f



Zombie COBOL

About 20 years ago, here in this forum, I predicted that COBOL would be 
"dead" by the year 2015.

I have taken a little time from my current very busy (C#... :-)) programming 
schedule to check out some of the key indicators that would decide the truth 
or falsity of this statement.

My conclusion is that I was not entirely correct in this, but I was not 
entirely "wrong" either.

It depends on how you define "dead".

At the time I made the statement, the use of networked computers was 
starting to replace the centralized mainframes which had "governed" 
commercial computing for decades. There were still many people writing COBOL 
who were convinced that they would be "good for life" and there was no need 
to expand skill sets  because "toy computers"would never replace "real 
computers".

We had been in an era where COBOL was the "only game in town" in real terms 
for commercial system development so it was hard to imagine anything 
replacing it.

A quick search on any of the major job sites revealed thousands of COBOL 
jobs.  The same searches today reveal  a few dozen, so, at least to that 
extent, my prediction was true.

Nevertheless, COBOL IS still alive and well on a small (in the scheme of 
things) but significant, number of sites.

I could write a great deal about why COBOL refuses to "lie down" but really, 
I'm just glad it is still standing, at least in some places.

For the last  10 years I have dedicated my energy to getting legacy COBOL 
systems migrated to the new networked model, in a way that doesn't degrade 
the network and that provides options for the future. Removing dependency on 
indexed files (so the data resource can be shared with software other than 
COBOL; opening it up to both legacy and new processes...), generating 
separation layers for data manipulation, tapping into facilities not usually 
available to COBOL (like LINQ), and, most recently, seeking  to provide a 
path for people using Fujitsu's PowerCOBOL, to get out from dependency on 
it. To automate these processes  has been a long hard grind and it has meant 
writing generators that generate both COBOL and C#. (PowerCOBOL "sheets" 
(GUI windows) get analyzed and converted to Windows Forms which are built 
using generated C# for the MS Designer in Visual Studio; the "scrptlets" in 
PowerCOBOL which drive these sheets, get transformed into standard OO COBOL 
and become "code-behind" components for the new Windows Forms...)). These 
tools are dealing with COBOL on a daily basis. If COBOL is "dead" then there 
are a lot of zombies walking around... :-)

I have been pretty obsessed by getting this stuff built and tested and a 
number of people have been helping by running Proofs of Concept (POCs). We 
are now in the home straight for PowerCOBOL and the results are quite 
stunning. But there is a still a lot to do (especially with Testing) and we 
won't have a commercially releaseable product before December. There is no 
point in releasing a new product in the run-up to the holidays, so it will 
be announced in January. In the meantime, I will be revising the PRIMA web 
site to accommodate the new migration products and I hope to make it an 
interesting and comfortable place for COBOL people to go to.

It is interesting to me to see legacy "zombie COBOL"" being reincarnated 
into modern COBOL Classes that can lead a full life in the .Net environment.

The emphasis in all our tools is not to force people to replace their COBOL, 
but rather to give them options where they CAN replace it (in a phased and 
prioritised manner with no risk) or they can continue with COBOL if they 
want to.

Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz

Pete.

-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 


0
Pete
10/23/2016 12:16:18 AM
comp.lang.cobol 4278 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

13 Replies
476 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 29

On 23-10-16 02:16, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz

Piease is written with a 'c' or with an 'l' ....

;)
0
Luuk
10/23/2016 1:11:12 PM
On 23-10-16 15:11, Luuk wrote:
> On 23-10-16 02:16, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
>
> Piease is written with a 'c' or with an 'l' ....
>
> ;)


Ih hate it when i make a type in a message correcting someone else......

;(
0
Luuk
10/23/2016 1:13:50 PM
On 23-10-16 15:13, Luuk wrote:
> On 23-10-16 15:11, Luuk wrote:
>> On 23-10-16 02:16, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
>>
>> Piease is written with a 'c' or with an 'l' ....
>>
>> ;)
>
>
> Ih hate it when i make a type in a message correcting someone else......
>
> ;(

time for new battery's in my keyboard.... ;)
0
Luuk
10/23/2016 1:15:02 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:11:12 +0200, Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> wrote:

>On 23-10-16 02:16, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
>
>Piease is written with a 'c' or with an 'l' ...
>
>;)

I was using a remote keyboard and missed a key.

How would you write "Please" with a "c"?

Maybe I was subconsciously thinking of black-eyed peas; pease keeping
an eye on things... :-)

Pete.
I used to write COBOL; now I can do anything...
0
Pete
10/23/2016 11:31:42 PM
On Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:16:22 UTC+10, Pete Dashwood  wrote:
> About 20 years ago, here in this forum, I predicted that COBOL would be=
=20
> "dead" by the year 2015.
>=20
> I have taken a little time from my current very busy (C#... :-)) programm=
ing=20
> schedule to check out some of the key indicators that would decide the tr=
uth=20
> or falsity of this statement.
>=20
> My conclusion is that I was not entirely correct in this, but I was not=
=20
> entirely "wrong" either.
>=20
> It depends on how you define "dead".
>=20
> At the time I made the statement, the use of networked computers was=20
> starting to replace the centralized mainframes which had "governed"=20
> commercial computing for decades. There were still many people writing CO=
BOL=20
> who were convinced that they would be "good for life" and there was no ne=
ed=20
> to expand skill sets  because "toy computers"would never replace "real=20
> computers".
>=20
> We had been in an era where COBOL was the "only game in town" in real ter=
ms=20
> for commercial system development so it was hard to imagine anything=20
> replacing it.
>=20
> A quick search on any of the major job sites revealed thousands of COBOL=
=20
> jobs.  The same searches today reveal  a few dozen, so, at least to that=
=20
> extent, my prediction was true.
>=20
> Nevertheless, COBOL IS still alive and well on a small (in the scheme of=
=20
> things) but significant, number of sites.
>=20
> I could write a great deal about why COBOL refuses to "lie down" but real=
ly,=20
> I'm just glad it is still standing, at least in some places.
>=20
> For the last  10 years I have dedicated my energy to getting legacy COBOL=
=20
> systems migrated to the new networked model, in a way that doesn't degrad=
e=20
> the network and that provides options for the future. Removing dependency=
 on=20
> indexed files (so the data resource can be shared with software other tha=
n=20
> COBOL; opening it up to both legacy and new processes...), generating=20
> separation layers for data manipulation, tapping into facilities not usua=
lly=20
> available to COBOL (like LINQ), and, most recently, seeking  to provide a=
=20
> path for people using Fujitsu's PowerCOBOL, to get out from dependency on=
=20
> it. To automate these processes  has been a long hard grind and it has me=
ant=20
> writing generators that generate both COBOL and C#. (PowerCOBOL "sheets"=
=20
> (GUI windows) get analyzed and converted to Windows Forms which are built=
=20
> using generated C# for the MS Designer in Visual Studio; the "scrptlets" =
in=20
> PowerCOBOL which drive these sheets, get transformed into standard OO COB=
OL=20
> and become "code-behind" components for the new Windows Forms...)). These=
=20
> tools are dealing with COBOL on a daily basis. If COBOL is "dead" then th=
ere=20
> are a lot of zombies walking around... :-)
>=20
> I have been pretty obsessed by getting this stuff built and tested and a=
=20
> number of people have been helping by running Proofs of Concept (POCs). W=
e=20
> are now in the home straight for PowerCOBOL and the results are quite=20
> stunning. But there is a still a lot to do (especially with Testing) and =
we=20
> won't have a commercially releaseable product before December. There is n=
o=20
> point in releasing a new product in the run-up to the holidays, so it wil=
l=20
> be announced in January. In the meantime, I will be revising the PRIMA we=
b=20
> site to accommodate the new migration products and I hope to make it an=
=20
> interesting and comfortable place for COBOL people to go to.
>=20
> It is interesting to me to see legacy "zombie COBOL"" being reincarnated=
=20
> into modern COBOL Classes that can lead a full life in the .Net environme=
nt.
>=20
> The emphasis in all our tools is not to force people to replace their COB=
OL,=20
> but rather to give them options where they CAN replace it (in a phased an=
d=20
> prioritised manner with no risk) or they can continue with COBOL if they=
=20
> want to.
>=20
> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
>=20
> Pete.
>=20
> --=20
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Hi Pete, I am following the threads and appreciate your input. I remain an =
advocate for COBOL and it is not yet a Zombie language. My action for busin=
ess  change so far is no COBOL change but I continue to follow alternatives=
.. What I am working on currently is improving my website so that it is HTML=
5, CSS3 and gradually removing tables. The pages will also be compatible an=
d adjust for mobile devices. Behind it is still my COBOL products both on-p=
remise and SaaS for cloud. The initial page is www.aceway.net and the linke=
d pages are still subject to replacement with newer code. You can open this=
 page in a PC browser, squeeze the width or open it on a smartphone to see =
how it adapts.

Further ideas that go beyond COBOL even tho COBOL is used.=20

When people choose an APP they are not concerned with the language and meth=
ods used. They just want to know about functionality, does it do what I wan=
t and is the price acceptable.

I get a bit peeved by COBOL people who want to discuss the use of Compute v=
s individual Add/Subtract/Multiply/Divide.=20

Marketing a product is a bigger issue so having clever meta-tags, text, ass=
ociations with global social pages in Facebook, Linked-In, Twitter, Youtube=
 and more seem to increase Google search criteria to get on the first page =
of a query.=20

I am also exploring the use of Explainer Videos on YouTube that cut down th=
e verbosity of text on my web pages.=20

This is my current challenge.
0
Greg
10/24/2016 2:08:40 AM
In article <e72dqkF8p5jU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>About 20 years ago, here in this forum, I predicted that COBOL would be 
>"dead" by the year 2015.
>
>I have taken a little time from my current very busy (C#... :-)) programming 
>schedule to check out some of the key indicators that would decide the truth 
>or falsity of this statement.
>
>My conclusion is that I was not entirely correct in this, but I was not 
>entirely "wrong" either.
>
>It depends on how you define "dead".

THis seems to be a very good time to discover Author's Intent.  If whoever 
posted 'COBOL will be dead by 2015' is reading would you be so kind as to 
state the definition of 'dead' you were using?

Thanks!

DD
0
docdwarf
10/24/2016 12:08:20 PM
On 24-10-16 01:31, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
>> >
>> >Piease is written with a 'c' or with an 'l' ...
>> >
>> >;)
> I was using a remote keyboard and missed a key.
>
> How would you write "Please" with a "c"?

Peace


0
Luuk
10/24/2016 5:13:09 PM
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 7:13:10 PM UTC+2, Luuk wrote:
> On 24-10-16 01:31, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> >>> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
> >> >
> >> >Piease is written with a 'c' or with an 'l' ...
> >> >
> >> >;)
> > I was using a remote keyboard and missed a key.
> >
> > How would you write "Please" with a "c"?
>=20
> Peace

Police.

Piece. Pease is of course a word (so no spell-check saviour for the typo). =
Peas (a more modern word). Pearlies. Probably more typonyms, but I should s=
top.

Major job sites 20 years ago? You mean the trade press? A "quick rustle thr=
ough the jobs pages"?

To go from this: "If COBOL is "dead" then there are a lot of zombies walkin=
g around... :-)" to "It is interesting to me to see legacy "zombie COBOL"" =
being reincarnated" within two paragraphs is a nice trick. Now you see 'em,=
 now you don't? Anyway, hasn't a zombie already been reincarnated (although=
 it seems people go for "reanimated" anyway)?

However, for the attempt, if human =3D COBOL, then zombie (husk of human, r=
eanimated, foul, decaying automaton) =3D (husk of original COBOL, err... wi=
th objects and layers) then the Zombie COBOL is the new stuff, not the old.=
 I'll expect the update to your (now) police-monitored website forthwith :-=
)

Of course, if you were trying to make some other point by the use of zombie=
, it was unclear.=20



0
Bill
10/24/2016 6:20:42 PM
And your clients may be peeved, if they are coming from, or are in, the Mainframe world. 

Does it peeve you that a question is asked, that it is answered, or what? I won't bother with why it peeves. Just askin'.
0
Bill
10/24/2016 6:27:05 PM
On Monday, 24 October 2016 03:08:42 UTC+1, Greg Wallace  wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:16:22 UTC+10, Pete Dashwood  wrote:
> > About 20 years ago, here in this forum, I predicted that COBOL would be=
=20
> > "dead" by the year 2015.
> >=20
> > I have taken a little time from my current very busy (C#... :-)) progra=
mming=20
> > schedule to check out some of the key indicators that would decide the =
truth=20
> > or falsity of this statement.
> >=20
> > My conclusion is that I was not entirely correct in this, but I was not=
=20
> > entirely "wrong" either.
> >=20
> > It depends on how you define "dead".
> >=20
> > At the time I made the statement, the use of networked computers was=20
> > starting to replace the centralized mainframes which had "governed"=20
> > commercial computing for decades. There were still many people writing =
COBOL=20
> > who were convinced that they would be "good for life" and there was no =
need=20
> > to expand skill sets  because "toy computers"would never replace "real=
=20
> > computers".
> >=20
> > We had been in an era where COBOL was the "only game in town" in real t=
erms=20
> > for commercial system development so it was hard to imagine anything=20
> > replacing it.
> >=20
> > A quick search on any of the major job sites revealed thousands of COBO=
L=20
> > jobs.  The same searches today reveal  a few dozen, so, at least to tha=
t=20
> > extent, my prediction was true.
> >=20
> > Nevertheless, COBOL IS still alive and well on a small (in the scheme o=
f=20
> > things) but significant, number of sites.
> >=20
> > I could write a great deal about why COBOL refuses to "lie down" but re=
ally,=20
> > I'm just glad it is still standing, at least in some places.
> >=20
> > For the last  10 years I have dedicated my energy to getting legacy COB=
OL=20
> > systems migrated to the new networked model, in a way that doesn't degr=
ade=20
> > the network and that provides options for the future. Removing dependen=
cy on=20
> > indexed files (so the data resource can be shared with software other t=
han=20
> > COBOL; opening it up to both legacy and new processes...), generating=
=20
> > separation layers for data manipulation, tapping into facilities not us=
ually=20
> > available to COBOL (like LINQ), and, most recently, seeking  to provide=
 a=20
> > path for people using Fujitsu's PowerCOBOL, to get out from dependency =
on=20
> > it. To automate these processes  has been a long hard grind and it has =
meant=20
> > writing generators that generate both COBOL and C#. (PowerCOBOL "sheets=
"=20
> > (GUI windows) get analyzed and converted to Windows Forms which are bui=
lt=20
> > using generated C# for the MS Designer in Visual Studio; the "scrptlets=
" in=20
> > PowerCOBOL which drive these sheets, get transformed into standard OO C=
OBOL=20
> > and become "code-behind" components for the new Windows Forms...)). The=
se=20
> > tools are dealing with COBOL on a daily basis. If COBOL is "dead" then =
there=20
> > are a lot of zombies walking around... :-)
> >=20
> > I have been pretty obsessed by getting this stuff built and tested and =
a=20
> > number of people have been helping by running Proofs of Concept (POCs).=
 We=20
> > are now in the home straight for PowerCOBOL and the results are quite=
=20
> > stunning. But there is a still a lot to do (especially with Testing) an=
d we=20
> > won't have a commercially releaseable product before December. There is=
 no=20
> > point in releasing a new product in the run-up to the holidays, so it w=
ill=20
> > be announced in January. In the meantime, I will be revising the PRIMA =
web=20
> > site to accommodate the new migration products and I hope to make it an=
=20
> > interesting and comfortable place for COBOL people to go to.
> >=20
> > It is interesting to me to see legacy "zombie COBOL"" being reincarnate=
d=20
> > into modern COBOL Classes that can lead a full life in the .Net environ=
ment.
> >=20
> > The emphasis in all our tools is not to force people to replace their C=
OBOL,=20
> > but rather to give them options where they CAN replace it (in a phased =
and=20
> > prioritised manner with no risk) or they can continue with COBOL if the=
y=20
> > want to.
> >=20
> > Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
> >=20
> > Pete.
> >=20
> > --=20
> > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>=20
> Hi Pete, I am following the threads and appreciate your input. I remain a=
n advocate for COBOL and it is not yet a Zombie language. My action for bus=
iness  change so far is no COBOL change but I continue to follow alternativ=
es. What I am working on currently is improving my website so that it is HT=
ML5, CSS3 and gradually removing tables. The pages will also be compatible =
and adjust for mobile devices. Behind it is still my COBOL products both on=
-premise and SaaS for cloud. The initial page is www.aceway.net and the lin=
ked pages are still subject to replacement with newer code. You can open th=
is page in a PC browser, squeeze the width or open it on a smartphone to se=
e how it adapts.
>=20
> Further ideas that go beyond COBOL even tho COBOL is used.=20
>=20
> When people choose an APP they are not concerned with the language and me=
thods used. They just want to know about functionality, does it do what I w=
ant and is the price acceptable.
>=20
> I get a bit peeved by COBOL people who want to discuss the use of Compute=
 vs individual Add/Subtract/Multiply/Divide.=20
>=20
> Marketing a product is a bigger issue so having clever meta-tags, text, a=
ssociations with global social pages in Facebook, Linked-In, Twitter, Youtu=
be and more seem to increase Google search criteria to get on the first pag=
e of a query.=20
>=20
> I am also exploring the use of Explainer Videos on YouTube that cut down =
the verbosity of text on my web pages.=20
>=20
> This is my current challenge.

It used to matter how intermediates were handled in a calculation with resp=
ect to available precision and truncations.  Though modern compilers are a =
lot more careful and versatile, there may still be instances where it matte=
rs and breaking up a calculation into its components can provide better con=
trol.
Robert
0
0robert
10/25/2016 10:46:39 PM
Greg Wallace wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:16:22 UTC+10, Pete Dashwood  wrote:
>> About 20 years ago, here in this forum, I predicted that COBOL would
>> be "dead" by the year 2015.
>>
>> I have taken a little time from my current very busy (C#... :-))
>> programming schedule to check out some of the key indicators that
>> would decide the truth or falsity of this statement.
>>
>> My conclusion is that I was not entirely correct in this, but I was
>> not entirely "wrong" either.
>>
>> It depends on how you define "dead".
>>
>> At the time I made the statement, the use of networked computers was
>> starting to replace the centralized mainframes which had "governed"
>> commercial computing for decades. There were still many people
>> writing COBOL who were convinced that they would be "good for life"
>> and there was no need to expand skill sets  because "toy
>> computers"would never replace "real computers".
>>
>> We had been in an era where COBOL was the "only game in town" in
>> real terms for commercial system development so it was hard to
>> imagine anything replacing it.
>>
>> A quick search on any of the major job sites revealed thousands of
>> COBOL jobs.  The same searches today reveal  a few dozen, so, at
>> least to that extent, my prediction was true.
>>
>> Nevertheless, COBOL IS still alive and well on a small (in the
>> scheme of things) but significant, number of sites.
>>
>> I could write a great deal about why COBOL refuses to "lie down" but
>> really, I'm just glad it is still standing, at least in some places.
>>
>> For the last  10 years I have dedicated my energy to getting legacy
>> COBOL systems migrated to the new networked model, in a way that
>> doesn't degrade the network and that provides options for the
>> future. Removing dependency on indexed files (so the data resource
>> can be shared with software other than COBOL; opening it up to both
>> legacy and new processes...), generating separation layers for data
>> manipulation, tapping into facilities not usually available to COBOL
>> (like LINQ), and, most recently, seeking  to provide a path for
>> people using Fujitsu's PowerCOBOL, to get out from dependency on it.
>> To automate these processes  has been a long hard grind and it has
>> meant writing generators that generate both COBOL and C#.
>> (PowerCOBOL "sheets" (GUI windows) get analyzed and converted to
>> Windows Forms which are built using generated C# for the MS Designer
>> in Visual Studio; the "scrptlets" in PowerCOBOL which drive these
>> sheets, get transformed into standard OO COBOL and become
>> "code-behind" components for the new Windows Forms...)). These tools
>> are dealing with COBOL on a daily basis. If COBOL is "dead" then
>> there are a lot of zombies walking around... :-)
>>
>> I have been pretty obsessed by getting this stuff built and tested
>> and a number of people have been helping by running Proofs of
>> Concept (POCs). We are now in the home straight for PowerCOBOL and
>> the results are quite stunning. But there is a still a lot to do
>> (especially with Testing) and we won't have a commercially
>> releaseable product before December. There is no point in releasing
>> a new product in the run-up to the holidays, so it will be announced
>> in January. In the meantime, I will be revising the PRIMA web site
>> to accommodate the new migration products and I hope to make it an
>> interesting and comfortable place for COBOL people to go to.
>>
>> It is interesting to me to see legacy "zombie COBOL"" being
>> reincarnated into modern COBOL Classes that can lead a full life in
>> the .Net environment.
>>
>> The emphasis in all our tools is not to force people to replace
>> their COBOL, but rather to give them options where they CAN replace
>> it (in a phased and prioritised manner with no risk) or they can
>> continue with COBOL if they want to.
>>
>> Pease "keep an eye on us" at http://primacomputing.co.nz
>>
>> Pete.
>>
>> --
>> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
> Hi Pete, I am following the threads and appreciate your input. I
> remain an advocate for COBOL and it is not yet a Zombie language.

Hi Greg

The "zombie" tag was a joke against myself because I said it would be dead 
but (at least in some places) it is still walking around...

I do see legacy COBOL as kind of dead (modern OO COBOL is supplanting it on 
networked COBOL systems) but there is still a place for even "old" COBOL in 
batch processing (for which it has always been ideally suited).

<snip>>
> I get a bit peeved by COBOL people who want to discuss the use of
> Compute vs individual Add/Subtract/Multiply/Divide.
>

Why?

We've had far worse discussions than that here over the years...

> Marketing a product is a bigger issue so having clever meta-tags,
> text, associations with global social pages in Facebook, Linked-In,
> Twitter, Youtube and more seem to increase Google search criteria to
> get on the first page of a query.

Maybe. I don't link to social media but I do use meta tags. I'm happy with 
the PRIMA rankings...
>
> I am also exploring the use of Explainer Videos on YouTube that cut
> down the verbosity of text on my web pages.

Yes, I like the use of videos but it has to  be managed very carefully. They 
take a lot of work (read "time" which = money, to produce and, until 
everybody has Broadband and decent streaming bandwidth, you can't guarantee 
everyone will see what you'd like them to.)

Nevertheless, it is certainly true that a picture can be worth 1000 words, 
and a moving picture can be even more valuable.

The main problem with the current PRIMA videos is that they are too long; 
I'll be producing a whole new set for the new product.
> This is my current challenge.

Good luck with it!

Pete.

-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 


0
Pete
10/27/2016 12:06:17 PM
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <e72dqkF8p5jU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> About 20 years ago, here in this forum, I predicted that COBOL would
>> be "dead" by the year 2015.
>>
>> I have taken a little time from my current very busy (C#... :-))
>> programming schedule to check out some of the key indicators that
>> would decide the truth or falsity of this statement.
>>
>> My conclusion is that I was not entirely correct in this, but I was
>> not entirely "wrong" either.
>>
>> It depends on how you define "dead".
>
> THis seems to be a very good time to discover Author's Intent.  If
> whoever posted 'COBOL will be dead by 2015' is reading would you be
> so kind as to state the definition of 'dead' you were using?
>
> Thanks!

I was going to respond to this at length and justify my statement, but I 
realized it would not be fair because I could use a definition that would 
support my own case, and it doesn't really matter in the scheme of 
things...IT today is what it is and a career in COBOL (alone) is no longer 
viable, as it once was. To that extent, COBOL is "dead" as a career choice.

The real truth is that I didn't think about exactly what I meant (at the 
time I made the statement); it was more of a "feeling" and along the lines 
that COBOL would no longer be the primary commercial programming language it 
had been from the 1960s through to the 1990s, and that the change would be 
so drastic that people would lose their jobs, organizations would replace 
COBOL and centralized mainframes with distributed systems on networks, using 
objects, so that, from a COBOL perspective the landscape would shrink to the 
point where COBOL would be confined to the Fortresses where change was 
resisted at all costs, and even these Fortresses would decline in number.

Like I said, I wasn't entirely right, but I wasn't entirely wrong either.

There were many factors that led to the decline of COBOL and some of them 
actually had nothing to do with the language.

Pete
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." 


0
Pete
10/27/2016 12:31:15 PM
In article <e7eaclF2l6iU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <e72dqkF8p5jU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>> About 20 years ago, here in this forum, I predicted that COBOL would
>>> be "dead" by the year 2015.
>>>
>>> I have taken a little time from my current very busy (C#... :-))
>>> programming schedule to check out some of the key indicators that
>>> would decide the truth or falsity of this statement.
>>>
>>> My conclusion is that I was not entirely correct in this, but I was
>>> not entirely "wrong" either.
>>>
>>> It depends on how you define "dead".
>>
>> THis seems to be a very good time to discover Author's Intent.  If
>> whoever posted 'COBOL will be dead by 2015' is reading would you be
>> so kind as to state the definition of 'dead' you were using?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>I was going to respond to this at length and justify my statement, but I 
>realized it would not be fair because I could use a definition that would 
>support my own case, and it doesn't really matter in the scheme of 
>things...

With a small smile... this might read, to an uncharitable eye, as 'Given 
an opportunity to stack the deck Mr Dashwood studiously endeavours to deal 
himself a losing hand.'

[snip]

>Like I said, I wasn't entirely right, but I wasn't entirely wrong either.

One who is blessed with a porous memory might say 'Oh, did I say that?  
Well, now that you mention it maybe I did, maybe I was thinking... 
something... or maybe something else... have you noticed how young women 
nowadays aren't afraid to show a finely-tuned ankle?  By the stars, it is 
a glorious time to be alive... zzZZZzzzz....'

DD

0
docdwarf
10/27/2016 2:13:26 PM
Reply: