David Crayford wrote: >Good point well made. Thanks, David.
For the record, Amazon.com (the commerce site and associated commerce services) reportedly consists of a *mix* of programming languages: Java, C, C++, Perl, Ruby (on Rails), and Javascript. All of these programming languages are available for IBM z Systems, by the way. Is COBOL "different" from a testing and deployment lifecycle point of view? No, absolutely not -- I again strongly disagree. If anything, C (for example) is much more difficult to test well. Javascript isn't even compiled. I hope nobody is testing the Employee Cafeteria Menu application and the Billion Dollar Payments application using the same testing effort and procedures, even if both applications happen to be written in COBOL and run on the same machine. That testing equivalence would be nuts. Adapt or die, folks. Yes, I know some of you occasionally face irrationally rigid people who celebrate process for process sake, with little or no awareness of real world outcomes and actual business risks. Some of them are auditors. That doesn't mean we should agree with such irrational rigidity. Back to ABO. ABO and Enterprise COBOL Version 6 have clear benefits. They can help you reduce your peak monthly utilization, shorten CPU-bound batch execution times, and improve the performance of latency sensitive transactions. Those benefits translate directly into financial and other valuable business benefits. Exactly how much benefit you can get is situational, but you can figure that out pretty easily (and without your purchasing department having to do anything). You and your employer have a choice, and so do your competitors. You can postpone adopting these technologies until 2038 because you've got a "one size all" testing program, that's your process (gosh darn it), and any "new" (not new!) thinking is intolerable. That's one option, an expensive one. Or you can apply some rationality, discuss appropriate testing scope and methodologies with IBM, verify that these technologies work and work well starting with your low risk programs, and enjoy the benefits much sooner. I vote for this second approach. It's reasonable, rational, logical, informed, and based on sound risk mitigation and outcome-oriented principles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Sipples IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
