Re: COBOL Compiler for Windows

In article <67u54oF2p4cubU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fvcack$bej$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <67thq5F2p8o04U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>No, probably not. Batch processing will be redundant within your
lifetime.
>>
>> Mr Dashwood, leaving aside the myriad of legislated requirements for
batch
>> re****ting - and The Law, in some parts of the world, is rather
gastropodic
>> in its rate of change - what would a demonstration of this assertion
look
>> like?
>
>There is not ONE single legislated requirement for batch processing and
you 
>know it.

Mr Dashwood, that might be a reason for my speaking of 'batch re****ting', 
not 'batch processing'.  If one wishes to design an online transaction 
processing environment to create batch re****ts, have at it... that does 
not change the fact that there are legislated batch re****ting 
requirements.

[snip]

>> 'All right, I'm dead now and folks still need batch!'
>
>:-)
>
>Some folks will believe they still need batch processing long after all
of 
>us are dead. That doesn't mean that they actually do need it.

I wasn't asking into what 'some folks believe', Mr Dashwood, I was asking 
into what a demonstration of your assertion would look like.  I offered a 
suggestion and your response was an emoticon with... other stuff.

DD