COBOL Standard makes a difference to what they do? When
> they use COBOL? What they expect from their COBOL supplier? How many
> programmers eve run with "conformance" flagging turned on for '85 - or any
> other - Standard conformance? Does this actually impact what features
> (extensions) they do and don't use?
>
> 4) Does the ANSI (INCITS, J4) structure have sufficient resources to
> actually "maintain" (do defect processing, etc) the '02 Standard AS WELL
> as developing a revision to this Standard?
>
> 5) In general, what DIFFERENCE does J4 see between a world with a
> reaffirmed ANSI COBOL Standard and one without it:
> - to programmers?
> - to implementer?
> - to managers selecting programming languages?
> - to end users of "compiled" applications?
> - even to the public perception of the state of COBOL?
>
> * * * * *
>
> Oh well, please do excuse my semi-rant. As I stated in an earlier post.
> Anyone wanting to comment on whether the ANSI '02 COBOL standard should or
> should not be reaffirmed should (ASAP now) send their comments to the J4
> chair at:
> bobkarlin <at> karlinskorner.com
>
> Both comments FOR and AGAINST might help J4 make the "right" decision -
> whatever that might be. (I know my opinion, but I also know that others
> have different views.)
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>

Tilting at windmills would probably be a better use of the time.


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Great Opportunities for Cobol Developers / Programmers
Next: Global Warming (yet again) (was: Vista