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

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

I'm not going to get into a war with you.  I think you erroneously see a 
departure from COBOL - I don't see that at all - in fact I see failed attempts 
at departure where in the end they RETURNED to COBOL and got the results they 
desired in the first place.  I have FIRST hand experience to the back this up.  
The world if IT is still expanding - COBOL use is expanding.  Considering the 
audience of this message, I'm not going to speak to the Fujitsu specific issues 
- these are trade secrets and the release of any such information could have an 
impact on future competitive advantage.

But - while we are throwing wood on the fire.  Let's talk about the Lattice C 
compiler or maybe Borland or Watcom?  I don't see COBOL vendors drying up at 
the rate I see C/C++ compilers going away.

On 23 May 2003 at 17:17, William M. Klein wrote:

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

--------------------
Everything I need to know about debugging I learned from Sesame Street.