S0C4 x'4' abend while reading VSAM KSDS file
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Jul 2008 09:24 On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:34:47 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>Some people I know avoid spending that money by doing the head >>hunters' work themselves. Most contractors find the money is not >>worth that kind of work. Supply and demand. > >Contractors who find their own gigs do much better financially AND get better projects. >I'd love to do that, but don't have the contacts. It works best when you specialize in one >industry. After awhile you get to know many decision makers. Yep. I really have no right to complain about the cost if I'm not willing to do the work myself.
From: Michael Mattias on 1 Jul 2008 09:35 > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:34:47 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >>Contractors who find their own gigs do much better financially AND get >>better projects. >>I'd love to do that, but don't have the contacts. It works best when you >>specialize in one >>industry. After awhile you get to know many decision makers. Contacts are nice; but ya think it possible specializing in one or two industries might result in producing more useful software more quickly? With a commensurate increase in the value of said products for said users? MCM
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Jul 2008 09:38 "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:7ash64p08349dbogj3lu28d49hlh8c8eii(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:09:53 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >>Well, most companies in our part of the world are NOT outsourcing. By >>adopting more modern approaches there is no need to. I have friends who >>simply laugh at the idea of coding a new system development line by line, >>in >>house OR outsourced. >> >>Moving to component based approaches rather than line-by-line Procedural >>code simply obviates the need to outsource (and also gets systems >>delivered >>in a fraction of the time it would otherwise take...). I believe it is >>only >>the procedural approach that is so labour intensive it needs to be >>outsourced. > > Interesting observation. Outsourcing is useful in manufacturing, but > much harder to be cost effective in analysis and design. If we find > customizations to be cost effective, we need to do our analysis with > our users. If not, we buy our product off the shelf. If our > analysis tools and prototyping tools also produce our end product - > what manufacturing do we need to outsource? > > We've seen this process in manufacturing. > I hadn't noticed that particular analogue, but I think you're right. > Now, in today's world, we could outsource that part of the analysis & > design which is designed to sell to foreign customers (maybe legal > reporting requirements). And we could outsource shift work. DBAs > in India might be easier to find than American DBAs who are willing to > work graveyard shift. I'd be very surprised if those things aren't already being outsourced. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Jul 2008 11:46 On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:35:55 -0500, "Michael Mattias" <mmattias(a)talsystems.com> wrote: >Contacts are nice; but ya think it possible specializing in one or two >industries might result in producing more useful software more quickly? With >a commensurate increase in the value of said products for said users? I have noticed some effective headhunters who went into that profession after finding out that they weren't that effective as programmers.
From: Michael Mattias on 1 Jul 2008 17:51
"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:v9kk6454fsq4rmj09m12sfleac0j45730e(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:35:55 -0500, "Michael Mattias" > <mmattias(a)talsystems.com> wrote: > >>Contacts are nice; but ya think it possible specializing in one or two >>industries might result in producing more useful software more quickly? >>With >>a commensurate increase in the value of said products for said users? > > I have noticed some effective headhunters who went into that > profession after finding out that they weren't that effective as > programmers. Then who can, do; them who can't, recruit? MCM |