Re: COBOL Compiler for Windows

"Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fvcm1e06lq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> "Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fv7fch02im3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
>>> Or maybe he wants a mainframe emulation environment, which would let
him
>>> run programs with EXEC CICS and EXEC SQL macros. We do sell such a
>>> product, after all (a few of 'em, actually).
>>>
>>> It's not free, though. It's not even cheap. Emulating the mainframe
>>> operating environment is not trivial.
>>
>> Sure it is.
>
> OK, Pete, code it up. I'm sure you could make a mint selling it.
>

There was a time when  I would have... :-)

I made a mint selling other things instead.

> Really, this must be one of the weakest claims I've ever seen you post 
> here, and that's saying something. There are 622 pages of technical 
> specifications in the CICS Prog Ref alone. Duplicating all of that 
> behavior requires a major development investment, regardless of the 
> technology it's built on or who's doing the work. And that's just the
CICS 
> API.

And yet the command interface is not that complex. Ok, I'll agree that it
is 
a serious amount of code. :-)

>
> Let's take an easy bit, as an example: emulating IBM's versions of the
BSD 
> sockets interface (EZASOKET and EZACICAL) on top of Winsock and SUSv3 
> sockets. That's about seven thousand lines of C source. You're welcome
to 
> try to do better.

I guess that would be a zillion lines of COBOL... :-)

OK, I'll upgrade my estimate to a VERY serious amount of code... :-)
>
>> One day the mainframe world will wake up to the fact that they have a
>> choice. There WAS a time when mainframe hardware was the only game in 
>> town
>> and vendors (both hardware and software) could charge anything they 
>> liked.
>
> All of our customers know they have a choice. They're exercising it by 
> buying our products.

So the rest of the marketplace exercised it the other way :-)?

I think your products are excellent. But I don't have any. Oddly enough, I

may be in the market for some, after some events that occurred today... It

would be ironic if I end up paying what I consider to be an unnecessarily 
high price for NetExpress... :-) (I'll probably get it on e-bay, if I have

to...)

It's the runtime licensing that really puts me off.

>
> Perhaps one day you'll realize that you're just another programmer with
an 
> opinion, and not a prophet with a divine channel to transcendent and 
> unassailable truth. But I'm not holding my breath.

:-) I have stated here many times that what I'm expressing is opinion.
I've 
never claimed divinity.There are those who would question my claim to be a

programmer... :-)

However, my opinions are honestly held and I'm happy to debate them.

(Nice turn of phrase, by the way...:-))

>
>> We paid $300,000 for an IBM 360-30 that had a fraction of the
processing
>> power that the machine I'm writing this on has.
>
> Hurrah for you. That has absolutely nothing to do with the effort
required 
> to emulate the mainframe environment.

Ah, we are debating different things. I'm concerned about the costs of 
software and service in mainframe environments which I believe has derived

from the times when people (even your customers) DIDN'T have any option.
You 
are apparently miffed because I dismissed the effort required to emulate a

mainframe TP monitor on a PC. (I actually said it tongue in cheek, but now
I 
stand by it...)

For MY argument, the cost when purchased of a now obsolete mainframe was 
very pertinent

Let's be clear about this.

Your company has put in a lot of effort building a mainframe environment 
emulator which is a very good product. My argument is that it's
overpriced. 
If I'm wrong, then show how I am. Maybe there's a limited market or the 
market was underestimated before development started or the job was a lot 
more difficult than expected and blew out the development cost... any of 
these would be perfectly valid reasons for the price being high.

But so is my posit that it is easy to charge high prices to people who are

used to high prices. Unfair? Then show why that isn't the case and I'll 
sincerely apologize (and I don't unless I'm sorry...)


>
>> Gee, Michael, guess you forgot to mention the runtime fees...?
>
> No; I didn't mention them because they weren't relevant. I didn't forget

> to mention the price of tea in China, either.
>
Given that the discussion was about the cost of things IT, I can agree
that 
the price of tea in China isn't relevant...:-)

Runtime fees, however... are another story.

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