I think it is very difficult and costly to reproduce all mainframe applications on other platforms using "modern" programming languages. Not to speak of the inherit reliability, serviceability and secureability of the System Z hardware, running z/OS.
Anyone who says the mainframe is a dinosaur simply hasn't looked at a moder mainframe in WHILE. It's not just about COBOL anymore, you can run anything on system z hardware these days. Please let me know if you have any questions, or concerns! Thank You! Roger W Suhr [email protected] 563-581-9065 (from my personal laptop) -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Schmitt, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 2:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: They are *all* dinosaurs I'm trying to find where Micro Focus COBOL supports collections and dictionaries. Do you mean Micro Focus JVM COBOL, which runs in a Java virtual machine (as opposed to compiling for native execution, such as a Windows .exe or .dll? If so, isn't this not really COBOL but Micro Focus allowing access to JVM features? -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 11:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: They are *all* dinosaurs > On 2 Aug 2023, at 11:38 am, Jon Perryman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 05:18:46 PM PDT, David Crayford >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> The obvious difference is that C/C++ etc are still evolving. >> The z/OS COBOL compiler hasn’t implemented significant features of >> the ANSI standard. If I were a COBOL programmer I would like the >> language to support collections, dictionaries etc but I suppose the >> type of applications where COBOL is used don’t require hash tables. > > Are you suggesting that COBOL programmers should stop using instorage VSAM > KSDS and learn how to use collections, dictionaries and hash tables? Are you > saying that KSDS doesn't solve these exact problems using a facility > programmers use daily? That’s not what I’m saying at all. My point is that IBM don’t invest in COBOL to implement features in the language standard whereas MicroFocus do. Most probably because they don’t have customer requirements asking for them. I mostly program in C++ and Java these days and take it for granted that they have built-in standard libraries for data structures and algorithms. COBOL doesn’t even support dynamic arrays but most COBOL programmers are used to having to use the file system to make up for the lack collections. Performing binary searches using SEARCH ALL was as good as it got back when I was working with COBOL. > > I don't use Cobol because it's boring and nothing to do with it's ability to > solve business problems. I think that Cobol allows programmers to be business > line experts instead of computer experts. I’m not knocking COBOL. The raison d’être of the mainframe is to run applications written in COBOL. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
