Re: Method to force keeping of source
From: Robert Wagner (robert.deletethis_at_wagner.net)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: JerryMouse: "Experts Say VIN Problem Bigger Than Y2K!"
- Previous message: JerryMouse: "Re: Cobol Copybook Parsing"
- In reply to: William M. Klein: "Re: Method to force keeping of source"
- Next in thread: Frank Swarbrick: "Re: Method to force keeping of source"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:59:53 GMT
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>Warren,
> In all my years of working at IBM mainframe sites, for software vendors, and
>with SHARE/GUIDE - I heard of one (exactly ONE) person/site that actually used
>the (required by FIPS) "flagging" mechanism to find out which extensions they
>were using in their source code.
In 42 years, I've seen zero.
>That is one MORE site than I ever heard of using the Micro Focus or Fujitsu
>facility for doing "extension flagging". Given that sites don't (apparently)
>care about writing "portable" source code - or that they don't think that the
>ANSI/ISO/FIPS language definitions are the "real-world" standard language, I
>question how much benefit there would ever be in "improving" the
standardization
>of the language. The lack of using this flagging pre-dates the '85 Standard,
>much less the (still not fully implemented) 2002 Standard.
The Standard has a lot of value by providing a baseline, a guaranteed minimum.
If it's in the Standard, I KNOW it will be available and work as described
there.
I, and I think most Cobol programmers, prefer to write Standard-compliant code.
We use extensions when there is a good reason, not because it's easier or we
don't know better.
>FYI,
> It is also interesting how many of the current COBOL compiler vendors aren't
>even "on" the committee(s) any more, e.g. AcuCorp, Liant, LegacyJ, HP
>(representing Dec, Tandem, and the original HP). CA, "OpenCOBOL", etc). When
>considered with the fact that of the three vendors currently on J4 (IBM, Micro
>Focus, Unisys) only Micro Focus has publicly committed to EVER producing a 2002
>conforming compiler - and I am not certain that they still state this.
I think it's inevitable that Micro Focus and IBM will .. because they see
themselves as flag-bearers. Probably Fujitsu and Open Source too .. because they
don't carry the baggage of historical debates. To them, it's just another
technical spec.
>Maybe I am agreeing with you (I am not positive exactly what you are
>"advocating") - but the Standardization process simply doesn't seem "relevant"
>anymore - or at least not very.
Mr. Dashwood will be delighted to read that sentiment.
>NOTE:
> The "death" of FIPS/NIST certification and US government "requirements" for
>conforming compilers seems highly relevant to this - and this PRE-dated the
>"delays" in the delivery of the 2002 Standard.
That government dethroned itself is a Good Thing for the software world. They
weren't innovators, they were choosy and autocratic consumers.
The Real World is much bigger then government and more meritocratic. It wants
Standards, whether or not government flexes bureaucratic muscle.
- Next message: JerryMouse: "Experts Say VIN Problem Bigger Than Y2K!"
- Previous message: JerryMouse: "Re: Cobol Copybook Parsing"
- In reply to: William M. Klein: "Re: Method to force keeping of source"
- Next in thread: Frank Swarbrick: "Re: Method to force keeping of source"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
