S0C4 x'4' abend while reading VSAM KSDS file
in [Cobol]
|
From: Clark F Morris on 27 Jul 2008 20:57 On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:28:32 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > >"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >news:vlab645g2aa2idppk6r0n6o3qhsv4nlnk3(a)4ax.com... >> much snipped >> >> The words change, but the melody remains the same. It's old wine in new >> bottles. > >There is some truth in what you say, insofar as things have been >consistently overhyped throughout the latter part of the 20th century. But >lessons are being learned. Last week MicroSoft only paid $100 million for a >new "natural language" search technology; a few years back during the dot >com boom, a lesser technology in the same field sold for over $500 million. >The lower price reflects the fact that overhyped claims about natural >language processing have been around for years. This time I believe they >have a bargain. > >Just like you, and having been a programmer all of my working career, I am >also cynical about lurid claims for software. But I do believe stuff I have >seen and used myself. > >Drag and drop tools like Visual Studio increase productivity (well, MY >productivity, anyway...:-)) many fold. Other visual tools like Iron Speed >and Stimulsoft make Web sites and reports a matter of minutes, rather than >days. Software and tools ARE getting better, more powerful and smarter than >ever before and this trend looks like continuing. Smart scripting languages >like Ruby, PHP, and Python are bringing quick builds of shared applications >within reach of non-specialist people. Frameworks like Rails for Ruby, .Net >(MicroSoft), Mono (Open Source), and Prototype (JavaScript) are providing >tens of thousands of packaged components that can be accessed with a mouse >click. People are building with Lego instead of with daub and what they are >building is ready much quicker and is more structurally sound. More >importantly, it can be easily disassembled and reassembled differently if >needed... > >I'm currently working in a mixed COBOL / C# environment building some tools >for a client. Every day I kind of dread moving to the COBOL machine and >carving out code with the prehistoric IDE provided by Fujitsu and having to >test and debug thousands of lines of procedural code. Yet there was a time >(not so long ago...) when I did this quite happily. I'm even irritated at >having to go back into that environment to check and test procedural COBOL >generated by my own C# toolset... it is tiresome, boring and tedious. I'll >be glad when I've finished it and can get back to the much more interesting >task of expanding my horizons with LINQ and the finer details of C#...:-) > >The point I'm trying to make is that if you had asked me say, 10 years ago, >if I would be unhappy writing COBOL, I would never have imagined that could >happen. Since then, I have visited new worlds and found them to be >good...:-) How much of this is that the providers of COBOL (PL1, etc.) have not upgraded their development environments? When I read about what you have available in Visual Studio with C#, I am envious. I believe that IBM is doing the same sort of thing with Websphere only at a cost that requires management approvals and research. As a member of the SHARE Guide Language Futures Task Force I can say that the environment you describe is what we believed was necessary. What you describe makes Endeavor (a source and object program control management system) look amateurish. > >Despite all the hype we've had over decades about future tools, there is >real evidence here and now, that at least some of these tools are delivering >what they promised. > > >> rest snipped > >Pete. |