[Cobolforgcc-devel] RE: What is the future of COBOL? Answer: Irrelevant???

[William M. K. <wm...@ix...>]

Thand,
 So, is the vendor that you represent on J4 going to implement the full =
2002
COBOL Standard? Have they made ANY "statement of direction" to that =
effect?
Is that vendor finding COBOL to be a profitable product in the Windows,
Unix, or Linux environmens? What is their "staffing" level like - =
growing or
shrinking or staying the same?=20

Actually, the years 1990 to 1993 (to use your years) was a time of
SIGNIFICNT new releases of COBOL. (Several vendors came out with their
"high-level" '85 Standard compilers during that period of time.  Others
introduced their versions with Intrinsic Function support then.)

As of this momement (and I certainly could be wrong on this), ONLY the
Siemens portion of Fujitsu (which is not the part that I believe you
represent on J4) and Micro Focus have made ANY public commitment to 2002
conforming compilers.  Micro Focus initially indicated that there "next"
release would be conforming, but when their V4 product came out, they =
only
claim conformance to the OO porition of the 2002 Standard.

I did indicate and I do believe that many of the existing vendors will
continue producting new releases/versions with new features.  I just =
don't
think that those release will stem the flow AWAY from COBOL.

> -----Original Message-----
> Hogwash.
>=20
> Especially this part:
>=20
> > question of "Is COBOL a dynamic/growing programming=20
> environment?" seems to
> > warrant an equally strong "NO" as an answer.
>=20
> There have been more new COBOL releases by a variety of=20
> vendors RECENTLY than=20
> in the same time frame 10 years ago. (say 1990-1993).   In=20
> the last few years=20
> the gap between what you can do with COBOL and what you can=20
> do with other=20
> languages has narrowed considerably.  It isn't because the=20
> other environments=20
> are becoming static or shrinking - it's because COBOL is=20
> dynamic and growing.
>=20
> Yes - COBOL Expo got cancelled (Postponed).  Don't blame COBOL.
>=20
> On 23 May 2003 at 16:16, William M. Klein wrote:
>=20
> > Please be advised that replying to this message goes to the=20
> sender. If you wish
> > to send a reply to all on the list, please respond with "Reply All".
> > _____________
> >  J4 and WG4 posed the question "What <is> your vision for=20
> the COBOL language 5
> > years from now?"
> >=20
> > Although, I haven't heard it officially yet, I believe that=20
> I have heard it from
> > sufficiently "reliable sources" that CobolExpo 2003 (for=20
> June in Las Vegas) is
> > now canceled.  I also BELIEVE that as of this moment, the=20
> "forum on the future
> > of COBOL" is still planned to take place that week in Las=20
> Vegas.  Anyone already
> > planning on attending the forum (originally in addition to=20
> the CobolExpo) should
> > verify exactly what the plans are for it.
> >=20
> > HOWEVER, the major reason that I am posting this note to a=20
> few groups and
> > lists is that I really think that "we all" need to step up=20
> to the actual
> > answer to the question of where COBOL will be 5 years from=20
> now - and the
> > answer is close to (but not quite) irrelevant.
> >=20
> > I *strongly* believe that there will still be COBOL=20
> compilers (even some
> > with new releases, new features, and new interfaces) - not=20
> only 5 years from now
> > but even 10 years from now.
> >=20
> > I even believe (from some documents submitted to J4) that=20
> there MAY be one
> > or two compilers that conform (at least mostly) to the 2002=20
> ISO COBOL
> > Standard.
> >=20
> > I suspect that there will even be new and "upgraded" COBOL=20
> applications that use
> > NEW features introduced in the 2002 COBOL Standard - and=20
> some of the TR's
> > (Technical Reports) currently being worked on by J4 and WG4.
> >=20
> >     ON THE OTHER HAND,
> >=20
> > The following are some of my "crystal ball" visions=20
> (whether "fears" or
> > simply "forebodings")
> >=20
> > 1) I expect that MOST COBOL compilers will use the 2002 ISO=20
> Standard (and
> > the TR's - if approved) as a "Chinese menu" and will "pick=20
> and choose" which of
> > the (required - not just processor dependent) features they=20
> ever implement.
> >=20
> > 2) COBOL will NEVER be a *major* player in the "user-side"=20
> of the web or
> > server application environment. (Which is NOT to say that=20
> there won't be
> > some new - as well as continued - applications that do this.)
> >=20
> > 3) New "businesses" doing data processing or existing=20
> businesses creating
> > NEW applications will *only* select COBOL as their=20
> "programming language of
> > choice" in infrequent and unusual circumstances.
> >=20
> > 4) Sites with existing COBOL applications will increase their
> > "consideration" of language conversions away from COBOL=20
> when they do "major
> > maintenance" or new functionality to those programs.
> >=20
> > 5) Membership in J4 and WG4 will continue to "decrease"=20
> with NO new COBOL
> > vendors joining J4; no new countries joining WG4; and those=20
> doing the "real
> > work" of the committees continuing to be limited to a VERY=20
> SMALL handful of
> > individuals (not vendors or user companies).
> >=20
> > 6) There never will be robust  "certification tests" for=20
> the 2002 ISO
> > Standard - and the US government (along with European and=20
> Asian governmental
> > bodies) will NEVER require "2002 conforming" compilers. =20
> (And possibly they will
> > even - within the next 10 years - drop COBOL as a=20
> "authorized" programming
> > language for new projects - in cases where they have a list=20
> of such authorized
> > programming "languages" or "tools").
> >=20
> >         ***
> >=20
> > Bottom-Line:
> >   I will continue to "post" to newsgroups and others the=20
> information of what is
> > happening with "development" and "maintenance" of the COBOL=20
> language by various
> > Standards groups.  I think it is important that all=20
> existing COBOL programmers
> > "keep abreast" of what is or might be happening or going to happen.
> >=20
> > OTOH,  I can't see - unless something DRAMATICALLY changes=20
> - that COBOL will be
> > seen as a GROWING programming environment.  Certainly the=20
> 30-year old question
> > of "Is COBOL dead?" still deserves an answer of NO.  On the=20
> other hand, the
> > question of "Is COBOL a dynamic/growing programming=20
> environment?" seems to
> > warrant an equally strong "NO" as an answer.
> >=20
> > OBVIOUSLY, this post reflects PERSONAL OPINION only.  I=20
> wouldn't mind being
> > proven wrong - but I won't hold my breath either.
> >=20
> > --
> > Bill Klein
> >  wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > ________
> > This mailing list may not be used for unlawful purposes.=20
> All postings should be
> > relevant, but ITI accepts no responsibility for any posting=20
> and may terminate
> > access to any subscriber violating any policies of the=20
> Association. Please
> > review the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines at=20
> <http://www.incits.org/natrust.htm>.
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> ---
> COBOL - Immune=20
> to buffer overflows
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ________
> This mailing list may not be used for unlawful purposes. All postings=20
> should be relevant, but ITI accepts no responsibility for any=20
> posting and=20
> may terminate access to any subscriber violating any policies of the=20
> Association. Please review the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines at=20
> <http://www.incits.org/natrust.htm>.
>=20