Internal vs External SORTs
Ubiquitous
program or better to perform it in the JCL, or does it
depend on what one is sorting?
Howard Brazee
Depends.
Some people curse anybody who does internal sorts, some people never do external
sorts. IMHO, I believe many small steps are easier to maintain than one
complicated step, so I evaluate to see if there is a particular need for an
internal sort - if not, then I do external sorts.
I don't use performance as an element of my decision - I use maintainability.
After all both sorts use the same sort program anyway.
docd...@panix.com
The answer is predicated on the criteria one uses for 'better'.
DD
William M. Klein
If you use the FASTSRT compiler option, there is probably little performance
difference. Probably the *most* important thing to "look into" is what is
most commonly used in *YOUR* shop - so that other programmers can "maintain"
(easily) whatever you create.
I have read several (semi-internal) posts between the IBM COBOL and SORT
developers and they both find reasonable "justification" for each approach.
My *personal* opinion - is that it depends on what "processing" of input or
output records you use. I (again personally) don't really like creating and
maintaining E15 and E35 exits - and much prefer COBOL Input/Output
procedures. (If the only "processing" of your input/output can be done via
SORT control cards, then this issue doesn't apply) Similarly, if you
have/use COBOL report writer, I find that a GREAT tool in Output
Procedures - as opposed to the DFSort (or SyncSort) "reporting" facilities.
On the other hand, if you have a basic
- process an entire file (to get it ready to SORT)
- sort that file
- process the output file (often in multiple different ways)
type logic, I (again personally) see this as an EXCELLENT target for an
"external sort".
OBVIOUSLY, if you happen to be a "contractor" (as many CLC readers are),
then it is CRITICAL that you find out what the "shop standard) is (if any).
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:avn1kv$n9j$6...@news.utelfla.com...
Robert Graham
What I've experienced is it depends on the shop. One place
I worked at "required" all sorts to be external in a
preceding JCL step. Since their JCL streams were miles
long, it made for restarts after an abend much easier. (The
JCL steps were performed based upon return codes from
previous step).
Other places don't care and so what ever makes the most
sense in the given situation is the way I go. I have never
seen any shop question the performance of either sort. You
can get very creative with external sorts, but why fill your
mind with all the little tricks of SyncSort when it is just
as easy, if not more easy, in COBOL. Especially if you want
to filter the data in any way.
JerryMouse
> program or better to perform it in the JCL, or does it
> depend on what one is sorting?
With an internal sort you can control WHAT sub-set gets sorted.
That is, in a 1 million-record file, you may be creating a report of only
500 records. Instead of an external sort shuffling these 500 to the front,
you can select only the 500 in which you're interested and sort them.
Related topic:
One of the rules (attributed to Moses, but the file was truncated after ten
records): "Thou shalt not sort the master file."
Frank Yaeger
>With an internal sort you can control WHAT sub-set gets sorted.
>
>That is, in a 1 million-record file, you may be creating a report of only
>500 records. Instead of an external sort shuffling these 500 to the front,
>you can select only the 500 in which you're interested and sort them.
>
>Related topic:
>One of the rules (attributed to Moses, but the file was truncated after ten
>records): "Thou shalt not sort the master file."
>
If I understand what you're saying, you can, in fact, do that with
DFSORT by using an INCLUDE or OMIT statement to remove the records you
don't want to sort. INCLUDE or OMIT processing takes place before SORT
processing, so you will only sort the records you include. DFSORT also
has a SKIPREC=n option that removes the first n records before sorting.
Sure, there's things you can do with a COBOL program that you can't do
with DFSORT, but there are plenty of things that you can do with DFSORT.
I know this is a COBOL group and you guys like to write programs for
everything, but I think you'd be surprised if you actually looked at the
DFSORT books to see ALL of the many things you can do with DFSORT
without writing a program. I'm not saying that an external sort is
better or worse than an internal sort, only that you shouldn't assume
that you can't do things with DFSORT that you can do with an internal
sort without actually finding out. Even an "internal sort" can use
DFSORT control statements (like INCLUDE) very easily via a DFSPARM data
set, e.g.
//DFSPARM DD *
INCLUDE COND=(...)
/*
All of the DFSORT books are online. You can access them from:
http://www.storage.ibm.com/software/sort/mvs/srtmpub.html
In particular, you might want to look at the "Summary of Changes" for
all of the DFSORT Releases and PTFs to see how much we've put into
DFSORT over the years that you might not be aware of. Here's the URL
for the Summary of Changes on the DFSORT website:
http://www.storage.ibm.com/software/sort/mvs/summary_changes/srtmsocc.html
Note that I'm not looking to start a fight here - just providing
information for those who want to know.
--
Frank Yaeger - DFSORT Team
Specialties: ICETOOL, OUTFIL, Symbols, Migration
=> DFSORT/MVS is on the WWW at http://www.ibm.com/storage/dfsort/
JerryMouse
"Frank Yaeger" <fya...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3E1F62DC...@vnet.ibm.com...
Your point is well taken. I'll amend my opening statement to read:
"With an internal sort you have _more_ control over WHAT gets sorted."
As for "I'm not looking to start a fight..." Statements like "you guys like
to write programs for everything..." and "you shouldn't assume that you
can't do things ..." assume facts not in evidence.
Of course the last external sort I used was in 1976 on a 370-165; whatcha
got for a PC, Frank?
Jack Sleight
using/giving instead of input/output procedures, the performance is
comperable. Otherwise, external wins hands down, because sort i/o is
much faster than cobol's.
Jack
Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3E1F250C...@nycap.rr.com>...
Clark F. Morris, Jr.
UNIX. As someone who successfully argued against using the competitor
SYNCSORT's Report writing functions on the mainframe for production, I
would have no qualms about using properly written UNIX SYNCSORT report
written functions. Among other things, that sort knows what to do with
a COBOL record description and field names are native to it.
Doug Scott
> With an internal sort you can control WHAT sub-set gets sorted.
Well, most sorts give you selection criteria so that's not usually a
show-stopper.
> Related topic:
> One of the rules (attributed to Moses, but the file was truncated after ten
> records): "Thou shalt not sort the master file."
Scott's maintenance corollary:
"The master file shall always be sortable."
---
Doug
Doug Scott
> I don't use performance as an element of my decision - I use maintainability.
Good man.
> After all both sorts use the same sort program anyway.
Yup.
Doug
Doug Scott
> Of course the last external sort I used was in 1976 on a 370-165; whatcha
> got for a PC, Frank?
It's bigger than that :-)
But nowhere near as fast.
---
Doug
Binyamin Dissen
:>From what I understand, if the internal sort uses fastsrt and
:>using/giving instead of input/output procedures, the performance is
:>comperable. Otherwise, external wins hands down, because sort i/o is
:>much faster than cobol's.
If one is using/giving, one is really doing an external sort under the covers.
:>Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3E1F250C...@nycap.rr.com>...
:>> Ubiquitous wrote:
:>> > I'm curious; is it better to perform a SORT within a COBOL
:>> > program or better to perform it in the JCL, or does it
:>> > depend on what one is sorting?
:>> >
:>>
:>> What I've experienced is it depends on the shop. One place
:>> I worked at "required" all sorts to be external in a
:>> preceding JCL step. Since their JCL streams were miles
:>> long, it made for restarts after an abend much easier. (The
:>> JCL steps were performed based upon return codes from
:>> previous step).
:>>
:>> Other places don't care and so what ever makes the most
:>> sense in the given situation is the way I go. I have never
:>> seen any shop question the performance of either sort. You
:>> can get very creative with external sorts, but why fill your
:>> mind with all the little tricks of SyncSort when it is just
:>> as easy, if not more easy, in COBOL. Especially if you want
:>> to filter the data in any way.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Robert Graham
Perhaps he intended to say "The shalt not sort the master
file AND REWRITE IT" . One should be able to sort anything
he darn well pleases.
As two someone else's pointed out, lots can be done with
DFSORT and SyncSort - you just have to know how, and lots of
places seem to shred all manuals except one set kept in the
systems programmer's locked closet. I've used both for one
shot file fixes and had good results. If you are going to
use "USING/GIVING" you might as well use an external sort as
it is just a couple of JCL lines as opposed to having to
write all the COBOL code. The only real reason not to use
external is to change the file in some way that not possible
(or at least EASY) in an external sort.
Doug Scott
> One should be able to sort anything he darn well pleases.
If the keys are in the same place in every record.
---
Doug
JerryMouse
"Robert Graham" <rgra...@nycap.rr.com>
> >>With an internal sort you can control WHAT sub-set gets sorted.
> >
> >
> > Well, most sorts give you selection criteria so that's not usually a
> > show-stopper.
> >
> >
> >>Related topic:
> >>One of the rules (attributed to Moses, but the file was truncated after
ten
> >>records): "Thou shalt not sort the master file."
> >
> >
> > Scott's maintenance corollary:
> >
> > "The master file shall always be sortable."
>
> Perhaps he intended to say "The shalt not sort the master
> file AND REWRITE IT" . One should be able to sort anything
> he darn well pleases.
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. I would argue that records of
interest should be extracted from the master and these extracted records
sorted. It may turn out that ALL the records from the master are extracted,
but that's not really the same as sorting the master. Although, to be fair,
there are jobs that sort the master file just because they can.
I've seen programs designed to terminate at the first control break (whether
five records or 100M) and depend upon an external sort to get the records of
interest to the front of the file. This is particularily disheartening when,
after a 10-reel input file (and a 10-reel output file), the program
terminates normally after reading five records of the sorted output.
It gets worse. In shops with a 'let's sort the master file' mentality, all
manner of additional work is mandated. I once got a project that included a
file layout sheet. "In what order is the master file?" I asked. "Oh, that
depends on what was done to it last," I was informed. "(moan)." Turns out,
every program that touched that file (or that would touch the file) had to
sort the file first because there was no definition about the record order.
>
> As two someone else's pointed out, lots can be done with
> DFSORT and SyncSort - you just have to know how, and lots of
> places seem to shred all manuals except one set kept in the
> systems programmer's locked closet. I've used both for one
> shot file fixes and had good results. If you are going to
> use "USING/GIVING" you might as well use an external sort as
> it is just a couple of JCL lines as opposed to having to
> write all the COBOL code. The only real reason not to use
> external is to change the file in some way that not possible
> (or at least EASY) in an external sort.
You're right about the manuals - and bricklayers seldom want to know how to
make their own bricks. That's just the way it is.
There are other considerations, too. Here's a big one: By keeping the sort
control logic inside a program it is relatively immune to diddling by people
who don't know what the shit they're doing. At one shop wher I once worked,
a JCL deck got rearranged such that the necessary (external) sort was placed
AFTER the module needing the sorted file. Days and deadlines passed before
the error was found.
When deciding between USING/GIVING and an external sort, my view focuses on
whether the sort parameters are job dependent. If the parameters are the
same, job after job, month after month, use USING/GIVING, thereby avoiding
the vulnerbility of meddling fingers. If the job is a quick-and-dirty, use
an external sort.
There are many reasons for using/not using and internal sort - efficiency,
turn-around (not the same as efficiency), security, availability of
resources, ease of use, knowledge of how to use, yadda-yadda. All will
probably agree the decision is not automatic.
Doug Scott
> Turns out,
> every program that touched that file (or that would touch the file) had to
> sort the file first because there was no definition about the record order.
I thought we'd shot all those guys back in the sixties.
---
Doug
Jack Sleight
interplay between the pgm code and the sort that may prove clumsy when
executing separate steps.
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message news:<rq012v000ig1u3iov...@4ax.com>...
JerryMouse
"Doug Scott" <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.0000001...@nildram.co.uk...
> JerryMouse,
>
> > Turns out,
> > every program that touched that file (or that would touch the file) had
to
> > sort the file first because there was no definition about the record
order.
>
> I thought we'd shot all those guys back in the sixties.
This WAS back in the '60s (Or maybe the '70s - I forget. What year is it now
anyway? Oh, early evening. Never mind, it's turtles all the way down.)
Robert Graham
JerryMouse wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> There are other considerations, too. Here's a big one: By keeping the sort
> control logic inside a program it is relatively immune to diddling by people
> who don't know what the shit they're doing. At one shop wher I once worked,
> a JCL deck got rearranged such that the necessary (external) sort was placed
> AFTER the module needing the sorted file. Days and deadlines passed before
> the error was found.
That's true, but most of the mainframe places I've worked at
keep the production JCL away from those kind of people.
You'd have to be pretty creative to do JCL overrides that
would reorder the steps. ... by the way, how long ago did
that "DECK" get rearranged? I haven't seen a punch card in
almost 20 years. ;)
>
> When deciding between USING/GIVING and an external sort, my view focuses on
> whether the sort parameters are job dependent. If the parameters are the
> same, job after job, month after month, use USING/GIVING, thereby avoiding
> the vulnerbility of meddling fingers. If the job is a quick-and-dirty, use
> an external sort.
>
Most of the externals i've used were for quick-and-dirty
(though nothing "I" write is ever really "dirty"!) :)
Whenever I've needed to include a sort it is because I
usually neet to extract and/or filter the file to create a
sub-set for the program in question. So... I make it
interanl to keep those meddling fingers off.
> There are many reasons for using/not using and internal sort - efficiency,
> turn-around (not the same as efficiency), security, availability of
> resources, ease of use, knowledge of how to use, yadda-yadda. All will
> probably agree the decision is not automatic.
>
>
I've found that when depending on the "automatic" you are
likely to "automatically fail".
Binyamin Dissen
:>No quite. There's 1 less step executed.
Not relevant.
:> It may also facilitate logical
:>interplay between the pgm code and the sort that may prove clumsy when
:>executing separate steps.
I fail to see a case where doing a SORT USING/GIVING would gain anything over
an external sort.
:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message news:<rq012v000ig1u3iov...@4ax.com>...
Howard Brazee
On 10-Jan-2003, Frank Yaeger <fya...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> If I understand what you're saying, you can, in fact, do that with
> DFSORT by using an INCLUDE or OMIT statement to remove the records you
> don't want to sort. INCLUDE or OMIT processing takes place before SORT
> processing, so you will only sort the records you include. DFSORT also
> has a SKIPREC=n option that removes the first n records before sorting.
> Sure, there's things you can do with a COBOL program that you can't do
> with DFSORT, but there are plenty of things that you can do with DFSORT.
That last line is a reason I often use CoBOL sorts. Usually this involves
lookups to a database to determine which records to include, but occasionally it
will involve a complex calculation. The other reason I use CoBOL sorts is when
the sort order depends upon a user parm.
Also, when programmers are unfamiliar with the more complex DFSORT options, my
tendency will be to use a tool (such as CoBOL), that they are more familiar with
- unless I am simply extracting test data for myself.
Howard Brazee
On 10-Jan-2003, "Clark F. Morris, Jr." <cfm...@istar.ca> wrote:
> If you think that DFSORT can do a lot, you should see SYNCSORT for
> UNIX. As someone who successfully argued against using the competitor
> SYNCSORT's Report writing functions on the mainframe for production, I
> would have no qualms about using properly written UNIX SYNCSORT report
> written functions. Among other things, that sort knows what to do with
> a COBOL record description and field names are native to it.
Over the years, DFSORT has matched what SYNCSORT had when I used it. It can
use COBOL record names (but I haven't).
Rick Smith
[...]
>
> I fail to see a case where doing a SORT USING/GIVING would gain anything
over
> an external sort.
It is not a typical mainframe, business application; but
I have an optimization solution that makes multiple
passes on partial solutions from the input file. Each pass
and for each partial solution, the program works on it for
a limited time generating more partial solutions, then
writes these to the output file. At the end of input, the
output file is sorted to become the input file for the next
pass. The program terminates after a predetermined
number of passes even though many partial solutions
are untried.
With SORT USING/GIVING, it is not necesary to exit the
program between passes.
Frank Yaeger
Robert Graham wrote:
> As two someone else's pointed out, lots can be done with DFSORT and
> SyncSort - you just have to know how, and lots of places seem to shred
> all manuals except one set kept in the systems programmer's locked
> closet.
This isn't a problem for DFSORT, because all of the manuals are
available online. You can access them from:
http://www.storage.ibm.com/software/sort/mvs/srtmpub.html
Frank Yaeger - DFSORT Team (IBM) - yae...@us.ibm.com
Specialties: ICETOOL, OUTFIL, Symbols, Migration
=> DFSORT/MVS is on the Web at http://www.ibm.com/storage/dfsort
Robert Graham
Lots of mainframe shops don't like people going on the
internet for any reason, even to do research, or get e-mail.
They seem to still measure productivity based upon how
many lines of code you enter per day, rather than how well
the program works.
docd...@panix.com
Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
>As two someone else's pointed out, lots can be done with
>DFSORT and SyncSort - you just have to know how, and lots of
>places seem to shred all manuals except one set kept in the
>systems programmer's locked closet. I've used both for one
>shot file fixes and had good results. If you are going to
>use "USING/GIVING" you might as well use an external sort as
>it is just a couple of JCL lines as opposed to having to
>write all the COBOL code. The only real reason not to use
>external is to change the file in some way that not possible
>(or at least EASY) in an external sort.
Well... I've seen what I would call 'incredibly complex and intricate'
DFSORT and SyncSort jobs and in keeping with the 'two-year programmer'
rule for maintenance I try to avoid doing such things. If it requires
more than an OMIT/INCLUDE and a SUM FIELDS I'll do an extractive sort step
and follow it with a COBOL program that does the 'heavy lifting'.
DD
docd...@panix.com
Frank Yaeger <fya...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Graham wrote:
>
>> As two someone else's pointed out, lots can be done with DFSORT and
>> SyncSort - you just have to know how, and lots of places seem to shred
>> all manuals except one set kept in the systems programmer's locked
>> closet.
>
>
>This isn't a problem for DFSORT, because all of the manuals are
>available online. You can access them from:
>
>http://www.storage.ibm.com/software/sort/mvs/srtmpub.html
Thanks for the URL... but I've worked in shops where
consultants/contractors/hired guns were not allowed to have Web access.
(In one of them it was a bit... difficult, as timesheets were maintained
on a website; when I pointed this out I was told to 'use someone else's
signon'.)
DD
Howard Brazee
On 13-Jan-2003, docd...@panix.com wrote:
> Well... I've seen what I would call 'incredibly complex and intricate'
> DFSORT and SyncSort jobs and in keeping with the 'two-year programmer'
> rule for maintenance I try to avoid doing such things. If it requires
> more than an OMIT/INCLUDE and a SUM FIELDS I'll do an extractive sort step
> and follow it with a COBOL program that does the 'heavy lifting'.
Or if I can't comment each command with a couple of words to the right.
With people using different languages the displacement/position problem occurs -
so I like typing in the name of each field that I reference.
e.g.
SORT FIELDS=(01,09,CH,A) STUDENT ID
SUM FIELDS=NONE ELIMINATE DUPLICATES
DEBUG ABEND ABORT IF ERRORS
RECORD TYPE=F,LENGTH=80 CONTINUE WITH EMPTY INPUT FILE
END
Frank Yaeger
>With people using different languages the displacement/position problem occurs -
>so I like typing in the name of each field that I reference.
>
>e.g.
>SORT FIELDS=(01,09,CH,A) STUDENT ID
>SUM FIELDS=NONE ELIMINATE DUPLICATES
>DEBUG ABEND ABORT IF ERRORS
>RECORD TYPE=F,LENGTH=80 CONTINUE WITH EMPTY INPUT FILE
>END
>
>
DFSORT allows the use of Symbols for fields and constants in DFSORT and
ICETOOL statements, so you could use them for "doc" if you like, e.g.
//SYMNAMES DD *
Student_Id,1,9,CH
//SYSIN DD *
SORT FIELDS=(Student_Id,A)
/*
DFSORT also allows full line comments (* comment) and blanks before or
after each statement, and remarks (like you show above) on each
statement. So you can get pretty descriptive.
For more information on DFSORT Symbols, see:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/ICECA109/7.0?DT=20020722140254
For a tool to convert COBOL COPYs to DFSORT symbols, see:
http://taz.vv.sebank.se/cgi-bin/pts3/pow/kampanjer/it_partner/
--
Frank Yaeger - DFSORT Team
Specialties: ICETOOL, OUTFIL, Symbols, Migration
=> DFSORT/MVS is on the WWW at http://www.ibm.com/storage/dfsort/
Frank Yaeger
Robert Graham wrote:
>
> Frank Yaeger wrote:
>
> Lots of mainframe shops don't like people going on the internet for
> any reason, even to do research, or get e-mail. They seem to still
> measure productivity based upon how many lines of code you enter per
> day, rather than how well the program works.
>
Yes, I imagine that's true, but I posted the URL for the DFSORT books on
THIS list and presumably somebody who is reading this list has access to
the internet (at least at home if not at work). At any rate, the
DFSORT books are available online for those who CAN access them.
Others can obtain hardcopies of the DFSORT books just as they can obtain
hardcopies of COBOL books. Not sure why one would be more of a
problem then another in that kind of shop.
--
Frank Yaeger - DFSORT Team
Specialties: ICETOOL, OUTFIL, Symbols, Migration
=> DFSORT/MVS is on the WWW at http://www.ibm.com/storage/dfsort/
Frank Yaeger
Frank Yaeger wrote:
>
>
> Robert Graham wrote:
>
>>
>> Frank Yaeger wrote:
>>
>> Lots of mainframe shops don't like people going on the internet for
>> any reason, even to do research, or get e-mail. They seem to still
>> measure productivity based upon how many lines of code you enter per
>> day, rather than how well the program works.
>>
> Yes, I imagine that's true, but I posted the URL for the DFSORT books
> on THIS list and presumably somebody who is reading this list has
> access to the internet (at least at home if not at work). At any
> rate, the DFSORT books are available online for those who CAN access
> them. Others can obtain hardcopies of the DFSORT books just as they
> can obtain hardcopies of COBOL books. Not sure why one would be
> more of a problem then another in that kind of shop.
>
I should also mention that the DFSORT books are included on the z/OS
CDs, so that's another way to access them for people who aren't allowed
to access the Internet.
William M. Klein
A couple of points:
1) COBOL uses "native" SORT for I/O when FASTSRT is specified, if *either*
the USING or GIVING phrase is specified. Therefore, if you have
USING ... OUTPUT PROCEDURE
or
INPUT PROCEDURE ... GIVING
then SORT will do the I/O for one - but not both of the phases (similar to
using either an E15 or an E35 exit - but not both)
2) The other "advantage" of using a COBOL internal SORT (with FASTSRT
specified and both USING/GIVING) is if the "program logic" does "common"
things both before *and* after the actual SORT. Although you (the
programmer) *COULD* break this up into 3 steps Program-Logic-1 then SORT
then Program-Logic-2, if the actual "code" has common logic in the before
and after sections, (which often happens) then keeping to an internal SORT
allows for "performed" common procedure - without having to maintain it in 2
different programs. (Obviously, this "assumes" that although there is SOME
common logic, not ALL the logic is identical in the "before" and "after"
portions of the application.
***
My *guess* is that this isn't REAL common - but I would also guess that
almost every "large" system has at least one example of this type of
situation.
Bottom-Line (as stated before):
I don't think that the original question has ANY "hard and fast" answer -
but there are things that can be considered "if all else is equal".
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:bkd52vgbpenveqd8v...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jan 2003 12:32:26 -0800 jacks...@hotmail.com (Jack Sleight)
wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I fail to see a case where doing a SORT USING/GIVING would gain anything
over
> an external sort.
<much more snippage>
>
Doug Scott
Doug Scott
> on a website; when I pointed this out I was told to 'use someone else's
> signon'.)
ROFL!
I'm at a site where they wouldn't let a contractor work from home, but
quite happily allow software house staff they've never met log in from
India and do overnight support.
It only takes a few hours the next day to sort out the mess.
---
Doug
docd...@panix.com
Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>> (In one of them it was a bit... difficult, as timesheets were maintained
>> on a website; when I pointed this out I was told to 'use someone else's
>> signon'.)
>
>ROFL!
>
>I'm at a site where they wouldn't let a contractor work from home, but
>quite happily allow software house staff they've never met log in from
>India and do overnight support.
Actually that makes *perfect* sense... you see, the contractor is paid an
hourly rate and there's no way to manage him directly to make sure that
he's not cheating the company ('manage' here being used in the crudest
Industrial Era eyes-on sense of counting noses/assholes/keystrokes) while
the Indian company is paid a fixed rate so it doesn't matter whether they
do their jobs or not.
>
>It only takes a few hours the next day to sort out the mess.
Keeps some folks employed, aye.
DD
Doug Scott
> Industrial Era eyes-on sense of counting noses/assholes/keystrokes)
I always thought telecommuting wouldn't take off for that reason. But I
was wrong - many managers work from home at the drop of a hat, but
nobody else can.
---
Doug
docd...@panix.com
I don't know about 'many'... it has been my experience that frequently a
manager will be more 'hands-on' than I would deem necessary - after all,
there must be a Very Good Reason for stopping by my cube every 42 minutes
and breezily asking 'So... how's it going?' - in order to give...
*someone* the impression that whatever-it-is-that-they-do is Most
Valuable, Indeed.
DD
Robert Graham
Isn't that style of management based upon a book by Tom
Peters (I think he wrote it) "The Search for Excellence"
where he suggests that "management by walking about" is how
it people should be "managed".
I also stand in wonder not just at the help desk people
located in India who can telecommute, but also the flavor of
the week web/internet people - the ones who have two weeks
experience in developing web sites. With over twenty years
of programming experience, you'd think I could be out of
their sight for a day or two and still be productive without
their constant "input".
docd...@panix.com
Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <VA.0000001...@nildram.co.uk>,
>> Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>('manage' here being used in the crudest
>>>>Industrial Era eyes-on sense of counting noses/assholes/keystrokes)
>>>
>>>I always thought telecommuting wouldn't take off for that reason. But I
>>>was wrong - many managers work from home at the drop of a hat, but
>>>nobody else can.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about 'many'... it has been my experience that frequently a
>> manager will be more 'hands-on' than I would deem necessary - after all,
>> there must be a Very Good Reason for stopping by my cube every 42 minutes
>> and breezily asking 'So... how's it going?' - in order to give...
>> *someone* the impression that whatever-it-is-that-they-do is Most
>> Valuable, Indeed.
>>
>
>Peters (I think he wrote it) "The Search for Excellence"
>where he suggests that "management by walking about" is how
>it people should be "managed".
Well, there should be moderation in all things... including moderation, of
course. A manager who stays far removed from the actual work being done
will miss out on a good bit of the 'what is going on' that is part of
getting work done since part of diagnosing a difficulty is a 'getting the
smell of' the situation; a manager who is so close underfoot that people
trip over her will impede progress.
>
>I also stand in wonder not just at the help desk people
>located in India who can telecommute, but also the flavor of
>the week web/internet people - the ones who have two weeks
>experience in developing web sites. With over twenty years
>of programming experience, you'd think I could be out of
>their sight for a day or two and still be productive without
>their constant "input".
Pfoo... *you* can't know anything of value; if you did then *you'd* be a
manager.
DD
Howard Brazee
On 14-Jan-2003, docd...@panix.com wrote:
> Pfoo... *you* can't know anything of value; if you did then *you'd* be a
> manager.
It's irritating when you are recognized for your skill and get offered the
ultimate reward - a chance to become one of them.
docd...@panix.com
That is a behavior which seems to be manifested by most human groups; the
ultimate compliment is to become One Of Us. ('We', of course, are 'The
Human Beings'.) In the case in question (technical to management) it may
also be an unspoken acknowledgement of one of the laws from the Book of
Leviticus... the one that says 'Thou shalt not pay a good programmer more
than a bad manager.'
In my own case it gets kind of sad... but perhaps that deserves another
thread, entire, one dealing with 'What happens (at a variety of levels)
when an offer is made to a consultant/contractor/hired gun to become a
full-time employee?'
DD
Don Leahy
"Howard Brazee" <howard...@cusys.edu> wrote in message
news:b019ts$kt1$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
My advice is: Run.... run as fast as you can!
I accepted such a 'reward' once (at the time it was the only way to move up
the $ ladder) and regretted it. I had to leave the company and become a
consultant in order to get my sanity back (such as it is).
Robert Graham
I believe it was Groucho Marx that said "I wouldn't join any
club that would have me as a member." The same goes for me
regarding a company that operates on a "direct to hire" basis.
Doug Scott
> and breezily asking 'So... how's it going?'
Hmmm. ADH is a good reason.
> Most Valuable, Indeed.
Communication. Progress Monitoring.
From the "Little Book of Management Bollocks":-
Willing
Able
Neat
Knowledgable
Enthusiastic
Resourceful
A good acronym.
---
Doug
Doug Scott
> With over twenty years
> of programming experience, you'd think I could be out of
> their sight for a day or two and still be productive without
> their constant "input".
Sigh. You just don't understand. In the Internet world, a week is a
year. (That's how long it takes to clean it up).
---
Doug
Doug Scott
> when an offer is made to a consultant/contractor/hired gun to become a
> full-time employee?'
To an extent it depends on your age. But most independents I know simply
cannot work as employees - it's too constricting.
A mate of mine did it. He'd been contracting there for years, and they
offered to take him on board. He said from the moment he joined permanent
staff, their attitude towards him changed. No longer a contractor, they
felt they could treat him like dirt (jeez, he thought he was already
treated like dirt, but this was different). Rules and regulations became
his guiding principles rather than getting a job done, and nobody
expected anything else.
He lasted two years, resigned, and went back contracting with the same
company.
---
Doug
docd...@panix.com
>> when an offer is made to a consultant/contractor/hired gun to become a
>> full-time employee?'
>
>To an extent it depends on your age. But most independents I know simply
>cannot work as employees - it's too constricting.
'Oh, you are such a wonderful, task-oriented, technically-sophisticated
programming Free Spirit... how would you like to be enchained into a
structure inimical to all you hold dear?'
'Well, I'm *always* willing to consider an offer... how much are you
offering?'
'How much? This is not a matter of Mere Money, it is one of Lifestyle and
Philosophical Change!'
'I see... and what are these driving Changes?'
'We want to Change into a company that pays less money for your services.'
>
>A mate of mine did it. He'd been contracting there for years, and they
>offered to take him on board. He said from the moment he joined permanent
>staff, their attitude towards him changed. No longer a contractor, they
>felt they could treat him like dirt (jeez, he thought he was already
>treated like dirt, but this was different). Rules and regulations became
>his guiding principles rather than getting a job done, and nobody
>expected anything else.
>
>He lasted two years, resigned, and went back contracting with the same
>company.
That last part is *very* surprising; usually it is said that when you
leave Paradise (and many organisations, no matter how 'sick', consider
themselves to be Paradise) the gates clang behind you, permanently closed.
He must have had some very unusual skills or idiosyncratic knowledge.
DD
docd...@panix.com
I have seen such contracts (commonly referred to as 'try before you buy',
or 'try/buy') and two things have struck me as odd about them:
1) The rate for contracting during the 'try' period is usually a fair
amount higher - even accounting for benefits and such - than it is for
salaried. For example: the contracting rate (W2, or agency-employee) is
US$40 - US$45/hr and the fulltime salary is US$60,000/yr.
Now many folks will tell you that 'benefits' make up another 25 - 33% of
salary... to which, of course, I say 'Oh really... now show me the cost
breakdown of US$15,000 - US$20,000 worth of benefits given.'
'Well, there's Two Whole Weeks of vacation... after you work here for a
full year, that is.'
'I see... and there's every other week carrying a beeper for on-call
starting the day I show up. That's at most an even wash... what else?'
'Ummmmmm... there's insurance.'
'You mean the insurance that you want me to 'contribute' US$100/wk to or
else I won't get it? Fine, I'll keep my present policy, that's a wash...
what else?'
'Ummmmm... there's all the training we'll lavish upon you.'
'Oh really... I've been contracting here for a while, now, and the only
people I've seen go to training of any kind are folks who inhabit
offices... won't I be living on the cube-farm?'
'Ummmmm... yes.'
'Fine... on-call, pay for my own insurance, no training... what else?'
'Ummmmmm... well, being a full-time employee has security...'
... and let the curtain close, mercifully, on this scene.
2) So... the 'try' period is over and the client comes up and says 'All
right, we like you, next week you come on the payroll fulltime.' What
prevents you from saying 'I don't want to do that... catch you later'?
DD
docd...@panix.com
>> and breezily asking 'So... how's it going?'
>
>Hmmm. ADH is a good reason.
What did you say? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.
>
>> Most Valuable, Indeed.
>
>Communication. Progress Monitoring.
I communicated that it was interfering with my progress, aye.
DD
Paul Raulerson
I basically get them the jobs, work out the details, arrange for them to
(mostly) work at home, get the requirements ironed out, and then I take a small, a *very* small cut of the hourly fee. It is
rewarding and a lot of fun to do that, but then I pay my mortgage out of salary. :)
Especially since every once in a while (about once a week) some client will be a slow pay. I cover the guys who need it, and charge
late fees to clients who do not pay, but still and all...
It seems I have never been able to get a work from home consulting gig that did not involve a continual nuisance of getting paid,
something that makes me very uncomfortable... :/
-Paul
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:b02k23$489$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Donald Tees
>
> It seems I have never been able to get a work from home consulting gig that did not involve a continual nuisance of getting paid,
> something that makes me very uncomfortable... :/
>
> -Paul
Aye, there's the rub.
Donald <--off spending the day on receivables.
Bob Wolfe
>
>
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <VA.0000001...@nildram.co.uk>,
>> Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>('manage' here being used in the crudest
>>>>Industrial Era eyes-on sense of counting noses/assholes/keystrokes)
>>>
>>>I always thought telecommuting wouldn't take off for that reason. But I
>>>was wrong - many managers work from home at the drop of a hat, but
>>>nobody else can.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about 'many'... it has been my experience that frequently a
>> manager will be more 'hands-on' than I would deem necessary - after all,
>> there must be a Very Good Reason for stopping by my cube every 42 minutes
>> and breezily asking 'So... how's it going?' - in order to give...
>> *someone* the impression that whatever-it-is-that-they-do is Most
>> Valuable, Indeed.
>>
>> DD
>>
>
>Isn't that style of management based upon a book by Tom
>Peters (I think he wrote it) "The Search for Excellence"
>where he suggests that "management by walking about" is how
>it people should be "managed".
Robert:
The book is "In Search of Excellence" and you are correct that it was
written by Tom Peters. A few years ago, it was the bible for MBA's.
>I also stand in wonder not just at the help desk people
>located in India who can telecommute, but also the flavor of
>the week web/internet people - the ones who have two weeks
>experience in developing web sites. With over twenty years
>of programming experience, you'd think I could be out of
>their sight for a day or two and still be productive without
>their constant "input".
Bob Wolfe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When replying by e-mail, make sure that you correct the e-mail address.
Check out The Flexus COBOL Page at http://www.flexus.com
docd...@panix.com
Bob Wolfe <rtwolfe.r...@flexus.com> wrote:
>Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>Isn't that style of management based upon a book by Tom
>>Peters (I think he wrote it) "The Search for Excellence"
>>where he suggests that "management by walking about" is how
>>it people should be "managed".
>
>Robert:
>
>The book is "In Search of Excellence" and you are correct that it was
>written by Tom Peters. A few years ago, it was the bible for MBA's.
'A few years ago'? Time sure flies when you're having fun... it came out
in 1988.
DD
Howard Brazee
more hours, but my pension is much better. I value the pension a lot. I also
like living close to my work.
Doug Scott
:-) That sound right.
> That last part is *very* surprising; usually it is said that when you
> leave Paradise (and many organisations, no matter how 'sick', consider
> themselves to be Paradise) the gates clang behind you, permanently closed.
Come to think of it, he might just have joined a competitor.
> He must have had some very unusual skills or idiosyncratic knowledge.
He's in Switzerland, and he's got the ideal marriage - she's an agent. It's
small enough that she probably knows every company he could work for. Does
that count as idiosyncratic knowledge?
---
Doug
Doug Scott
> >> and breezily asking 'So... how's it going?'
> >
> >Hmmm. ADH is a good reason.
>
> What did you say? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.
So how's it going?
> I communicated that it was interfering with my progress, aye.
Still, apart from that, how's it going? ;-)
There's a TV show in the UK called The Office. It only ran for three series,
and stopped. I never watched more than ten minutes of any episode, because it
was so gut-wrenchingly real. It was a comedy, but it was like Dilbert with the
incompetents as the heroes, and only the camera (and the viewer) knew what the
real truth was.
I can't recommend it (because of the above), but I can say it's the real truth
- and they were poking fun at the whole thing.
---
Doug
docd...@panix.com
>
>:-) That sound right.
Usually does... it is Entirely Permissible for a company to make a
decision based on the Merely Financial - just Good Business, you know -
and Utterly Unforgiveable for an employee/contractor to do the same.
>
>> That last part is *very* surprising; usually it is said that when you
>> leave Paradise (and many organisations, no matter how 'sick', consider
>> themselves to be Paradise) the gates clang behind you, permanently closed.
>
>Come to think of it, he might just have joined a competitor.
That makes more sense, aye.
>
>> He must have had some very unusual skills or idiosyncratic knowledge.
>
>He's in Switzerland, and he's got the ideal marriage - she's an agent. It's
>small enough that she probably knows every company he could work for. Does
>that count as idiosyncratic knowledge?
How he 'knows' his wife is no concern of mine, thanks.
DD
docd...@panix.com
>> >> and breezily asking 'So... how's it going?'
>> >
>> >Hmmm. ADH is a good reason.
>>
>> What did you say? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.
>
>So how's it going?
Same as it went the last time you asked, only 42 minutes later.
>
>> I communicated that it was interfering with my progress, aye.
>
>Still, apart from that, how's it going? ;-)
Same as it went the first time you asked, only an hour and twenty-four
minutes later.
DD
Doug Scott
> decision based on the Merely Financial - just Good Business, you know -
> and Utterly Unforgiveable for an employee/contractor to do the same.
You noticed that too? Well, of course, it just shows that you don't have
their interests at heart, and therefore a Bad Supplier.
---
Doug
Doug Scott
> minutes later.
Hmm I left you alone for an hour and 24 minutes, and nothing's changed!??
[Thinks: Must keep a closer watch]
---
Doug
docd...@panix.com
It is not in the company's best interests to have someone working on
sensitive systems who feels cheated or underpaid... so I do my meager best
to avoid allowing this to happen.
DD
docd...@panix.com
Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>> Same as it went the first time you asked, only an hour and twenty-four
>> minutes later.
>
>Hmm I left you alone for an hour and 24 minutes, and nothing's changed!??
No... now please go away and let me Do My Job.
>
>[Thinks: Must keep a closer watch]
I do not see how it would change the task at hand if you kept it so tight
that your fingers turned purple and fell off... now please go away and let
me Do My Job.
DD
Bob Wolfe
Doc:
Please forgive me for my lack of precision. I should have said that
it was the bible for MBA's for a few years after it was published.
docd...@panix.com
Bob Wolfe <rtwolfe.r...@flexus.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <f2qa2v87fbmg2hkch...@4ax.com>,
>>Bob Wolfe <rtwolfe.r...@flexus.com> wrote:
[snippimente]
>>>The book is "In Search of Excellence" and you are correct that it was
>>>written by Tom Peters. A few years ago, it was the bible for MBA's.
>>
>>'A few years ago'? Time sure flies when you're having fun... it came out
>>in 1988.
>>
>
>Doc:
>
>Please forgive me for my lack of precision. I should have said that
>it was the bible for MBA's for a few years after it was published.
Not to worry, old boy... it is a symptom of Getting Older. I knew a
fellow who was hospitalised for an injury during World War II... and then
in the mid-1980s underwent a hip replacement. I visited him while he was
recovering and he complained about the fuzziness that was induced by the
narcotics they were giving him for the pain; when I pointed out that they
were jolting him with a fair amount of dope we had the following
interchange:
'Well... yeah, they're giving me some drugs... but they didn't used to
affect me this way.'
(snort and giggle) 'Old Man, when was 'used to'?'
'Oh... forty years ago.'
DD
Doug Scott
> sensitive systems who feels cheated or underpaid... so I do my meager best
> to avoid allowing this to happen.
>
brief period of aggragvation, because when I'm working I don't want to have
to worry about money. That same argument works when arguing about late
payments as well.
---
Doug
Doug Scott
> that your fingers turned purple and fell off... now please go away and let
> me Do My Job.
Geez, that guy over there has a real hangup about progress monitoring. I';m
not sure if we can handle a guy with an attitude like that.
---
Doug
Binyamin Dissen
:>In article <VA.0000002...@nildram.co.uk>,
:>Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
As seen in "Jurassic Park"?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Clark F. Morris, Jr.
chargeable. These days there normally is a machine readable version of
the manual.
In the IBM mainframe world and I suspect the same is true of other
mainframe platforms, the internal sort would probably be more
inefficient due to real (as opposed to virtual) memory constraints.
This is because of the amount of memory taken by the program. With the
large amount of real memory available in most environments as well as
the large virtual spaces, this becomes irrelevant in most situations. I
would still CLOSE all files OPENED in an INPUT or OUTPUT PROCEDURE in
the respective procedure and not have any files open over the execution
of the SORT other than files used by the INPUT or OUTPUT procedure. In
this case as in so many others, hardware advances have made a difference
in what good practice can be. My personal preference is to use internal
sorts when they make sense. They certainly are more self documenting
than SORT FIELDS=(131,4,PD,A,5,4,CH,A) and INCLUDE
FIELDS=(8,4,CH,EQ,C'BLOB')
Robert Graham wrote:
>
> Doug Scott wrote:
> > JerryMouse,
> >
> >
> >>With an internal sort you can control WHAT sub-set gets sorted.
> >
> >
> > Well, most sorts give you selection criteria so that's not usually a
> > show-stopper.
> >
> >
> >>Related topic:
> >>One of the rules (attributed to Moses, but the file was truncated after ten
> >>records): "Thou shalt not sort the master file."
> >
> >
> > Scott's maintenance corollary:
> >
> > "The master file shall always be sortable."
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > dws...@ieee.org
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps he intended to say "The shalt not sort the master
> file AND REWRITE IT" . One should be able to sort anything
> he darn well pleases.
>
> As two someone else's pointed out, lots can be done with
> DFSORT and SyncSort - you just have to know how, and lots of
> places seem to shred all manuals except one set kept in the
> systems programmer's locked closet. I've used both for one
> shot file fixes and had good results. If you are going to
> use "USING/GIVING" you might as well use an external sort as
> it is just a couple of JCL lines as opposed to having to
> write all the COBOL code. The only real reason not to use
> external is to change the file in some way that not possible
> (or at least EASY) in an external sort.
docd...@panix.com
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 15 Jan 2003 22:24:14 -0500 docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>:>In article <VA.0000002...@nildram.co.uk>,
>:>Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:>>> Usually does... it is Entirely Permissible for a company to make a
>:>>> decision based on the Merely Financial - just Good Business, you know -
>:>>> and Utterly Unforgiveable for an employee/contractor to do the same.
>
>:>>You noticed that too? Well, of course, it just shows that you don't have
>:>>their interests at heart, and therefore a Bad Supplier.
>
>:>It is not in the company's best interests to have someone working on
>:>sensitive systems who feels cheated or underpaid... so I do my meager best
>:>to avoid allowing this to happen.
>
>As seen in "Jurassic Park"?
As seen in many places at many times by a variety of folks.
DD
docd...@panix.com
If my attitude is all that you have to be concerned about then my Work
must be very good... now please go away and let me Do My Job.
DD
Robert Graham
You know, if you want us to just go away so you can just do
your job, all you have to do is say so.
docd...@panix.com
Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <VA.0000002...@nildram.co.uk>,
>> Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>I do not see how it would change the task at hand if you kept it so tight
>>>>that your fingers turned purple and fell off... now please go away and let
>>>>me Do My Job.
>>>
>>>Geez, that guy over there has a real hangup about progress monitoring. I';m
>>>not sure if we can handle a guy with an attitude like that.
>>
>>
>> If my attitude is all that you have to be concerned about then my Work
>> must be very good... now please go away and let me Do My Job.
>>
>
>your job, all you have to do is say so.
Good... consider this my saying so. Now please go away and let me Do My
Job.
DD
Robert Graham
Considering the number of posts with your name on them, one
would suspect that your job is POSTING to these groups. :)
Howard Brazee
On 16-Jan-2003, docd...@panix.com wrote:
> >> If my attitude is all that you have to be concerned about then my Work
> >> must be very good... now please go away and let me Do My Job.
> >>
> >
> >You know, if you want us to just go away so you can just do
> >your job, all you have to do is say so.
>
> Good... consider this my saying so. Now please go away and let me Do My
OK, I'm stepping away so that you can Do Your Job.
....
Why did you Do Your Job that way? Shouldn't you have done it This Way? It's
hard supervising from behind your back. Maybe you should accept a promotion so
that you can supervise as well, instead of insulting us by preferring to
accomplish stuff.
docd...@panix.com
Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <3E276847...@nycap.rr.com>,
>> Robert Graham <rgra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You know, if you want us to just go away so you can just do
>>>your job, all you have to do is say so.
>>
>>
>> Good... consider this my saying so. Now please go away and let me Do My
>> Job.
>>
>> DD
>>
>
>Considering the number of posts with your name on them, one
>would suspect that your job is POSTING to these groups. :)
Suspicions are curious things, indeed... and those who sign my timesheets
appear to be rather satisfied with how I do my job, aye.
DD
docd...@panix.com
Howard Brazee <howard...@cusys.edu> wrote:
>
>On 16-Jan-2003, docd...@panix.com wrote:
>
>> >> If my attitude is all that you have to be concerned about then my Work
>> >> must be very good... now please go away and let me Do My Job.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You know, if you want us to just go away so you can just do
>> >your job, all you have to do is say so.
>>
>> Good... consider this my saying so. Now please go away and let me Do My
>
>OK, I'm stepping away so that you can Do Your Job.
>....
>
>Why did you Do Your Job that way?
Because it seemed to be a good idea at the time.
>Shouldn't you have done it This Way?
No.
>It's
>hard supervising from behind your back.
If it were easy than *anyone* could do it; since not anyone can do it then
it is *your* job.
>Maybe you should accept a promotion so
>that you can supervise as well, instead of insulting us by preferring to
>accomplish stuff.
If someone of sufficient authority asks me out for a meal I just *might*
have an appetite.
DD
SkippyPB
But probably not with the same consequences as witnessed in "Jurassic
Park".
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
A conference is a gathering of important people who singly
can do nothing, but together can decide that nothing can
be done. - Fred Allen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
docd...@panix.com
SkippyPB <swie...@NOSPAM.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>On 16 Jan 2003 21:02:01 -0500, docd...@panix.com enlightened us:
>
>>In article <fh9e2v8lbvn09qo48...@4ax.com>,
>>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>>>On 15 Jan 2003 22:24:14 -0500 docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>:>In article <VA.0000002...@nildram.co.uk>,
>>>:>Doug Scott <dws...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>:>>> Usually does... it is Entirely Permissible for a company to make a
>>>:>>> decision based on the Merely Financial - just Good Business, you know -
>>>:>>> and Utterly Unforgiveable for an employee/contractor to do the same.
>>>
>>>:>>You noticed that too? Well, of course, it just shows that you don't have
>>>:>>their interests at heart, and therefore a Bad Supplier.
>>>
>>>:>It is not in the company's best interests to have someone working on
>>>:>sensitive systems who feels cheated or underpaid... so I do my meager best
>>>:>to avoid allowing this to happen.
>>>
>>>As seen in "Jurassic Park"?
>>
>>As seen in many places at many times by a variety of folks.
>>
>>DD
>
>But probably not with the same consequences as witnessed in "Jurassic
>Park".
Perhaps... I can barely speak of the consequences of what I have seen, let
alone others.
DD
Harald Hinz
> Well... I've seen what I would call 'incredibly complex and intricate'
> DFSORT and SyncSort jobs and in keeping with the 'two-year programmer'
> rule for maintenance I try to avoid doing such things. If it requires
> more than an OMIT/INCLUDE and a SUM FIELDS I'll do an extractive sort step
> and follow it with a COBOL program that does the 'heavy lifting'.
Ack. In 20 years in MVS environment I had only one exception to this. I had
to fix a 7 year old production job doing silly things an a mission critical
path every day. It was obvious, that the input file had to be sorted before
calling the program, but....
JCL: available
LoadModule: available
COBOl source: you're kidd'n (lost somewhere)
Former sort pre-step: dunno....
Input file: long, very long, incredibly long and sorted 'very special'
documentation: see->documentation
It's 17 years ago but I still remember the job's name: X55110T
I never made it run - and, like others, found it easier to redesign the whole
process from scratch.
--
ttfn Harald http://www.hinznet.de mailto:har...@hinznet.de
Mails without any valid 'To:' will be deleted by mailfilter before polling.
docd...@panix.com
Harald Hinz <haral...@ewetel.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com schrieb in news:avuvon$608$1...@panix1.panix.com:
>
>> Well... I've seen what I would call 'incredibly complex and intricate'
>> DFSORT and SyncSort jobs and in keeping with the 'two-year programmer'
>> rule for maintenance I try to avoid doing such things. If it requires
>> more than an OMIT/INCLUDE and a SUM FIELDS I'll do an extractive sort step
>> and follow it with a COBOL program that does the 'heavy lifting'.
>
>Ack. In 20 years in MVS environment I had only one exception to this. I had
>to fix a 7 year old production job doing silly things an a mission critical
>path every day.
It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
On the other hand... never believe anything you read on UseNet, including
this statement.
DD
Alistair Maclean
>It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
If you follow Bertrand Russell's criticisms of set logic then your
statement that
>'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>true
axiomatic truth.
I think that is two nil to me so far.
--
Alistair Maclean
For Entropy is a harsh mistress.
- Stanislaw Lem
Rick Smith
Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fac2PBw...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk...
> In article <b0bspq$2jf$1...@panix2.panix.com>, docd...@panix.com writes
> >It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
> >true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
> >DD
> If you follow Bertrand Russell's criticisms of set logic then your
> statement that
> >'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
> >true
> must, itself, have an exception which violates the self evident
> axiomatic truth.
I think ths may be explained in terms of knowledge; that is,
the known versus the unknown.
When we describe a 'situation' we use the known. The 'exception'
is the unknown.
Once the formerly unknown is incorporated into the 'situation'
(the known), The 'exception' remains the unknown. There is
no violation!
'All crows are black.' until someone finds a crow that is white.
'Most crows are black. Some are white.' until someone finds
a crow that is green.
'Most crows are black. Some are white or green.' until someone
finds a crow that is ....
Rick Smith
Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fac2PBw...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk...
> >It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
> >true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
> >DD
> If you follow Bertrand Russell's criticisms of set logic then your
> statement that
> >'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
> >true
> must, itself, have an exception which violates the self evident
> axiomatic truth.
>
> I think that is two nil to me so far.
In my earlier response, I mistook exception to statement as
exception to exception. I then recalled "Russell's paradox."
Russell provided an answer. I quote Antony Flew, "A Dictionary
of Philosophy";
"Russell's solution to the paradox was to say that self-refering
statements are without meaning, and in particular, to speak of
'all statements' is meaningless. Instead we must speak of sets
of statements that form a genuine totality. A statement refering
to other statements must, Russell says, be of a different type
from, a higher order than, the statements it is about. So we
must say that the class of all first order classes which are not
members of themselves is a second order class, and hence it
will be 'obvious nonsense' to say of a class either that it is or
that it isn't a member of itself. Thus the paradox disappears."
docd...@panix.com
Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <b0bspq$2jf$1...@panix2.panix.com>, docd...@panix.com writes
>>It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>>true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
>>DD
>If you follow Bertrand Russell's criticisms of set logic then your
>statement that
>>'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>>true
>must, itself, have an exception which violates the self evident
>axiomatic truth.
If you read the sentence in its entirety you might see that not only
is 'every situation has an exception' is not 'my' statement - in that
it is labelled, clearly and unambiguously, as something which 'has been
said' - but you could learn that its purported inviolable veracity is of
the same fashion - 'just as' - as another statement.
>
>I think that is two nil to me so far.
It may be that you would wish to reconsider this conclusion in light of
what has just been pointed out to you.
DD
docd...@panix.com
Rick Smith <rick...@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1fac2PBw...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b0bspq$2jf$1...@panix2.panix.com>, docd...@panix.com writes
>> >It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>> >true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
>> >DD
>> If you follow Bertrand Russell's criticisms of set logic then your
>> statement that
>> >'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>> >true
>> must, itself, have an exception which violates the self evident
>> axiomatic truth.
>
>I think ths may be explained in terms of knowledge; that is,
>the known versus the unknown.
... or it might be that someone has a bit of difficulty seeing what should
be the readily obvious absurdity and contradiction of '... 'all things are
docd...@panix.com
Rick Smith <rick...@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>Alistair Maclean <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1fac2PBw...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b0bspq$2jf$1...@panix2.panix.com>, docd...@panix.com writes
>> >It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>> >true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
>> >DD
>> If you follow Bertrand Russell's criticisms of set logic then your
>> statement that
>> >'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>> >true
>> must, itself, have an exception which violates the self evident
>> axiomatic truth.
>>
>> I think that is two nil to me so far.
>
>In my earlier response, I mistook exception to statement as
>exception to exception. I then recalled "Russell's paradox."
>
>Russell provided an answer. I quote Antony Flew, "A Dictionary
>of Philosophy";
>
>"Russell's solution to the paradox was to say that self-refering
>statements are without meaning, and in particular, to speak of
>'all statements' is meaningless.
In other words... Russell seems to have said 'If my system cannot account
for it then it must have no meaning'.
This may be a reason why Wittgenstein tended to refer to 'meaning' as the
result of 'interpretation', rather than something standing, distinct and
alone, and of which a circumstance 'partook' as things did of the Socratic
Forms (that which is 'good' is such because it partakes of the
Form/Essence/Gr. 'eidos' of The Good.)
DD
Peter E.C. Dashwood
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:b0bspq$2jf$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <jteb0b...@news.hinznet.home>,
>
> It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
> true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
>
> On the other hand... never believe anything you read on UseNet, including
> this statement.
>
Very sound advice, Doc <G> (And the subtlety of your first paragraph was not
lost on me...<G>)
I saw the extensions of this into Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein later in
the thread and marvelled at the powerful minds who are happy to come to CLC
for a little diversion...<G>.
In passing, I wanted to mention (for those lesser mortals who may not have
philosophical references on their bookcases) that the people who say "Oh,
that's the exception that proves the rule..." should be slapped around the
face with a wet fish.
For the benefit of these deluded souls, the verb "to prove" has an original
and much earlier meaning than the one we use today. It originally meant "to
test". Hence, "proof" was the accumulated evidence from a test.
Obviously, if a rule has exceptions, then it needs modifying. It is totally
incorrect to state that the exceptions prove it is a correct rule (as I have
heard often in pub discussions...).
If the word "tests" is substituted for "proves", then the original meaning
of the statement "the exception that proves the rule" becomes clear.
I'm sure many here already knew that and would not use such a device for
argument, but there are some...<G>
Pete.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Rick Smith
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:b0d4ci$6fl$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Perhaps, I am missing something; but I see no great distinction
between these two. If a circumstance partakes of the essence
'meaningless', Wittgenstein might include the circumstance; but
be unable to do more with it. Russell would exclude the
circumstance because nothing more can be done with it.
This, of course, assumes that one's purpose is the analysis of
a circumstance.
I have not read either author, which may explain why I may be
missing something.
docd...@panix.com
Not quite... for Russell 'meaning' appears to exist outside of the
condition to which the term is applied while for Wittgenstein 'meaning'
exists only as the result of 'interpretation' (which is an activity).
What you posit as Russell's 'exclud(ing) the circumstance because nothimg
more can be done with it' then becomes, in Wittgenstein's view, Russell's
excluding because *Russell* can do nothing more with it.
>
>This, of course, assumes that one's purpose is the analysis of
>a circumstance.
>
>I have not read either author, which may explain why I may be
>missing something.
You've not read Wittgenstein? I envy your ability to go through his works
for the first time.
DD
docd...@panix.com
Peter E.C. Dashwood <dash...@nospam.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:b0bspq$2jf$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <jteb0b...@news.hinznet.home>,
>
>>
>> It has been said that 'every situation has an exception' is inviolably
>> true, just as 'all things are relative' is absolutely correct.
>>
>> On the other hand... never believe anything you read on UseNet, including
>> this statement.
>>
>Very sound advice, Doc <G> (And the subtlety of your first paragraph was not
>lost on me...<G>)
Gosh, you'se jes' easily amused.
>
>I saw the extensions of this into Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein later in
>the thread and marvelled at the powerful minds who are happy to come to CLC
>for a little diversion...<G>.
Powerful minds? Where? If it's not too much trouble I'd like an
introduction to them, please!
DD
Rick Smith
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:b0ec3f$6us$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Ok! [After reviewing Flew's entry on Wittgenstein.] Then, with
respect to the terms 'binary computer' and 'binary weapon'. For
Russell, the meanings might be 'a machine using two states as
its basis for operation' and 'a device using two chemicals as its
basis for operation'. For Wittgenstein, the meanings might be
'a facinating machine' and 'a dangerous device'.
And, for 'self-refering statements', Russell says 'meaningless'
while Wittgenstein might say 'someone is playing tricks with the
language'.
Is that about right?
> >
> >This, of course, assumes that one's purpose is the analysis of
> >a circumstance.
> >
> >I have not read either author, which may explain why I may be
> >missing something.
>
> You've not read Wittgenstein? I envy your ability to go through his works
> for the first time.
The only philosophy I have read in depth is Sartre's "Being
and Nothingness". I am concerned that one day I may actually
understand what Sartre is saying!
docd...@panix.com
These might be reasonable conclusions... but it might also be that a bit
more study than a reference to a secondary source could reveal that things
would be categorised in a less facile manner.
>
>And, for 'self-refering statements', Russell says 'meaningless'
>while Wittgenstein might say 'someone is playing tricks with the
>language'.
>
>Is that about right?
Ummmmm... a bit more study, as mentioned before. Consider the statement
of 'One part of this sentence is written in English und das zweite Teil
wird auf Deutsch geschrieben.'
(Wittgenstein also asked about where 'truth' is in the circumstance of a
parrot saying 'I don't understand a word that I'm saying'... but that
might be saved for later studies.)
>
>> >
>> >This, of course, assumes that one's purpose is the analysis of
>> >a circumstance.
>> >
>> >I have not read either author, which may explain why I may be
>> >missing something.
>>
>> You've not read Wittgenstein? I envy your ability to go through his works
>> for the first time.
>
>The only philosophy I have read in depth is Sartre's "Being
>and Nothingness". I am concerned that one day I may actually
>understand what Sartre is saying!
'Understanding' and another phenomenon, entire; Ol' Davey Hume wrote an
entire Critique about it. Consider a possible interchange with a Pouting
Adolescent:
'But you just don't *understand*!'
'I *do* understand... I just do not agree.'
'But... if you *understood* then you'd *have* to agree!'
DD
Rick Smith
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:b0elhn$k99$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Hmm! A bit more study in German!
> (Wittgenstein also asked about where 'truth' is in the circumstance of a
> parrot saying 'I don't understand a word that I'm saying'... but that
> might be saved for later studies.)
Hmm! A bit more study in parrotese! <g>
> >> >
> >> >This, of course, assumes that one's purpose is the analysis of
> >> >a circumstance.
> >> >
> >> >I have not read either author, which may explain why I may be
> >> >missing something.
> >>
> >> You've not read Wittgenstein? I envy your ability to go through his
works
> >> for the first time.
> >
> >The only philosophy I have read in depth is Sartre's "Being
> >and Nothingness". I am concerned that one day I may actually
> >understand what Sartre is saying!
>
> 'Understanding' and another phenomenon, entire; Ol' Davey Hume wrote an
> entire Critique about it. Consider a possible interchange with a Pouting
> Adolescent:
>
> 'But you just don't *understand*!'
>
> 'I *do* understand... I just do not agree.'
>
> 'But... if you *understood* then you'd *have* to agree!'
A reasonable conclusion from one point of view! <g>
I am in a similar situation in the role of the Pouting Adolescent.
The other party is a reluctant member of Congress.
With my first letter, I received a cordial response.
With my second letter, I received no response.
My third letter will go to an outside agency, with a 'cc' to
the member of Congress.
And, I am preparing for an 'end run' through Federal Court,
if necessary.
If a reluctant member of Congress won't agree, maybe an
impartial Federal judge will.
Doug Scott
> must be very good... now please go away and let me Do My Job.
:-) 100% for effort.
---
Doug
Robert Graham
"Allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and
fame." However, this powerful mind is much too busy for
trivial discussions on the writings of dead white
philosophers, even when reading them on a Sunday.
:)
Alistair Maclean
>
>In my earlier response, I mistook exception to statement as
>exception to exception. I then recalled "Russell's paradox."
>
>Russell provided an answer. I quote Antony Flew, "A Dictionary
>of Philosophy";
>
>"Russell's solution to the paradox was to say that self-refering
>statements are without meaning, and in particular, to speak of
>'all statements' is meaningless. Instead we must speak of sets
>of statements that form a genuine totality. A statement refering
>to other statements must, Russell says, be of a different type
>from, a higher order than, the statements it is about. So we
>must say that the class of all first order classes which are not
>members of themselves is a second order class, and hence it
>will be 'obvious nonsense' to say of a class either that it is or
>that it isn't a member of itself. Thus the paradox disappears."
>
universal model of chairs which must in turn refer to a universal model
of models. Or is that an explanation of object oriented programming?
BTW, I know that the model theory is no longer current.
Alistair Maclean
>You've not read Wittgenstein? I envy your ability to go through his works
>for the first time.
>
>DD
>
Alistair Maclean
The use of a smoking gun belonging to another does not absolve you of
the crime.
I did read the sentence in it's entirety and have re-read it several
times since. What is your case for denouncing that all things are
relative?