(New but follow-on thread), There are now and have been ever since the question was first raised at least three different issues (IMHO).
1) The one that Clark and others have TRIED to communicate to IBM, but which seems hard to convey - or at least difficult to hear that IBM understands is the MESSAGE conveyed to upper management by the fact that there are 64-bit C/C++, Java, and Assembler but not COBOL. What MANAGEMENT hears is that COBOL IS NOT STRATEGIC (to IBM) and now is the time to try and limit new development and move to NEW paradigms. It reminds me a lot of what happened when IBM first introduced the CCCA "product" and did as a program offering rather than a program product. This sent a message to customers (or those in management that make buying decisions) and a "good product" was avoided by many shops. So tell, me how much will customers "pay" to not hear words but to SEE that COBOL is AS strategic as C/C++ and Java? I don't know, but I do know that IBM is (intentionally or not) sending a message to their customers that COBOL just "doesn't rank" as highly as other languages. 2) The second question has always been, "give us a real world" example of a business application that canNOT be done in 31-bit COBOL, but could be in 64-bit COBOL. With XML, GLOBs, BLOBs, etc this is starting to because more of a "real world" issue. However, again what I have heard from customers is that *IF* we wait to show you such examples and you THEN start developing a 64-bit COBOL, it will be WAY too late before you can deliver it. Again, we will simply have to move from COBOL to other languages (and won't ever return) while your are doing that development. 3) The final issue and this is certainly MY personal big issue is the one of mixed AMODE(31) and AMODE(64) applications. This is available today for Assembler (sort-of) but not for any LE application (at least in any supported way). I am not an AIX user, but it sounds as if the 64-bit COBOL for AIX is an "all or nothing" environment. If that is the case (at any time in the future) for COBOL on z/OS, then I agree, don't bother. *** Primarily, this note was intended to get that first message across (again) about the "ranking" of COBOL as perceived by customers given the delivery of 64-bit languages but not COBOL. I do (again personally) understand about resources (in IBM), priorities, and business cases. I just wish that I heard (or heard more often) from IBM that they understand what message they are sending out with their current PUBLIC responses to the 64-bit issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
