On 15/10/2017 10:22 PM, scott Ford wrote:
Ed,
I agree with you. Machines are faster and faster. But customers are demanding
changes to code and fixes faster. This to me is a problem, especially if
'caution is thrown to the wind'. Dealing with the security subsystem, I.e.;
RACF, ACF2 and TOP-SECRET , many customers are ignorant of these products ,
especially in how and why they work.
I write in COBOL and my first love Assembler, so we have exits that support our
product.
I have seen like everyone else a lot of craziness. The approach of using the PC
and Java for everything to me is a cop out . This is the apparent trend I have
been seeing. To this t-Rex this is not the only path to product development.
I don't fall in love with programming languages. I see them merely as
tools which I'm happy to discard when a sharper one comes along.
As a vendor, I can't think of a single reason why I would choose to
write code in COBOL. You could make the case for assembler for AR-mode
stuff but Metal/C has removed those handcuffs. I can, however, think of
many reasons why I would use Java. I can solve problems in Java that
would be nigh-on impossible in COBOL and/or assembler. The best thing
about the JVM is if you don't want to pay Java's verbosity tax you can
choose Groovy, Kotlin, Scala etc and still have access to the gargantuan
Java eco-system. Oh, and the code can run on a zIIP making it much
cheaper to execute for your customers.
Scott
On Oct 15, 2017, 1:25 AM -0400, Edward Gould <[email protected]>, wrote:
On Oct 14, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Clark Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
As a retired systems programmer and applications programmer analyst
whose primary languages were COBOL and Assembler, I have serious
doubts about that statistic. There have been many successful
migrations from the 360/370/390/z series systems. There also have
been many successful if overly expensive migrations to SAP, Oracle,
and the rest of the bunch. I would be amazed Facebook, Amazon, and
Microsoft have any z series or BUNCH successor mainframes. Take a
look at the job postings. Many applications systems, including ones I
worked on needed to be redesigned and replaced. It could have been
done in COBOL but getting management to buy into upgrading the way
they do things to at least the 1985 standard and its facilities let
alone anything later was too difficult.
Clark Morris
Clark:
Look at it this way though. As machines get faster and faster, there is little
need to revamp (any) code. That is one of the issue now days. management is
just to happy so they do not have to rewrite code they just get a bigger
machine. Maybe that is the undoing of Z?
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
