Re: Productivity


"Michael Mattias" <mmattias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:AYRkh.10164$ZT3.9592@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dnn7p2lh7524u11iuvt77dcchh76c53cfk@xxxxxxxxxx
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?

I think you are forgetting the incredibly ubiquitous and overwhelmingly
powerful influence of the We've Always Done It That Way School of System
Design...


LOL! Sad but true...:-)

Pete


.

Relevant Pages