Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO

From: Peter E.C. Dashwood (dashwood_at_enternet.co.nz)
Date: 01/02/04 

Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:20:58 +1300

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:8d0d85c747fb98025744b236a42b06d7@news.teranews.com...
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > After some consideration I have reached the following conclusions:
> >
> > 1. SOME businesses will continue to use COBOL (I believe it will be
mainly
> > for Batch processing.). I also believe that there will not ALWAYS be a
need
> > for Batch processing. (I know it's hard to believe in the current
> > "state-of-the-art"). As online transaction rates increase and online
systems
> > become ever more efficient, there is no conceivable need for overnight
> > updates. Distributed systems through Client Server and the Corporate
> > Intranet will remove the need for Report runs off a central mainframe.
>
> No batch?

Precisely.

> What about payroll, end of month, end of quarter and end of year
> processing, to name a few cyclic, time-not-transaction, triggered
processes.
> Not to mention the 'zillions' of government mandated time or otherwise not
> transaction triggered reports. It would be interesting to learn how you
see
> these in a 'no batch' scenario. :-)

OK, here's how...

Modern transaction systems can be triggered to fire off transactions at any
time you want.

It doesn't have to be "Batch" as we currently understand it. What you
suggest is "cyclic" ("time-not-transaction" based) is simply a transaction
that must occur at a certain time.

As the capacity of systems increases, periodic transaction loads that occur
at regular intervals will be dealt with by load levelling and distribution
around the Network.(In exactly the same way as the Network caters for any
other bottlenecks or unexpected loads...).

You still show difficulty in grasping that the NETWORK will be King, rather
than your centralised mainframe.

(I expected more from you...<G>)

Pete.