cobol >> OT Golf WAS CoBOL moved to OO

by Peter E.C. Dashwood » Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:30:25 GMT


"Howard Brazee" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news:bss28u$jo$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>
> On 29-Dec-2003, Doug Scott < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:
>
> People (and companies) periodically search for the One True Tool. This
may be
> a management style, a programming style, a sales style, or whatever.
But I
> want to use all of the clubs in my golf bag.

My handicap (apart from all the obvious ones...<G>) is "officially" 20. (I
have never analysed or tried to seriously improve my golf game, because I
don't play often enough and the wonderful handicapping system ensures
players of wildly different abilities can have enjoyable matches against
each other. On the increasingly rare occasions when I get to play, I simply
enjoy it...)

But your comment did remind me of something that happened many years ago on
a public course in Auckland. I had decided to have a round, and none of the
pool of "usual partners" that I played with was available, so I decided to
simply turn up and get paired off with a stranger.

The man I was paired with seemed fairly affable and unprepossessing. He
asked me my handicap and I truthfully said "24" (it was the maximum
allowable and I was just learning...). His was "4". I was in awe as I had
never played with anyone that good before. Anyway, he asked me if I would
like him to give me advice as we progressed (which I thought then and still
think, was a very civilized and polite way to offer help). I eagerly
accepted and we played the first hole. He birdied it and I was 2 over. On
the next tee, he started to explain about timing...

"If you get the timing right and adjust your stance properly, you can get
huge milage from any of your clubs." he said.

"But what about the different lofts and weights of different clubs?", I
asked.

"Irrelevant, at a fundamental level. It is all in the timing. Look, we have
17 holes to play. I'll play ALLof them using ONLY a putter, just to
demonstrate what I am saying...".

While I was a novice, I realised that the putter has NO loft whatsoever with
a plain flat face, and little or no weight.

He drove off the tee with his putter and made around 250 yards; I drove with
a 2 wood and was under 200...

That pattern was repeated throughout the day. His drives, approaches, chips,
and putts were all made solely with his putter and he ended up something
like 15 over par for the course. ( I think I was pleased to be 35 over,
after adjusting for handicap...<G>)

I have never forgotten the "lesson" I received from that unknown golfer. For
the cost of a jug of beer, which I gladly bought at the 19th, I learned that
if you are really good at something, so good that you really "understand"
and recognise it's underlying essence, the "received wisdom" may not apply
to you...

There is also no doubt that having a 4 handicap inspires confidence and
dispels doubt...<G>

Pete.





cobol >> OT Golf WAS CoBOL moved to OO

by Howard Brazee » Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:21:09 GMT





In the U.S. handicap indices above 36 get calculated but generally aren't
counted. It is a good learning practice to play 3 club tournaments. One
learns to use the tools we have better. Heck I once wrote a program in DCL
that emulated assembler - even doing left and right shifts for multiplication
and division. Good practice.



A good golfer/programmer can use whatever tools we have available - and do a
better job than poor golfers/programmers.

But when they want to do their best (let's say in a Major golf championship),
they make sure they have all of their tools.


cobol >> OT Golf WAS CoBOL moved to OO

by Judson McClendon » Thu, 01 Jan 2004 03:54:27 GMT




As they say, "It's not the brush, but the artist." :-)
--
Judson McClendon XXXX@XXXXX.COM (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."




Similar Threads

1. OT Golf WAS CoBOL moved to OO

Peter,

> I learned that
> if you are really good at something, so good that you really "understand"
> and recognise it's underlying essence, the "received wisdom" may not apply
> to you...

That's a lovely story, and it resonates truth.


---

Doug

 XXXX@XXXXX.COM 


2. Call prototype vs Invoke was CoBOL moved to OO

3. CoBOL moved to OO

We have a lot of PeopleSoft software in our shop.   I'm told that their move to
OO is by encapsulating much of their existing CoBOL code and using tags and such
to call it in an OO setup.

How common is this with big mainframe applications?

4. [OT] Linux disaster? (Was: COBOL FAQ *moved*)

5. OO and IBM z series COBOL was Discussions of COBOL philospphy

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:18:02 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

>
>
>"Judson McClendon" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message 
>news:o9fFi.15963$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>> "Pete Dashwood" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:
>>>
>>> It is a pity that the 2002 standard, which is actually trying to do some 
>>> useful things with the language, has inherited this legacy. I guess you 
>>> could say: "Too little, too late..."
>>
>> I wonder, was there a point when, had the COBOL community had the
>> foresight, COBOL could have been enhanced in a way as to make it a
>> popular, viable development language in today's environment? I'll have
>> to say, I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there could
>> have been "Enough, in time."
>
>You may well be right.
>
>It is pretty easy to speculate given hindsight; there is really no way of 
>knowing...
>
>Here's a possible scenario...
>
>1. Suppose, there had been a release of the COBOL 90 standard, that included 
>OO.
>2. Suppose this had been eagerly embraced by the community at that time. 
>(This would have had a "knock on" efffect in causing new methodologies for 
>which OO is well suited to be investigated.)
>3. Suppose it was possible for people to download free or very reasonably 
>priced versions of compilers written to this standard, without run time fees 
>being charged.
>4. Suppose OO COBOL had been so eagerly embraced that network development 
>and remote procedure calling would be implemented in it, as well as the 
>traditional batch processing role.
>5. Suppose a decent IDE and support tools had been available, that worked 
>across platforms providing the same support in mainframe and network 
>environments.
>6. Suppose the obvious success of COBOL led to the implementation of graphic 
>tools that could build COBOL components and assemble them into 
>sub-assemblies in seconds. This would allow COBOL support for non-procedural 
>solutions.
>
>Would the story have been any different?

With a large amount of COBOL code still on IBM z series, some
interesting developments are relevant to this discussion.  There
purportedly is a Websphere based IDE that supports COBOL and
presumably has repository functions (I haven't researched it yet
because I am trying to figure out if it matters).  COBOL for the z
series supports OO in JAVA context.  There apparently are classes and
other OO pieces of functionality for C/C++ in CICS according to one
posting I read on bit.listserv.ibm-main.  This could mean that there
could be a path to moving COBOL on the z series to OO.  IBM is pushing
web integration, SOA and a number of other things that I don't pretend
to understand except in a very broad sense.  

IBM z series is still used by a large number of large organizations
and a surprising number of smaller ones.  It is getting decent Unicode
support.  There are web servers for it.  DB2 is still one of the most
used data bases and improvements are still being made to IMS data base
and data communications including 64 bit support.  IBM vacillates on
whether it wants the smaller user but currently does have some
interesting offerings at the low end (not the developer low end
unfortunately for those small ISVs who can use a mainframe on a
laptop).  Most larger banks are probably on CICS or IMS for their
major processing even today.

Thus the question becomes would it be worthwhile to push IBM to make
it come together?  The benefits are the reuse of a number of systems
that can't be replaced by SAP, et al and a migration path.  For those
of you who know both C# and COBOL, how much would have to added to
COBOL for it to have the same functionality that C# has.   

>
>Pete.

6. IBM, OO COBOL and related IBM products(was: Reasonably priced COBOL products

7. IBM, OO COBOL and related IBM products (was: Reasonably priced COBOL products

8. Static versus dynamic SQL was OO and IBM z series COBOL was Discussions of COBOL philospphy