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 05:18:25 GMT

"James J. Gavan" wrote:

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

Don't believe me. I hit the damned send button by accident. The general idea is there but I haven't as yet looked at that Visual Studio
reference to see precisely what it is..

Mea culpa

Jimmy

>
>
> 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
> > >