COBOL isn't dead, but I'm learning C++ 
Author Message
 COBOL isn't dead, but I'm learning C++

Quote:

>No, COBOL is definitely NOT dead... there are several thousands of gamefully employeed COBOL programmers out
>there supporting legacy systems and even (gasp!) developing new business applications.   Although, those
>numbers should remain steady over the next few years (especially with the year 2,000 approaching), I don't
>think it would be wise for any COBOL programmer to stick his head in the sand and pretend that COBOL is (or
>always will be) a {*filter*} language.

I've said this before and I'll say it again with references.  COBOL is
and always will be the {*filter*} language.

COBOL is most used computer language (50%) then comes C/C++ (20%).
Source: DataQuest 1994.

A Gartner Group Survey in October of 1995 stated that 65% of all new
systems development was still being done in COBOL.

1).  Almost all application development on mainframe is Cobol.
2).  C/S are not replacing mainframes.  Most C/S's are hooking into
mainframes, taking over distributed applications, but not the mission
critical systems.
3).  Mainframes can even be found on the webb, with (yes, you guessed
it) apps written in Cobol.  FedEx, the Olympics, JL Bean.  New
products such as 370/Web, Web/3270 translates CICS and DB2 into HTML.
Oh, the horror, the world is a 3278 terminal!!!!!!
4).  The most used language for midrange computers is Cobol.
5).  Cobol in the past 3 years has grown rapidly on C/S.

Here's the source Infoworld, April 8, 1996, page 56.

Sentry Market Research surveyed 700 IS mangers what language they used
for client/server application development:

Visual Basic    23%
Cobol           21%
C++             18%
C               15%
4GL             15%
Other             8%

Key findings:

The use of languages has doubled since 1993.

The fastest growing are Cobol and VB.

4GLs, Object Cobol, and C++ are the highest rated.

The use of model driven development tools is growing.

VB's strength is in graphical tool development, but placed in the
middle of the ratings list.

Quote:
>Why?  The business user community.  They like GUI applications!  They want windows, tool bars, buttons, point
>and click, connectivity, etc...  And let's face it... C++ is the language that most 'power' applications are
>written in.  Ok, you can use Powerbuilder or a similar 'high-level' development  tool, but when you need to get
>intimate with the operating system, C++ can make it sing.  If someone makes a COBOLwin product (yeah, right) it
>will probably coded in C++.  (Hey, why doesn't someone make a product, implemented similar to CICS command
>level, that will allow COBOL to interface with windows in an object oriented fashion?   In place of BMS, you
>could have BWS - Basic Windows Support -- all you CICS programmers should get a chuckle out of that one...)

You actually pointed out the biggest reason why COBOL will remain the
dominate language:  The business user community.

Business users just love the spend their budgets ripping out solid
systems written in COBOL that work very well and then replacing them
with new system that does the same thing.

Of course we can't forget about the couple hundred billion bytes of
data in files supporting PACKed EBCIDC fields.  Since there are no C++
libraries that support PACKed EBCIDC, all that data will need to be
converted.

Then there's the programmer.  That business user is also going to have
to chip in to re-train that staff of COBOL programmers to code,
enhance and maintain in C++.

And of course, it will be a real joy for that programmer, who gets
called in at 2:00am to fix a C++ program that's gone down and given 1
hour to fix it, before it causes every desktop computer interface will
be dead in the water for the next business day.  This is not an
unrealistic scenerio, I've been there, I've done that.

Evidently you are not aware of COBOL 97.  Products are already
available that handle GUI apps quite well.  Part of this new standard
includes Object Orientation.

New products like Web/370 can take a CICS query screen and change it
to HTML.  Now, a SPARC station or even a Mac can interface with a CICS
query screen.

BTW, all of my 15 years experience has been done for business users.

Quote:
>My prediction?  Ultimately, COBOL will die, but is will be a slow death... maybe 15 to 20 years.  Does that
>mean that COBOL programmers will have to learn another language?  If they still want to program... yes, that's
>what I think.  JavaBOL... hehehe

COBOL will still be around, and it will continue as the {*filter*}
language long after you and I are dead and buried.

Everybody seems to know that COBOL has been around a long time (37
years), and that it is the {*filter*} language on mainframes.  But, most
don't realize that the {*filter*} languages on mainframes used to be
Assembler and fortran.  Two languages that are very powerful, but
difficult to enhance and maintain.  IS managers switched to COBOL
because it's much easier (and cheaper) to enhance and maintain COBOL
code.

Now client/server, which has had C/C++ as it's core languages are
running into the same problems that mainframe IS managers encountered
30 years ago.  And guess what?  These IS managers are re-discovering
COBOL.

I did not coin this phrase, but here it is:
"C is a programmer's dream, but a manager's nightmare".

Quote:
>Which leads me to the this...  all you C++ people out there... give an old COBOL programmer some information on
>how to learn C, then graduate to C++.  I'd rather not have to spend a fortune on books... I've spent enough
>already on CICS and DB2.  However, if there a mother of all 'C++' books that can take some one from novice to
>advanced level, then I would be interested.

I've learned C++, but I'm so busy writing COBOL that I can't put it to
use.  In fact, the market for COBOL programmers is so good right now,
a COBOL programmer can pick and choose his work.

I've been so busy for the past 5 years, my billiable hours have been
approximately the following: 2000, 2700, 2000, 2600, 2000.

I'm currently telecommuting from home, all of the code is new
development, no paperwork and I set my own hours.  (Is this a great
country or what?).

Tim Oxler

TEO Computer Technologies Inc.

http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~troxler
http://www.*-*-*.com/



Fri, 05 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 COBOL isn't dead, but I'm learning C++

Quote:
>Evidently you are not aware of COBOL 97.  Products are already
>available that handle GUI apps quite well.  Part of this new standard
>includes Object Orientation.

We (Acucobol) already have a full GUI Cobol compiler. It'll even handle a gui enabled binary on a CUI platform (our object file is cross-platform), with the obvious exception of any bitmaps.

Quote:
>I did not coin this phrase, but here it is:
>"C is a programmer's dream, but a manager's nightmare".

Not even that; C gives many programmers ulcers.  It's a great middle level
language, but you simply have to do too much manually.  For instance, if you
were planning on opening an indexed file in COBOL, how much work is it?  Now,
suppose you want to do the same thing in C?  Get ready with the custom libraries!


Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 COBOL isn't dead, but I'm learning C++

: >Evidently you are not aware of COBOL 97.  Products are already

I though COBOL was like Radio active waste.

Theres tons of it out there and nobody knows how to get rid of it.
Then sombody makes some more..........

---------------------



Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 COBOL isn't dead, but I'm learning C++

Quote:


>: >Evidently you are not aware of COBOL 97.  Products are already
>I though COBOL was like Radio active waste.
>Theres tons of it out there and nobody knows how to get rid of it.
>Then sombody makes some more..........
>---------------------


Gee Gibo,

I didn't realize radios created active waste.

My advise to you is to stay in school.  The real world would be too
much of a shock for you to handle.

Tim Oxler

TEO Computer Technologies Inc.

http://www.i1.net/~troxler
http://users.aol.com/TEOcorp



Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 4 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Cobol isn't dead, but ...

2. Why isn't Eiffel as widely used as C++

3. Why isn't Eiffel as widely as C++ (or Smalltalk)

4. Why isn't Dylan syntax more like C++

5. Why isn't Eiffel as widely as C++ (or Smalltalk)

6. C is dead, C++ is moribund, I'm not feeling too well myself

7. Why isn't Haskell mainstream?---A newbie's view

8. GNU Script isn't fixing something that's broken, so is doomed

9. GNU Script isn't fixing something that's broken, so is doomed

10. GNU Script isn't fixing something that's broken, so is doomed

11. route finding 'dead-end'

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software