Re: Answering an Ada/COBOL Question

[Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>]

In article <80qk9s$6h5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
	Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Actually I think this 

       [ C++ and C instead of COBOL ]

>is a rather small section of the market,
>I don't often run into C or C++ in COBOL type environments
>(smalltalk is for example more popular in this environment).

I suppose Silicon Valley is a little different from the rest 
of the world.  C and C++ are lingua franca of computing in
this neighborhood.   Java is making a lot of headway and some
even claim to have completed projects in it.  Now and then
someone will bravely attempt some other language.  For example,
a bunch of engineers at HP used Eiffel for the embedded software
on one of the printers.  

>The notion that COBOL is dead is another remarkable myth that
>you fine. About a year ago, I talked to a very high up official
>in the DoD who was in a position of considerable influence
>regarding DoD fiscal applications.

Software management and decision-making within the DoD has become
a national disgrace.  I guess I am into hyperbole again.  :-)


So much energy is being devoted to ideas that simply cloak 
the deeper problems that one can only wonder how we will 
survive any future conflict.  Granted, there are a few 
intelligent people still making good decisions.  The downturn 
started with Bill Perry's notion of COTS for everything, 
extended itself into the folly of adopting, "industry best 
practices," and culminated in  a decision to abandon Ada.  
Yes, I know.  That is not how the  decision was worded.  
But that is how it is being interpreted.

>He presented as received knowledge the idea that only the DoD
>was still using COBOL, and that all commercial companies had
>abandoned COBOL long ago. I was too taken aback to have any
>idea how to react to this absolutely amazing point of view.

This idiotic notion of "industry best practices" illustrates that
DoD officials have no clue of just how bad industry software is.
The DoD has, for a long time, been building much better software
than that in the commercial sector.  Next thing you know, someone
will be using NT for an embedded weapon system.  Heaven help us!

>When we developed Realia COBOL in the 1980's for the PC, we
>expected the market to be offloaded maintenance of existing
>COBOL applications on mainframes. We were surprised to find
>that the major market was (and still is by the way) development
>of new COBOL applications to be deployed on PC's (it is possible
>these days to run JCL, BAL, CICS, etc on PC's, so the entire
>mainframe environment can be replicated).

Ada has certainly evolved as a beter option for most applications
than COBOL.  But COBOL is far from dead.  The rash of advertising
for C++ and Java programmers simply indicates the immaturity of 
those markets.  The COBOL programmers are just going to work each
day and doing their job.  Those who judge the success of a language
on the basis of the number of ads for jobs, is like someone who 
judges the success of the automobile by counting the road kill.

Richard Riehle
http://www.adaworks.com