NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/cobol/679

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 5.4 KB | 131 lines

Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Path: sparky!uunet!gator!dlpinc00!dlparker
From: [e-mail] (David L. Parker)
Subject: Re: Hello, anybody out there ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Automated Data Management Services
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:51:49 GMT
Lines: 119

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Kenny) writes:

>1. don't real COBOL programmers have access to news ? (or do the
>   sysadms not tell 'em about it ?)

I'm a real COBOL programmer (at least the firm who pays me thinks so),
and I'm also the sysadm here (on this, my home/office system)

>2. don't COBOL programmers that do have access take pride in what
>   they do ? (or are they daunted by the fact that they are expected
>   to produce useful products rather than discuss theories ?)

Speaking only for myself, yes (and no to the second).  I hope I produce
useful products, and as a commercial application programmer, I'm
(rightly or wrongly) more concerned with practice than theory.  There
are lots of good theoriticians (sp??) out there.

>3. don't C programmers have anything better to do than read this
>   group ? (according to their stated views even looking at
>   alt.cobol should be considered digital necrophilia)

Some apparently don't.

>4. why isn't the serious COBOL community raising hell over not
>   having comp.lang status ? (maybe that explains why this group
>   is so quiet, all the interested people are looking for
>   comp.lang.cobol)

I must be either 1 - not a member of the serious COBOL community, or
2 - not particularly concerned.  Maybe both, definitely the latter.
I've been getting this group for a few months now, and the negative
sort of traffic ("c is the one true way, all others are blasphemy")
hasn't been bothersome enough for me to want to stop receiving it.
Your posting probably vastly exceeds the total volume I've received
up to this point though, and has most of the useful content, too.

>5. Why is there, with the exception of some recent postings, no
>   input from the COBOL manufacturers. I would have expected this
>   to be considered a cheap advertising medium and good PR.

Now this I would really like to see.  I've been unable to justify the
cost of a COBOL compiler for the UNIX platform because someone else
owns the compiler I use (not a UNIX compiler, some company out in the
east, Yarmonk, NY, I think, not to mention any names or cast any
aspersions on it's founder, Mr. Watson).  I'm leaning toward the
Micro Focus product, myself, but $3,500 to $4,000 for a COBOL compiler
is a little hard to justify for a single consultant.  A company, yes.
I'd like to get my current company interested in it (large insurance
co. with between 80 or so programmers (and hiring more - anybody
interested?).  They'd be more likely to go with the OS/2 version,
though.

>
>years', often followed by 'but now I use C'. (Actually, I use a
>little bit of C myself - a little bit is all I'm trusted with -
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

me, too, but not lately

>but COBOL is still paying my mortgage).

Mine, too, and several other things, besides.

>
>I would like to see this group used for it's original intention,
>that is, to discuss COBOL, not merely defend it.
>

The only reason to have the group, in my opinion.  What's to
defend?

>I have seen many postings in this group from Don Nelson, whose
>experience with CODASYL means that he should have much to
>contribute, and from James Fidel, whose position at Micro Focus
>ought to give him some insight into the direction COBOL is taking.

Would DEFINITELY like to hear more from these guys.  Nelson, because
of the content of his postings, and Fidel, because of the above
mentioned interest in Micro Focus.

>Even if none (or few) of these bodies condescend to contribute to
>any discussions in this group, it might serve to let them know
>which direction we would like to see COBOL moving in. At the very

Mixed language environments would be something I'd be interested in
as well, and I think file handling and screen I/O would be useful.
I'm currently oriented toward GSAM, VSAM, IMS and MFS in those areas,
though, so I'd have nothing to compare to those issues in a UNIX COBOL
environment.  And I'd think debugging tools would be very useful in
this environment.  Can't understand why there aren't any.

>(Perhaps these would make interesting topics in themselves - integration
>with non-COBOL applications)

Definitely!

>4. I am particularly interested in hearing from other sites that are using
>   COBOL on various UNIX machines

There must be a lot, I know of several Real World Accounting (Micro Focus)
installations around here, I think Macola (?) uses RM, and there have to be
others.  I'm sure there are shops who are downsizing from "the big iron"
to UNIX, so it can only get bigger.

>5. and like most people who post unsolicited articles, I guess I probably
>   like to stroke my own ego

Always a need for that!

>        Mike Kenny                             Shared Financial Systems
>        Phone: [phone]                    Dallas, Tx
>        ------>>> everybody is entitled to their own opinions <<<------
>        ------>>> these are mine and not those of my employer <<<------

Great post!  Enjoyed it very much (even saved it).
--
Dave Parker           -          uucp:  [e-mail]
Automated Data Management Services
Pleasant Hill, MO 64080-1331   -   [phone]/5218 voice/fax