I don't want to get into either the:
Does IBM need to provide a 64-bit COBOL (for z/OS) compiler
- because of "business" needs of programmers
or
- because of what it says to their customers about COBOL
Nor
What is the current "need" for and what is the future of COBOL in
general.
***
Personally, I don't hear of a LOT of new development being done in COBOL,
but certainly do hear of a lot of applications continuing to run (and being
maintained) in COBOL. Similarly, it would really surprise me if many sites
were really interested in CHANGING logic to move from VSAM data to internal
tables - but I do know of a "reasonable" number of software products written
in COBOL for Unix/Linux that "assume" a 64-bit FILE system.
***
As always (when these topics come up), when/if IBM hears (thru "official
channels") sufficient need from their PAYING customers for enhancements to
COBOL, then I suspect they will (eventually) deliver them.
"Jon Brock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> I am of two minds about whether "the need for COBOL is dying."
> On one hand, it has served (and served well) for many years and is
very well-suited for its original purpose.
> On the other hand, as time goes by there are fewer people around who
know it. It is becoming increasingly marginalized in the workplace, and
anything you can do with COBOL you can do with other "more modern" languages
such as, say, Java.
> On the other other hand, though, I can run a COBOL program on z/OS
with a region size of a few K, whereas I had to up my TSO region from 4MiB
to 128MiB just to successfully execute "java -version."
> On the other other other hand, many of the "more modern" languages
are, to be charitable, not suited for non-psychotics. C++, in particular,
is an abomination (in my not-as-humble-as-it-should-be opinion, of course).
> On yet another hand -- I'm up to five hands now -- as verbose as
COBOL is, it is still reasonably simple to learn and use.
>
> So maybe the need for COBOL is dying, but its usefulness isn't. I
haven't looked into any of its newer features, either, so I am hoping to be
pleasantly surprised if I ever get around to boning up on it.
>
>
> Jon
>
>
> <snip>
> With the 64 bit usage by DB2 and Java, not providing 64 bit
> compile options for COBOL is telling what IBM really thinks of the
> future of COBOL (and for various reasons I would agree that the need
> for COBOL is dying).
> </snip>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
