Re: Productivity
- From: Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:15:31 -0700
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:34:05 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, COBOL is excellent for sequential batch processing and will fill that
requirement for some time to come. Eventually, transactions will be
processed so fast that Batch will not be necessary, even reports will be
spooled online as transactions occur, and so there will be less dependence
on Batch. Only historical reporting would need a batch approach. But that
time is still a few years off yet.
I see lots of shops going with data warehouses on one side, and
on-line transactions on the other side - with interfaces between the
web servers accessing both. Where is batch CoBOL needed in that?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Productivity
- From: Richard
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: Michael Mattias
- Re: Productivity
- References:
- Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Productivity
- From: LX-i
- Re: Productivity
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Productivity
- Prev by Date: Re: Variable Length Input File
- Next by Date: Re: Productivity
- Previous by thread: Re: Productivity
- Next by thread: Re: Productivity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
