Ok..asking for an opinion..
Green
Just wanted to start a thread regarding Cobol.
Is anyone out there just doing Cobol programing? Or are you doing a mix
of other languages?
Are there plentyful cobol jobs, or just contract work?
What about cobol's future? I heard that cobol is a dying languge, being
phased out along with mainframes, any truth in that? I know servers are
the new thing...
Just a comment..I am impressed with all that you can do with cobol. It
seems that the language is ridgid, but being able to link with VB, C,
etc...still kinda makes it valuable..
Donald Tees
Green wrote in message <3687813B...@at.cbl>...
>Is anyone out there just doing Cobol programing? Or are you doing a mix
>of other languages?
I do just Cobol now, but used to mix languages much more. The
reason is that both the hardware and the software is now becoming
sophistocated enough to do that. In the past, there were a lot of
things you could not do without resorting to C or Assembler. That
tends not to be nearly as true any more. To give an example, I just
converted a slew of assembler serial I/O routines into Cobol.
>Are there plentyful cobol jobs, or just contract work?
Don't know, though I am told that 50% of all programming jobs
are Cobol. I do know that it is the only language that I have
been able to use thoughout an entire thirty year career that
encompasses over sixty languages that I learnt, used, then
dropped as they became obsolete or the platform evolved
into something else.
>
>What about cobol's future? I heard that cobol is a dying languge, being
>phased out along with mainframes, any truth in that? I know servers are
>the new thing...
The language has always been far superior for business
work than anything else. I have not done mainframe work
since the 70's (with some interfacing exceptions). The big
problem has always been that the PC was inadequate to
do some things in Cobol. That has changed.
>Just a comment..I am impressed with all that you can do with cobol. It
>seems that the language is ridgid, but being able to link with VB, C,
>etc...still kinda makes it valuable..
The rigidity is it's strength. It is extremely highly typed, far
more so than any other language except, perhaps, PL1. That
allows the same code to run on everything from PC's to
mainframes. It also gives exceptionally solid code.
Note that many of the Y2K problems arise specifically because
there is Cobol code still running from the 60's. I doubt that
is true for any other language. I am still using program libraries
that I wrote twenty years ago, as are all the old-timers in this
NG. That is not true of any other language.
Note as well that Cobol make few concessions to the computer.
It is designed to make code easy to read for *groups* of
programmers, not to make code easy to compile for groups
of computers like most languages. A lot of the idiosynchracies
of Cobol can only be understood when you realize the language
was designed to be read easily, not to be compiled or even
written easily. It is assumed that it will be written by a pro.
docd...@clark.net
>Hello,
>
> Just wanted to start a thread regarding Cobol.
>
>of other languages?
Well... some of the above. I make my living as a COBOL jockey but I make
a better living when I speak both COBOL and CICS. It can be argued, of
course, that CICS is not 'another language' but merely an extension of a
given language... well and good! But... I make an even *better* living
when I speak COBOL, CICS and DB2... and DB2 is driven, more-or-less, by
SQL, the Structured Query Language... so I don't know if I am then doing
COBOL or 'a mix of other languages'.
... oh ... did I mention Job Control Language, too? I'm in an IBM shop
and one has to use that to run batch programs...
... but ain't nobody shown up yet as can pay me enough to start slinging
BAL again.
>
>Are there plentyful cobol jobs, or just contract work?
The answer to that is C) Some Of The Above... and since when is a contract
not a 'job', anyhow?
>
>What about cobol's future? I heard that cobol is a dying languge, being
>phased out along with mainframes, any truth in that? I know servers are
>the new thing...
If someone is *that* good at guessing the future then I think they would
be making a living in the stockmarket, not in predictions about computer
languages. As someone here so eloquently put it: 'I was told that COBOL
isgoing to die and be replaced by something better... the next week I was
told that a man had finally walked on the moon.'
>
>Just a comment..I am impressed with all that you can do with cobol. It
>seems that the language is ridgid, but being able to link with VB, C,
>etc...still kinda makes it valuable..
As my first programming instructor, the respected and honored Mr Mullen,
told us: 'If you want to put bread on the table, learn COBOL... ifyou
want to put butter on the bread, learn *more* COBOL.'
... but what do *I* know? After all, I only do this for a living.
DD
Warren Porter
having too many arrows in their quiver. Although this is a COBOL shop, C
was a natural choice for programs to create record layouts (i.e. beg cols,
end cols, and lengths) or to convert COBOL programs to uppercase while
leaving comments and literals alone.
Being able to link to modules written in other languages (and understanding
the linkage) may still be important in some shops but IMHO isn't as
critical now as it used to be.
Green wrote:
> Just wanted to start a thread regarding Cobol.
>
> Is anyone out there just doing Cobol programing? Or are you doing a mix
> of other languages?
>
> What about cobol's future? I heard that cobol is a dying languge, being
> phased out along with mainframes, any truth in that? I know servers are
> the new thing...
>
> Just a comment..I am impressed with all that you can do with cobol. It
> seems that the language is ridgid, but being able to link with VB, C,
> etc...still kinda makes it valuable..
Warren Porter
---
Rainy Days OR Mondays Always Get Me Down.
Howard Brazee
>
> Hello,
>
> Just wanted to start a thread regarding Cobol.
>
> Is anyone out there just doing Cobol programing? Or are you doing a mix
> of other languages?
I use a lot of English in meetings, a fair amount of Jargon, but the
large majority of my batch programs is in COBOL.
> Are there plentyful cobol jobs, or just contract work?
I am a contractor who usually gets offered permanent jobs where I
contract. Contractors are expensive and rarely are given the type of
responsibility which requires coming in at 2:00 AM to fix a problem.
> What about cobol's future? I heard that cobol is a dying languge, being
> phased out along with mainframes, any truth in that? I know servers are
> the new thing...
Nothing else has come along to replace it for enterprise type business
environments. I seriously doubt if I will ever need to switch to
"modern" languages. But even so, I just got through spending a lot of
money to get my masters - specializing in OO technology and will
practice OO languages at home. It is possible that I will be wrong and
I won't take that chance.
But since COBOL is needed now, if you don't think it will be around for
your career - use COBOL to get your job, and work for a company which
gives you opportunities to program in other stuff as well!
> Just a comment..I am impressed with all that you can do with cobol. It
> seems that the language is ridgid, but being able to link with VB, C,
> etc...still kinda makes it valuable..
Curious. Why do you think it wouldn't be valuable if it couldn't link
with VB or C? What do you think COBOL is used for? What would make it
less rigid?
Dennis Fyke
As far as whether COBOL will be here in the future or is it a dying
language.... I've been told that it's a dying language my entire 30 year
career. There were always 'superior' languages coming out but they're all
gone and COBOL is still here!
Also, it sure doesn't make much business sense to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars in upgrading old COBOL code for the Y2K problem just to
dump these programs in the near future.
As has been pointed out, the only reason we have a Y2K problem is because
of the unexpected durability of these programs. They have been around for
decades for one simple reason - they work.
Judson McClendon
>>What about cobol's future? I heard that cobol is a dying languge, being
>>phased out along with mainframes, any truth in that? I know servers are
>>the new thing...
>
>ivory tower academic elite. In the real world where people write real
>business applications and get paid real money, COBOL is thriving!
>Mainframes being phased out... I don't think so. A few years ago,
>client/server applications were the big new fad... or should I say big
>new flop. They were fine when you had one server, a few clients and data
>files with a few thousand records. Try to put real world volume on it...
>30 minute response time if you're lucky. Same problem with all this
>server web stuff today...can't handle the volume. I have a monthly job
>that sorts over half a billion data records on the mainframe, its 10,000
>gig worth of data. Try that on one of your fancy new phased in servers.
>You may call me a dinosaur, but my dinosaur can crunch data a hell of
>a lot more efficiently than your tricycle!
Not to mention the abysmal reliability records of PC based servers vs.
mainframes, and enormous cost of implementing the gee-whiz technology.
--
Judson McClendon judm...@bellsouth.net (remove numbers)
Sun Valley Systems http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~judmc
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Robert
<Cit...@Concentric.Net [Ron]> wrote in message
news:76lhb1$n...@journal.concentric.net...
>>What about cobol's future? I heard that cobol is a dying languge, being
>>phased out along with mainframes, any truth in that?
>I am sick to death of hearing this. Cobol is only dying in the snooty
>ivory tower academic elite. In the real world where people write real
>business applications and get paid real money, COBOL is thriving!
>Mainframes being phased out... I don't think so. A few years ago,
I'll second that. The only time I ever hear of "COBOL Dieing" is when I
make my trips to college campuses. There, snotty students who think they
are God's gift to the programming field taunt how they got some line of text
to blink on their web page and think that is the biggest thing since sliced
bread.
COBOL is not dead, in fact it is more alive now than ever. Last year alone
I wrote over 20 new COBOL modules, 4 or 5 of those were 5,000+ lines of
COBOL code. Not to mention the amount of maintenance work done on old COBOL
modules.
It's just like Assembler. No one knows it nowadays because the "colleges"
don't teach it. I am the only person in our section of 15 people (in a
department of about 200) who knows System/370 Assembler. It's pathetic how
many times someone will bring their DUMP or whatever over to me to debug it
for them.
My advice to the know-it-all generation: Wake up.
Rob
(Just had to get that off my chest)
COBOL Frog (Huib Klink)
written it exactly how I feel about that "COBOL is dead" riddle.
You three made one frog happy!
Thanks.
(That jumper)
--
Dut: Vandaag is de eerste dag van de rest van je leven! Denk eens na!
Eng: Today is the first day of the rest of your life! Think it over!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Options to reach me:
* Phone +31 343 563333
* Write to H. M. Klink / PO Box 14 / 3940 AA Doorn / The Netherlands
* Reply to H.K...@IMN.nl
* via ICQ, number 16795376:
- Go http://wwp.mirabilis.com/16795376
- Mail to 1679...@pager.mirabilis.com
(Download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/)
[Ron]
>the new thing...
I am sick to death of hearing this. Cobol is only dying in the snooty
ivory tower academic elite. In the real world where people write real
business applications and get paid real money, COBOL is thriving!
Mainframes being phased out... I don't think so. A few years ago,
Robert
COBOL Frog (Huib Klink) <H.K...@IMN.nl> wrote in message
news:368E8FF2...@IMN.nl...
>You, Cit...@Concentric.Net, [Ron] and both you, Judson and Robert have
>written it exactly how I feel about that "COBOL is dead" riddle.
>
>You three made one frog happy!
The day COBOL dies is the day every majory business in the world goes under
and we revert back to the stone age.
A colleague at work has a saying for the current class of graduates of
"computer science" --- Point and click programmers.
Rob
Theo DP
>From: "Robert" <rls@ktis.!remove!.net>
>Date: 1/4/99 10:42 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <76s5ao$s56$1...@dumber.ktis.net>
I believe Ellen Ullman ("Close To The Machine") termed this NEXT...NEXT..FINISH
programming!
Donald Tees
Theo DP wrote in message <19990105032332...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>>A colleague at work has a saying for the current class of graduates of
>>"computer science" --- Point and click programmers.
As an IA enthusiast, I prefer the comparison to a natural
language last used about 35,000 years back.
Point and grunt.
Howard Brazee
did it get people jobs?
docd...@clark.net
docd...@clark.net
Howard Brazee <NOSPAM...@home.com> wrote:
>A decade or so ago, schools taught Pascal. It was easy to grade, but
>did it get people jobs?
The graders had jobs, I believe.
DD
Donald Tees
>A decade or so ago, schools taught Pascal. It was easy to grade, but
>did it get people jobs?
A decade ago, the schools taught arithmetic. It was easy to grade, but
did anybody get a job as an adding machine? They taught reading. It was
easy to grade, but did they get jobs as readers? They taught history
and geography. Ever meet a historian or geographer? They taught
English. Did they get jobs as speakers or translators?
I think what you are saying, Howard, is that academics do not have
a clue about the real world, and I tend to agree with you. However, the
real problem is NOT that there is anything wrong with languages like
Basic and Pascal, *IF* they were used for what they were designed for.
Both were designed specifically for teaching computer programming
techniques; neither was intended as a production language. They
into being because of a simple conundrum: you cannot teach technique
without a whole slew of background: you have to know a language,
an editor, an operating system, what a compiler is, what a linker is,
etc. That is why, for example, Basic needs none of the above.
Then some civil servant comes along, or a really lazy teacher, or
a group of rather stupid students, and decides that learning a few
basics (or one Basic) should be grounds for a complete profession
and a job for life. The result is as stupid as expecting to get a job
as an adding machine. (or as a web programmer for that matter).
On the other side of the coin, we have people that spend half a dozen
years learning to write production code, and finally get to the point
that they can do it well. Like an author that has no degree in
English, and spends the rest of their life telling everybody that
an English degree is useless, they then seem to discount all education
in computer science, regardless of utility.
I agree 100% that Cobol should be taught in Computer Science.
I strongly believe that it is by far the best language for business
data processing. However, I also think it would be absolutely
asinine to try to set up a computer science curriculum based
on Cobol as the language that was used for the examples
and for teaching. Business data processing is 95% record
keeping, 4% processing, and 1% weirdo stuff. You can be
pretty good at it without ever actually understanding how the
guts of a computer works. Probably not expert, but at least
pretty good. There are whole areas of computers that the
language is completely unsuitable for.
The point? Computer Science degree is a foundation of theory and
enough practical that there is a foundation to build on. A graduate
should be able to learn in any direction, at a better rate than a
beginner. They should also have a wide enough knowledge
base that they can jump in any direction, and change paths
with a minimum of re-training. No more, no less. If you
want someone that can write production code NOW, hire
a programmer. That is no different than a lawyer who must
article, a doctor that must serve an internship, or an
engineer that must article. Expecting otherwise when you
hire is a mistake, pure and simple.
I hire grads sometimes. If I have time to train, I prefer
a computer science degree, because I know they have
a theoretical base that will not become obsolete. I have
hired highly skilled and ambitious people with almost no
computer training as well, and successfully. The worst
luck I have had is with people that took a programming
course as a means to a job. I'd rather hire a high-school
drop-out that has learnt assembler out of curiosity.
William Lynch
>
> Theo DP wrote in message <19990105032332...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>
> >>A colleague at work has a saying for the current class of graduates of
> >>"computer science" --- Point and click programmers.
>
> As an IA enthusiast, I prefer the comparison to a natural
> language last used about 35,000 years back.
> Point and grunt.
That's Tim Allen's original act!
Bill Lynch
Jerry Peacock
Donald Tees wrote in message <76tfli$eeo$1...@news.igs.net>...
>Howard Brazee wrote in message <369223FB...@home.com>...
>>A decade or so ago, schools taught Pascal. It was easy to grade, but
>>did it get people jobs?
>
>A decade ago, the schools taught arithmetic. It was easy to grade, but
>did anybody get a job as an adding machine? They taught reading. It was
>easy to grade, but did they get jobs as readers? They taught history
>and geography. Ever meet a historian or geographer? They taught
>English. Did they get jobs as speakers or translators?
From: "Graffiti in the Big Ten"
"If you are a History major, this is the only job you will every have."