Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-31 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In 20150729161156.5509204.53960.43...@yahoo.ca, on 07/29/2015 at 12:11 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said: Why is it so ludicrous? Because it's contrary to fact, The USDOD did develop COBOL for some reasom. They encouraged its use, but didn't mandate it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.)

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-31 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In 6820716805403537.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on 07/29/2015 at 11:20 AM, Paul Gilmartin 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu said: I know a programmer who argued that his assignment could not be accomplished in ADA. Possible but unlikely. He was given an exemption

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-31 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In 55b90553.3020...@gmail.com, on 07/29/2015 at 05:54 PM, Vince Coen vbc...@gmail.com said: and in Europe OK, the U.K., ICL (ICL), English Electric BULL. Possibly Siemans as well. There were also some in the Eastern Block. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread zMan
Fairly decent except for several major points of nonsense: *The Department of Defense even decreed that all businesses must run on COBOL in the 1960s.* A ludicrous assertion. *But the even bigger reason not to rock the boat is the sheer size and cost of replacing billions of lines of COBOL that

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:56 -0400, Ted MacNEIL wrote: Why is it so ludicrous? The USDOD did develop COBOL for some reasom. And a generation later, they likewise required ADA. I don't know if that was ever countermanded. I know a programmer who argued that his assignment could not be

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Ted MacNEIL
Hence NOT ludicrous! - -teD -   Original Message   From: Vince Coen Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 12:54 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return I think you will find that was a demand (?) that all applications

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Steve Thompson
On 07/29/2015 11:28 AM, zMan wrote: Fairly decent except for several major points of nonsense: SNIP *But the even bigger reason not to rock the boat is the sheer size and cost of replacing billions of lines of COBOL that exist today. Many of these programs contain sensitive information about

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Vince Coen
I think you will find that was a demand (?) that all applications developed on behalf of the military (well at least the US Navy) had to be in Cobol - if nothing else to help with standards, maintenance migration. You have to remember that there was more than one supplier of mainframes in

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Ted MacNEIL
Why is it so ludicrous? The USDOD did develop COBOL for some reasom. - -teD -   Original Message   From: zMan Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:28 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return Fairly decent except

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Ed Gould
I was in the US ARMY in Europe in the early 1970's. We were developing a COBOL based system that was entirely COBOL except for some BDAM DB access that was needed. The only assembler was an ONLINE system that could be used to gain access to the online DB. The system was to be used world wide

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Joel Ewing
Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return I think you will find that was a demand (?) that all applications developed on behalf of the military (well at least the US Navy) had to be in Cobol - if nothing else to help with standards, maintenance migration

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Mike Schwab
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-story.html Grace Hopper on Codasyl committee helped write the first Cobol specs and participated in the first Cobol Compiler test in 1959. On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vince Coen vbc...@gmail.com wrote: I think you will find that was a demand

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Gerhard Adam
*The Department of Defense even decreed that all businesses must run on COBOL in the 1960s.* A ludicrous assertion. Actually not ludicrous. This occurred when I was in the military (1973) and was definitely an objective. The goal was that all applications would be written in COBOL. The only

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread Ted MacNEIL
Depends on what context you took it in. I (silly me) took it to mean all DoD business. - -teD -   Original Message   From: Joel Ewing Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 15:16 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return Well

Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-29 Thread zMan
(silly me) took it to mean all DoD business. - -teD - Original Message From: Joel Ewing Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 15:16 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return Well, actually the original statement

Article on COBOL's inevitable return

2015-07-28 Thread John McKown
http://blog.hackerrank.com/the-inevitable-return-of-cobol/ A fairly decent article. It doesn't appear to be a piece designed to promote some vendor or another. Not in depth, but with some good truths plainly stated. It might even be understandable to a Windows person. OOPS, there I go being tacky