COBOL ain't quite dead - yet ! - cobol

In article <SmnNk.790$Di1.171@newsfe13.iad>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>+Micro Focus ACTION Program exceeds 50 U.S member Universities
>
>ACTION-assisted courses ensure graduates are skilled in high-demand COBOL
>
>Read the press release -
>http://www.microfocus.com/AboutMicro...1001912435.asp

High-demand COBOL? Like the stuff that still contains 66 RENAMES and GO
TO DEPENDING ON?

(if I recall correctly - and my memory is, admittedly, porous - I saw Y2K
remediation ads demanding CICS Macro skills... for which IBM had withdrawn
support in the early-mid 1990s)

DD

"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:SmnNk.790$Di1.171@newsfe13.iad...
> +Micro Focus ACTION Program exceeds 50 U.S member Universities
>
> ACTION-assisted courses ensure graduates are skilled in high-demand COBOL
>
> Read the press release -
> http://www.microfocus.com/AboutMicro...1001912435.asp
>
> It goes without saying 'somebody' will obviously comment. Well if your
> 'favourite provider' is MS - then your perception is bound to be slightly
> slanted.

Enjoying MicroSoft products in no way slants my perception against other
products.

I have today posted to this forum under the "COBOL for Visual Sutdio" (sic)
thread, some information that involves MicroSoft, MicroFocus, and Fujitsu,
without any "slant" towards or away from any of them.

It is only software, Jimmy, not life and death...:-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:23:19 +0000, docdwarf regurgitated the following

>
> High-demand COBOL? Like the stuff that still contains 66 RENAMES and GO
> TO DEPENDING ON?
>


worse yet, "GO TO DEPENDING ON" where the targets are also the targets of
ALTER statements


--
Silfax

In article <pan.2008.10.27.23.25.27.586401@localhost.localdomain>,
Silfax <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:23:19 +0000, docdwarf regurgitated the following
>
>>
>> High-demand COBOL? Like the stuff that still contains 66 RENAMES and GO
>> TO DEPENDING ON?
>>
>
>
>worse yet, "GO TO DEPENDING ON" where the targets are also the targets of
>ALTER statements

That's not highly-demanding... that's piteously mewling for '... help....
help!'

(wonderful language, this English)

DD

Only speaking from my own experience, of course, but that's over 30 years -
I have NEVER seen a label used for both purposes. ALTER has been rare
enough; only saw it in the very beginning.

What was worse was PERFORMING a label and then, within the scope of that
PERFORM doing a GOTO to it as well. That isn't formally forbidden but
always struck me as a chancy thing to do. (It was a method used to
implement loops before PERFORM/END-PERFORM was available).

PL


Silfax <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.27.23.25.27.586401@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:23:19 +0000, docdwarf regurgitated the following
>
> >
> > High-demand COBOL? Like the stuff that still contains 66 RENAMES and GO
> > TO DEPENDING ON?
> >
>
>
> worse yet, "GO TO DEPENDING ON" where the targets are also the targets of
> ALTER statements
>
>
> --
> Silfax
>
>

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:44:59 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

>What was worse was PERFORMING a label and then, within the scope of that
>PERFORM doing a GOTO to it as well. That isn't formally forbidden but
>always struck me as a chancy thing to do. (It was a method used to
>implement loops before PERFORM/END-PERFORM was available).

When I worked for EDS a decade or more ago, our published standard was
for each perform to be of a section that consisted of a paragraph and
an exit which wasn't used. I disliked it back then, and hope it has
been changed since.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

In article <7isgg4lh42b61712dijr6otf1otsscuj92@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:44:59 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
>>What was worse was PERFORMING a label and then, within the scope of that
>>PERFORM doing a GOTO to it as well. That isn't formally forbidden but
>>always struck me as a chancy thing to do. (It was a method used to
>>implement loops before PERFORM/END-PERFORM was available).
>
>When I worked for EDS a decade or more ago, our published standard was
>for each perform to be of a section that consisted of a paragraph and
>an exit which wasn't used.

'... a section that consisted of a paragraph and an exit which hasn't been
used'; I'm not sure how to parse this.

A10532-BUILD SECTION.
A10533-BUILD-RTN.
....
A10533-BUILD-EXIT.
EXIT

B21855-VERIFY SECTION
B21855-VERIFY-RTN.
....
B21855-VERIFY-EXIT.

.... et and cetera... but with never a GO TO -EXIT to control flow? I can
see how this evolved out of SECTION-based programming and page-size and
tuning and swapping and such arcana... but never 'using' an exit denied a
programmer an alternative to a SEARCH (for those weeks when said
programmer finds that such a imperative is forbidden because someone
didn't understand it) in the Oldene Dayse when in-line PERFORMS hadn't
been implemented.

DD

In article <aq%Nk.15914$o57.14136@newsfe02.iad>,
"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> writes:
>
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:7isgg4lh42b61712dijr6otf1otsscuj92@4ax.com...
>> When I worked for EDS a decade or more ago, our published standard was
>> for each perform to be of a section that consisted of a paragraph and
>> an exit which wasn't used. I disliked it back then, and hope it has
>> been changed since.
>>
>> --
>
> Lots of people these days insist that a PERFORM must address only a
> paragraph name (i.e., don't use THRU). This ancient EDS standard at least
> conforms in appearance!
>

I can think of valid reasons for insisting on either method as a
corporate standard. One needs to know why one was choosen over the
other rather than just arguing that one way is somehow better than
the other. To be honest, the biggest surprise is that there is a
standard at all. Too many places I know ofatoday have no defined
standard at all and just the programmer write code in whatever style
the programmer feels most comfortable with. not the way it used to
be when I was doing applications programming for a living.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:7isgg4lh42b61712dijr6otf1otsscuj92@4ax.com...
> When I worked for EDS a decade or more ago, our published standard was
> for each perform to be of a section that consisted of a paragraph and
> an exit which wasn't used. I disliked it back then, and hope it has
> been changed since.
>
> --

Lots of people these days insist that a PERFORM must address only a
paragraph name (i.e., don't use THRU). This ancient EDS standard at least
conforms in appearance!

PL