This is not new for them either. Remember when all their hardware products had become "server"s or "z/OS is UNIX" or "COBOL now has object oriented features". Not sure how many customers bought their hardware because it was a "server" or how many bought z machine for their UNIX applications. As for object oriented code in COBOL, I, in my limited experience, have not seen any. But come on ... you want to rob the CxO types of their talking points?
mkk On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:51:48 -0400, Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> wrote: > > >Indeed. That's what I'm getting out of this: it's MBAM, only worse. And is >going to doom IBM if they don't smarten up. > > > >Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant: > >https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines > > > >I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I've had my >frustrations with it, but it's been Big Blue and a good thing for decades. Now >it seems bent on self-destruction, and I'm watching its death-spiral and >wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the same >way, but they sure don't *appear* to be worried: it feels like it's "full >speed ahead, that can't possibly be an iceberg up there!" and that's both sad >and scary. I'm not likely to give up on it - I have a proven track record of >sticking with things long after it's sensible, I'm afraid - but I can't say >I'm enjoying the current arc. > > > >.phsiii > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
