Re: How proprietary is the "COBOL file system"
- From: "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:47:57 -0500
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5m953cFc85a2U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It was precisely because I have no easy way to access the ISAM from anything
OTHER THAN COBOL that I had to go for a COBOL generation, and that inturn,
made me think about the "illusion" of cross platform standardization thatinto
COBOL is supposed to provide...
This "closed" COBOL file system has been one of the major contributors to
the decline of COBOL. I remember certain programmers feeling very smug in
the mid-80s because the corporate data resource was (apparently) locked
COBOL and this therefore guaranteed COBOL's future. (I wonder where theyare
now...)
It's a bit much, isn't it, to blame the language for the differing ways that
implementors chose to write their I/O handlers? I don't know that the
standards ever specified how the files should be implemented. For that
matter, how could they have done so? At the very minimum, they'd have had
cope with EBCDIC vs. ASCII, and count-key-data vs. fixed address disk
drives. And that was long before PC days.
Is there any file system or DB system - any file mechanism whatsoever that
is completely platform-independent?
PL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How proprietary is the "COBOL file system"
- From: Robert
- Re: How proprietary is the "COBOL file system"
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: How proprietary is the "COBOL file system"
- Prev by Date: Re: [OT] Do you have a Knowledge Officer?
- Next by Date: Re: OT: NZ street crime - bras and knickers
- Previous by thread: Re: How proprietary is the "COBOL file system"
- Next by thread: Re: How proprietary is the "COBOL file system"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|