| Author |
Message
|
| bruce2359 |
 Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:08 pm Post subject: COBOL: pctage in prod? Pctage Object-Oriented COBOL? |
 |
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Hi, all.
I doing a short and informal survey.
Approximately what percentage of your apps are COBOL?
Of that, what percentage are object-oriented COBOL?
Thanks for your time.
Bruce
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
COBOL: about 30%, all z/OS
OO COBOL: 0%
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
COBOL: 0%
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
what is the "cobol" of what you speak?
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| what is the "cobol" of what you speak? |
The programming language used in the business critical back-office systems many of us are stuck with.
I say "business critical" in the sense the business think they're critical. The reality I'll accept debate on. Assume "business critical" to be shorthand for "applications the business are too scared to try and replace except in a piecemeal, snail's pace fashion because most of the decision makers in the organization are so in love with them they've settled down and married them"
To pre-empt my most worthy associate, "decision makers" are that layer of middle to upper middle management, with many decades in the organization who will never make it to senior, board management but who are that constituency that know where all the levers are, what all the switches do, are conservative in the dictionary rather than the political sense and who are not easily challenged, nor intimidated, by the guys on the management carousel who put their time in at one company before upticking to another one.
10 years ago, a good 70% of the applications would have been z/OS COBOL here. So there is change. But people have been predicting the death of Count Cobol since 1990 and no-one's come up with an effective wooden stake yet.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| what is the "cobol" of what you speak? |
It's the COBOL with 200+Billion lines of COBOL code running today. That COBOL.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
At least COBOL doesn't require a JVM and gigs of memory to run efficiently. Its probably the only 1st gen language that survived well past the 1980's. Is there much FORTRAN, PL/1, ALGOL, RPG still around?
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
Based on queue manager count, about 10% are COBOL. The COBOL application that uses MQ is 100% object-oriented, but uses a proprietary object-oriented syntax and not the one that comes with IBM object-oriented Enterprise COBOL.
_________________
Working with MQ since 2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Legacy?
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
It's getting about 30 years old, so probably. But what does that make me then? 
_________________
Working with MQ since 2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Please see my piece above. There is no perceived difference between replacing the COBOL system with a new purchased system, a new in-house developed system or a new system obtained by running the COBOL through the kind of converter described in your link. I'm sure it's a very good converter, does a very good job and produces robust code functionally identical to the original COBOL.
Not one part of that is the point.
You can't get past the concept of "we're going to stop using the old COBOL" in any realistic or timely way.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| I'm sure it's a very good converter, does a very good job and produces robust code functionally identical to the original COBOL. |
I've no idea. random link found.
| Vitor wrote: |
Not one part of that is the point.
You can't get past the concept of "we're going to stop using the old COBOL" in any realistic or timely way. |
Yes, yes. I know.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| Vitor wrote: |
Not one part of that is the point.
You can't get past the concept of "we're going to stop using the old COBOL" in any realistic or timely way. |
Should that be "...we're not going to stop using the old COBOL..." ? 
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| exerk wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
Not one part of that is the point.
You can't get past the concept of "we're going to stop using the old COBOL" in any realistic or timely way. |
Should that be "...we're not going to stop using the old COBOL..." ? |
No - you tell these people "we're going to stop using the old COBOL" and it doesn't matter if that sentence ends with:
"..and convert it to OO COBOL"
"..and convert it to Java"
"..and convert it to this magic cloud solution that runs five times as fast and they pay us to host it"
because they're already running round the room, tearing their hair, screaming that it's the end of days and the only way to stop it is to burn the heretics...
Last time I did a contract with that contact admin church.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
