From: William M. Klein on
Sorry, the thread has wandered so much that I had forgotten exactly what
platform this was for.

Frank,
If this was your question, was it for Windows, Unix, VSE, or where? I know
that yours was not the ORIGINAL post, but maybe you came in when there was
discussion of what "DB2" can/cannot do.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-in-msg-spam(a)email.com> wrote in message
news:87l5q3pd85q64e27c24gopoulmqobforto(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:28:17 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In addition to Robert's manual reference, you might want to see:
>> "Using a multiple-row FETCH statement with host variable arrays" at
>>
>> http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dsnapk10/2.2.2.4.1
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Declaring host variable arrays in COBOL" at
>>http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dsnapk10/2.4.3.6
>>
>>If it matters, the latter does NOT (seem to me) to allow for OCCURS DEPENDING
>>ON.
>>
>>and
>>
>>the FETCH syntax information at:
>> http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dsnsqk10/5.65
>
> The above syntax does not work on Windows/Unix versions.
> There is no concepts of multiple-row fetch/insert on those versions,
> unless using CLI code (DB2 API)
>
> This wont help Frank, or anyone else, using DB2 for Windows as he is.
>
>
> Frederico Fonseca
> ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com


From: Anonymous on
In article <4oc6q3d8r1acm34uj2rf24mpo244djrq5n(a)4ax.com>,
Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:43:08 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:

[snip]

>>'The code-base was laid down in 1975, a decade before those features were
>>available... and the shop didn't start using those features until the Y2K
>>conversion in 1998 and nobody since then has authorised the budget to
>>rewrite and re-test it.'
>
>I don't find it amusing. While and because old Cobolers were resisiting
>change, the world abandoned Cobol.

Mr Wagner, I'm not sure what you're calling a 'Coboler'... but authorising
budget - budget for training in new features, programmer time for
rewriting code and overall time-and-resources for testing changes - is a
responsibility of Management.

DD

From: Anonymous on
In article <p4d6q3hg7qlidtj2sc556ttnkqtcduq5ki(a)4ax.com>,
Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:31:32 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>
>>In article <1u65q3l1v0rcriqpa82bvev2p8j9hiqcdq(a)4ax.com>,
>>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote:
>
>>>Manuals are as close as your Web browser.
>>
>>Mr Wagner, I saw my first DB2 installation in 1987... and I worked on
>>sites where consultants/contractors/hired guns were not allowed web-access
>>into the mid-1990s.
>
>I worked at place with such a policy in 2001.

So, Mr Wagner... since you worked as such a place at some point is it
reasonable to conclude that you are working at such a place now?

DD

From: Robert on
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:32:04 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:

>In article <p4d6q3hg7qlidtj2sc556ttnkqtcduq5ki(a)4ax.com>,
>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote:
>>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:31:32 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1u65q3l1v0rcriqpa82bvev2p8j9hiqcdq(a)4ax.com>,
>>>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote:
>>
>>>>Manuals are as close as your Web browser.
>>>
>>>Mr Wagner, I saw my first DB2 installation in 1987... and I worked on
>>>sites where consultants/contractors/hired guns were not allowed web-access
>>>into the mid-1990s.
>>
>>I worked at place with such a policy in 2001.
>
>So, Mr Wagner... since you worked as such a place at some point is it
>reasonable to conclude that you are working at such a place now?

Web access is almost universal nowadays. But they need SOME way to lower contractors'
social status. Denial of VPN access is a popular choice. Chicago roads were terrible
this morning due to a snowstorm. Contractors had to drive in it while employees worked
from home. The parking lot was more than half empty. There is no valid security reason
when SecureID is used. VPN ports don't cost anything in royalties.

Other places restrict contractors to one entry door. The reason is because administrators
are too lazy to set them up in the security system, but it also serves as a social marker.
From: Judson McClendon on
"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote:
>
> I don't find it amusing. While and because old Cobolers were resisiting
> change, the world abandoned Cobol. Note past tense; it already happened.

There were many other reasons for the demise of COBOL than resistance to
change by old-timers. And I think a lot of the resistance was because the
old-timers knew that the new OO paradigm, for example, fit COBOL like a
square peg in a round hole. I always knew that one of COBOL's greatest
strengths was it's simplicity. Add OO, destroy the simplicity. The things
that make COBOL great for its heyday are also things that do not fit
current development paradigms. Another of COBOL's great strengths was the
Data Division, and the ease and power of the hierarchical structures and
data formatting in the Picture clause. But with standardized databases,
XML, et al, those became irrelevant. Consider Pete Dashwood. He embraced
and championed OO COBOL diligently for years. But Pete has abandoned
COBOL for other languages better suited to today's development needs. I
don't want to put words in Pete's mouth, but I don't think his decision
had anything to do with resistance by old-timers; I believe it was based
on pragmatic evaluation of the relative strengths of the tools in today's
development environment. I've made a similar change. I still support my
clients who use COBOL, but I don't foresee developing any new systems in
COBOL, except for those clients who want it. And they are steadily moving
away from COBOL.

To me it is clear that, if Old Cobolers, as you put it, had jumped on
change as eagerly as anyone, we would still be watching COBOL's demise,
maybe even sooner. Their openness to change would have propelled them
inevitably to the same objective conclusions about current development
realities that me, and I think Pete also, to change. COBOL, in any form,
just does not fit well into today's webcentric development environment,
and no one here feels more regret over the passing of that simpler era
than I do.
--
Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."