Re: Believe me, you WANT to read this!

From: James J. Gavan (jjgavan_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 11/26/03 

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:15:11 GMT

Judson McClendon wrote:

Glad to see you are still in fine fettle. 'Take no prisoners !". <G>

Gave it a read :-

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14513

Next time Buster, give a direct link ???

I wont dispute what the article says, and I'll take the comments from the *actual* users as read and verifiable, same goes for comments
from Microsoft and Fujitsu.
This is a success story - but it is still PROMOTING Microsoft as the sloution :-

- takes a passing swipe at Big Blue ("get rid of your mainframe") - can't argue a case for that - may well be valid.

- Java - ah what else ? However, unless they were 'linking' COBOL and Java to get the Web element - seems like a pretty ambitious route
for them to have gone in the first place, sraight from mainframe thinking into, shhh..., OO-techniques via Java. I may have misread it,
but it looked like initially they had the thought process of dropping COBOL and using Java as the alternative - might have got that
wrong.

Yes, we have also heard the recurring tales of Java slowness, but a Net Express user said the same thing about the MS 'tool' Visual
Basic some two/three years ago, compared to using N/E GUI classes.

Note that Jerry said Sun shut Microsoft out from Java, and yet one of the first books I read said there were three Javas - Sun,
Microsoft and HP - the latter, because they needed coding to accommodate electrical components put into fridges, freezers etc. Same book
said "Watch it !", MS have put in specific features applicable to Windows only..

- NetCOBOL - agreed it doesn't plug Fujitsu. It's sat there as a stable COBOLproduct that interfaces with .Net. No doubt, if somebody
using the .Net feature in Net Express has a similar success story - MS will gladly advertise that as well. I have no idea - the other
PC compilers - Acu and Liant etc., may already have or plan to have .Net interface features. That means that Fujitsu were just the first
to leave the srtarting gate.

One interesting comment on NetCOBOL, Thane wrote something to the effect, "F/J had to make a 'concession' and drop FACTORY from OO
COBOL for the .Net ".. Firstly the J4 Standard is being bent to accommodate MS, secondly, I don't know what the hell I would do without
being able to create Instances via the FACTORY.
Not being into either the C-family or Java, do they allow for Instances ?

- Let's ask the question. They were switching from CICS and the problem seems to have been primarily switching from the green screens,
the 'Business Logic' still being stable, pure bread and butter procedural code - no fancy OO stuff. I wont be surprised if Bob from
Flexus comes back and says he could have provided a green screen converter. If that's the case - what's the big deal about the .Net ?

- But the article keeps coming back the the .Net link which pulls it all together - Microsoft Visual Studio, (had to take a quick read
to see what that's about).

Let's get one thing VERY straight. I am in no way a Microsoft 'hater'. I have great admiration for Bill Gates and the organization he
has put together. And by golly, it does the job, e.g. all those interfaces such as numerous drivers for printers.. However, for the good
of consumers and commerce, there just has to be an alternative - it might never be Linux. We have to have something that isn't
monpolistic.

As for finding the link and wading through umpteen screens, with very discernible pauses, said "Done", the progress bar at the bottom is
frozen and I'm looking at white space for an interminable time. Can't help but think young feisty Kellie down there in the sunny
south-west might just have it right. We do *need* a FLASHER..

Could make yourself a few bucks Kellie :-

first "flasher"
--------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry. Be happy - I'm processing your next screen
- followed by a 'Smiley'
---------------------------------------------------------

Still nothing, another "flasher".

------------------------------------------
Honest ! I really am trying to load your next screen
- followed by a Smiley.
--------------------------------------------------

I'm not using a modem but a direct cable connection with Netscape. "Ahhh Ha !", comments somebody. "There's your problem ! W-H-Y don't
you use - wait for it - MSN ?" ##@4!!!&*!

Jimmy

> Sorry, but you fellows are misreading the post. It DOES NOT say that
> Microsoft is 'abandoning Java' or 'salvaging their COBOL'. It says
> that about the Superior Court of California, the 'they' in the post. My
> friend simply found the info on the Microsoft web site. Read it again
> *carefully* this time, and you should see this clearly. Richard likes
> to occasionally jump down people's throats without bothering to check
> what was really said, then refuses to admit the mistake. Makes him
> look stupid, like now (surprise me Richard, by admitting it this time :).
> I'm surprised you did not catch that, Jimmy.
>
> The post was not about Microsoft, or advertising hype about Fujitsu
> COBOL or .NET. The point is that there are people out there who, after
> wasting tons of money on VB, Java, et al, finally realize that COBOL
> is highly efficient and productive, and return to it. I have newspaper
> articles on my desk that report other similar incidents. I should think
> you COBOL people would be pleased about that. I am. I'm tired of
> watching clients blow millions that might as well have been piled up
> and set on fire. Pressure is building right now in several departments
> of one of my major clients to confront upper management with the
> fact that they have spent over 4 years and over $20 million and have
> yet to replace ONE SINGLE mainframe application, and they're not
> even remotely close to doing so. More than that, the organization has
> yet to receive a single benefit from all that money. If that's not failure,
> I wouldn't know how to define failure.
>
> VB, Java, etc. have their place, but building large business applications
> is not it. Parts of one sure, but not the whole thing. Too unstable, too
> fragile, too proprietary (VB), too expensive, too time consuming, and
> too much hassle. Why do you think there is a 45%+ failure rate for new
> systems these days? Barely more than half of the new systems attempted
> actually come up! That factual figure is simply staggering. Who of you
> old timers ever saw such a thing with COBOL based systems? I'll bet
> you there won't be a single current non-trivial VB or Java application
> that will still be in active use in 20 years. Even 10 years is a very big
> stretch. I have a client/server COBOL inventory system that's been
> running 16 years, and it has a far better chance of still being in use 20
> years from now than the VB/Java stuff being written today.
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
> "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:3FC3A985.334ECE5E@shaw.ca...
> >
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> >
> > > "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > I was looking at some of the case studies on Microsoft's web site and ran across the following one. Note that they
> abandoned
> > > > Java
> > >
> > > No. Microsoft did not 'abandon' Java. They decided they could not
> > > control it, as they have with other languages they supported, and so
> > > they want to destroy it and replace it with their own version of it
> > > C#.
> > >
> > > > and went back to salvaging their COBOL.
> > >
> > > No, they haven't salvaged 'their Cobol'. While MS did write a Cobol
> > > back in the CP/M days which they converted to MS-DOS, they used a
> > > version of MF Cobol while it suited them and now promote Fujitsu Cobol
> > > while it suits them.
> > >
> > > > I hope the industry soon realizes that this is the most economical upgrade solution
> > > > before everyone jumps off the cliff blindly following the leader.
> > >
> > > All businesses will have highly selective 'news' items that are
> > > slanted as much as possible to one point of view - ie buy _my_
> > > solution. Do you really believe marketing hype ?
> >
> > Judson,
> >
> > Richard is right on the button. Some see his comments as somewhat cynical, but they ARE factual.
> >
> > I don't know whether you ever used the Microsoft COBOL - wasn't bad. Although before Internet days not too easy to get Tech
> support,
> > although it existed. At one stage Micro Focus was cozily in bed with MS - the last two versions of MS COBOL were the re-badged MF
> COBOL
> > (DOS text) that you are familiar with. The only difference being that the compiler was wrapped in their own Programmer's Workbench
> for
> > compiling, linking and help files, coupled with the Editor which I still use. (Richard thinks I'm a masochist for still using that
> > <G>).
> >
> > There was one significant difference as I switched - the MS manuals were simply worded; switch to M/F and the manuals were a
> knock-off
> > of the legalese in the Standard.
> >
> > I don't think the Merant fiasco helped any. To get the .Net to work, MS had to show that they supported ALL languages. Pure
> guess, but
> > perhaps perceiving M/F as a 'weak partner' they looked towards Fujitsu - big conglomerate, and 'enticed' them to get into .Net.
> > Meanwhile of course, to compete, M/F as an add-on to Net Express V 4.0 (if you upgrade - $$$$$), offers features allowing you to
> use
> > .Net.
> >
> > Continuously upgrading for small/single developers is a no go unless you are fortunate enough "to be in the right place and the
> right
> > time" - i.e., a healthy customer base you can solicit. Meanwhile medium sized software houses can see the advantage of switching
> to
> > .Net, (they take a deep breath and pay up), and in the process, in one case using N/E, somebody has already mentioned using C#
> > features, rather than COBOL. M/S will of course be delighted - they've hung up the sticky fly paper, and are just waiting for the
> flies
> > to get attached.
> >
> > Jimmy, Calgary AB
> >