Paul Gilmartin wrote: <begin extract> IBM's adherence to standards is frequently moderated by an NIH attitude. IBM fails to understand that nowadays it is a tail (in a couple senses) that can no longer wag the dog. <end extract>
IBM adheres to the standards it says it adheres to rigorously. It would be enormously convenient to blame IBM for the sorry state of COBOL programming, but on this issue it has mostly been on the side of the angels and deserves to be judged to have been there. (Were it to make the plea Inter oves locum præsta/Et ab hædis me sequestra/Statuens in parte dextra. I should grant it in this case.) The problem lies with COBOL programmers themselves---and in particular with their managers---who have historically judged that new technology is unimportant, even deleterious, and resisted its use. (Over the years I have collected a sort of black museum of programming-standards manuals that devote much of their space to interdicting the use of putatively unnecessary, too advanced facilities. Where they are more than common sensically prescriptive these manuals are almost always wrong.) John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA Avant d'imprimer cet e-mail, réfléchissons à l'impact sur l'environnement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
