Pete Dashwood who is the author of most of this posting, has coded for the mainframe and CICS. Unfortunately, based on the actual actions of the COBOL standards committee, the lack of 64 bit support or support for even parts of the 2002 COBOL standard that were in specific SHARE requirements, and other things that I and others have kvetched about regarding mainframes and COBOL over the years, I tend to agree with Pete though not necessarily for his reasons.
Clark Morris On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:17:49 +1300, in comp.lang.cobol "Pete Dashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >"tlmfru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Or will COBOL become the new mainframe? I seem to recall that mainframes >> were pronounced dead a couple of decades ago. >> >> PL > >Mainframes ARE dead in terms of doing anything interesting with them :-) > >The best chance of survival they have is by attachment to the Network and >welcoming the Web. To the extent that they do this and become powerful >servers in a Network environment, they will have a future. The days when >they sat at the centre of things and controlled everything are long gone. To >that extent, the role they served decades ago is gone, so they ARE dead as >far as that goes. > >Don't hold your breath for a resurgence of COBOL, in the role which it >served decades ago, either. > >Fortress COBOL is in ruins. It has been sacked and looted. Whatever was of >value has been incorporated into the Brave New World and the barbarians on >their wiry little ponies have swept on... > >Pete. >-- >"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
