Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"

"Robert" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:f6eet3depq6ugth6br7r2mk1hd5u9uiiqk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:50:02 GMT, "William M. Klein" 
> <wmklein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"Robert" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:m1pbt3hf9l197putsqlr2pvr1iccpgv7ka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:12:04 -0600, "Frank Swarbrick"
>>> <Frank.Swarbrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> The average Cobol programmer has avoided Occurs Depending On for 22 
>>> years.
>>>
>>
>>As usual, Robert's claim for what the "average COBOL ****gramme" does or 
>>doesn't
>>do is based on his rigourously applied research method, i.e. "it seems
to 
>>me -
>>that of those programs and programmers that I have seen, that ..."
>
> When ODO comes up in this forum, as it did 3 years ago and 6 months ago
in 
> my Myth Busters
> thread, some here said it should not be used because it is too slow
(even 
> when faced with
> contrary evidence)  or because it adds 'unnecessary complexity'. The
Micro 
> Focus Server
> Express performance tips manual says it is slower; an IBM manual you 
> linked to says the
> same.

So, are you saying these manuals are wrong?

I don't use it because I don't believe it saves anything and it just adds 
overhead (although I realy don't care about that) and complexity (although
I 
really don't care about that either... :-)). Basically, it promises to
save 
memory, then goes and allocates the largest possible space anyway. THAT'S 
why I REALLY don't like it... it simply fails to deliver what it promises.

:-) (Failure to deliver, usually pisses me off... :-))

Now, your point about sorts on ODO arrays being faster is an interesting 
one, but, as I have never used an ODO array in memory and therefore have
no 
need to sort it, for me, that's a teeny bit irrelevant... I don't sort
fixed 
length arrays either; instead, I load them in sequence and use SEARCH ALL 
(if they're large) or just SEARCH if they're small. Easy, no messing, does

the job, works for me.

I simply don't understand why you are so fired up in sup****t of ODO. What
am 
I missing, here?

(I haven't even bothered to discuss its use on files because that is just 
beneath contempt as far as I'm concerned... In a bygone era, when external

media were limited in capacity and expensive in price, there MIGHT have
been 
a need for it (although even then we found other and better ways to store 
information), but anyone still using it today for external storage just
gets 
my sympathy and an offer of help. No discussion.)

>
> ODO is one of many faith-based  issues in the Cobol community.

"Tell us, Master, how we can acquire faith..."
"**** off!"
"Tell us, Master, how to **** off..."
(apologies to Monty Python's Life of Brian...)

>
> Manuals fail to point out that ODO makes SEARCH ALL 10% faster for
typical 
> (2^10) table
> size. Assuming the table is half full, the difference is 1 - (log2(n) /
(1 
> + log2(n))).
>

(Yawn)... so I should use ODO to save a few milliseconds when I need to
sort 
an array?

But I DON'T need to sort an array... ever. And if I did I'd take the
hit...

Next point?

>>Needless to say, given the LARGE number of files that are still used by 
>>COBOL
>>programs and that require ODO's, what he has stated does apply in some
>>environments, but requires a use of "average" that is not universally 
>>used.

Bill obviously lives in a different world from me. If I was living in a 
world where there were a "LARGE number of files that are still used by
COBOL 
programs and that require ODO's..." I'd be strongly encouraging migration
to 
databases... By an amazing coincidence, I just happen to have here some 
tools that can fully automate the data migration and also some approaches 
that can help with the code conversion. Am I prophetic or what? (Actually,

no... it's just that quite a number of people have realized that living in
a 
world where there are a "LARGE number of files that are still used by
COBOL 
programs and that require ODO's..." is NOT a good place to be...) I was
one 
of them, without even having the increased urgency that ODO would provide,

so I built some tools to help me get out of this dying world. Some other 
people then also picked them up... I thought their usefulness was now over

as, surely, everybody has migrated?  Apparently not... at least not where 
Bill lives :-).

If you live in Bill's world and fear for the future, contact me. I can
help.

> Files? I thought files were replaced by databases years ago. Rows don't 
> contain arrays.

No they don't. But they can vary in length, WITHOUT needing ODO... VARCHAR

columns are implemented the way ODO SHOULD have been... transparently to
the 
user.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."