Re: OO in Batch (Was: Program ID)

From: Paul Raulerson (paul_at_raulersons.com)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: 29 Jun 2004 08:58:58 -0700

Had to think about that one Bill. Yes, the gave away a pretty good
compiler, but the free version was pretty well limited to the Windows
platform, and the for cost versions under SunOS/Solaris and HP/UX,
while not over prived, were definately under-featured. No SCREEN
section among other things.

The Editor and IDE were also rather clunky. Still, it was a good
product.

With Version 4, they did some pretty nice improvements, but the cost
started rising, and they got into a Microsoft like upgrade cycle. It
got costly rather quickly, at least as compared to the pricing for V 3
& 4.

Then they went over the brainbow and decided that .NET was their path
to the future. That's where I parted ways with 'em I am afraid. The
COBOL compiler became a whole lot less about COBOL than about being a
GUI screen designer as in Visual Basic.

In short, the product evolved from something that could be used to get
business done without worrying all that much about 'Windows' to
something so intimately tied to Windows that it is impossible to
disassociate the user interface from the business rules and logic. Or
at least, very difficult to do so.

If instead, they had taken the Solaris version, added a screen
section, and published it for $49.95 under Linux, well, there might
have been a whole different set of pictures happening.

I think both Microfocus and AcoCOBOL has superior products by any
measure, but I also think they view themselves pretty much solely as
compeition for ex-mainframe customers. Netiher of them has promoted
COBOL uder Linux on the Mainframe to any signfigant extent, and, from
their point of view, with good reason. People will expect it to be
inexpensive under Linux - even on the mainframe. Perhaps especially on
the mainframe.

I've had people try to tell me they were giving me a really good
bargain by charging me $100K for a product under Linux on the
mainframe that costs $299 per developer under Linux on a PC. It is not
uncommon for vendors to hear the work mainframe and jump from $100 to
$10,000. Again, ridiculous.

This tendancy by VARs to want to rape the mainframe market is the #1
reason mainframes are viewed with suspicion and irritation these days.
Sure, you pay a lot for a mainframe, more than you would for an
AS/400, which costs more than you pay for an AIX machine. The levels
of reliability and capability go right along with the pricing.

But... you then have a flock of rabid VARS on the loose complaining
that the machine undercuts their 'investment' in S/390 or zSeries.
Poppy***! They are
saying they want to keep riding the gravy train of unrealistically
high priced software. While I think making a profit is a good thing,
companies like CA are being obscene about it when it comes to the
mainframe. They are playing on a historical point of view that is no
longer true. (*sigh*)

Our open systems COBOL vendors haven't yet found a way to deal with
Linux in a business model that produces the same kind of profit level
they enjoy today. But today they have a shrinking market. Sooner or
later, they will be forced to realize that embracing Linux and
providing reasonably priced software will be how they can continue in
business for decades to come. Heck, the compiler part is pretty
reasonably priced these days, with support and a really good compiler
coming in around $3K. It is those pesky runtimes that rack up the
dollars, and are nothing but the company saying "our stuff is so good
if we don't take drastic steps to protect it, everyone will steal it!"

Yeah, people will steal it - no matter if it is protected or not. But
why would anyone steal it if they can buy the thing at a reasonable
cost and be 'legal'? Certianly no developer is going to steal it, nor
will any of the highly audited companies in the U.S. It isn't worth
the penalty of being caught!

Anyway, I'll jump off my soapbox here and stop howling about this
situation. It will be self correcting, inevitably so. Some wise guy(s)
will find a niche and become sucessful in it, and the entrenched
traditionalists, once they have their noses rubbed in the fact it
makes money, will follow suit. Kicking and
screaming all the way, I have no doubt, but they will follow.

IBM leading with Linux on all the platforms is a very brave and
deserving move, and has already upset VARs from CA to SCO. <grin>

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<JRWDc.3873$lh4.3569@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> But remember that Fujitsu "gave away" their V3 compiler - and although lots of
> people took it, very few used it for any profitable work.
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-88643B.08590928062004@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <40dff3c5.246088688@news.optonline.net>,
> > robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote:
> >
> > > "PAUL RAULERSON" <pkraulerson@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > ><grin> I do new development in COBOL. I've just decided not to do so with
> > > >the current
> > > >Microfocus or AcuCOBOL products, mostly because I am annoyed with their
> > > >idea of what
> > > >a fair price is.
> > >
> > > We all are. As I've said, it's a supply/demand. If demand for Cobol was
> > > comparable to C# or Java, MF could sell compilers for $100 too.
> >
> > That cuts both ways -- if MF sold compilers for $100 there would be many
> > more casual users.
> >
> > Remember the TurboPascal success story?