The only one that was really an issue was the Neon software. Clearly IBM took a pretty aggressive move to quash it. Can't remember the name of it now.
I am guessing that even if you had a perfect cobol-to-java-byte-code conversion.. you'd skip an upgrade.. maybe two. (Unless your business is extremely small growth.) And then the need to move to the next processor level would catch up. Reality check.. anyone even know of a shop that is 100% cobol? No assembler.. no utilities.. no SAS or other report writer / output reformatter.. or a variety of other utilities that wouldn't fit in a zIIP/zAAP? Of course there would undoubtably be at least a few intensive programs that were just too much of a performance/critical to be converted which had to stay on GP. Not that it is a bad idea.. it would be cool to be able to pick and choose certain cobol programs to run as java... wait isn't that what IBM's EGL does? Allows code to be written in EGL then compiled as cobol or java? Now.. if they were smart.. there would be a cobol->to->EGL->to->java conversion as well. Of course it would probably work more like "You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as... well... the original. - Multiplicity quote" <VBG> Rob Schramm Rob Schramm Senior Systems Consultant Imperium Group On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 < [email protected]> wrote: > A byte-code COBOL object program might not be as efficient as even the > just-previous generation (4.x) of Enterprise COBOL, given the JVM's > stack-oriented runtime structure and (so I heard somewhere) > less-than-efficient packed-decimal support. Less cost to run on a cheaper > processor could be overwhelmed by elapsed-time increases affecting SLA's, > especially for larger shops who do not run knee-capped GP's. > > But as usual, I could be quite wrong about that. In any case, I agree > with you that if IBM saw a decrease in revenue from such a product they > would either buy it and bury it or T & C it out of existence. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tony Harminc > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Resistance to Java. > > On 22 January 2014 08:36, John McKown <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Now wouldn't that be a kick? An Enterprise COBOL compatible compiler > which produced Java byte code. That > > would likely sell a lot of zAAPs. > > Don't think it hasn't been seriously considered by more than one > party... But as with any number of other such approaches, it would be > limited by its own success. If it managed to displace any significant > amount of IBM revenue by shifting "legacy" workloads to cheaper > processors, IBM would put a stop to it, either technically or by new > Ts & Cs of some sort. > > Tony H. > -- > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. > If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized > representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
