Design Question

[Arved Sandstrom]

I don't think "doing X, Y and Z being ahead of time 10 years ago"
does imply that none of X, Y and Z were known 10 years ago.

Arne

Thank you, Arne.

AHS

 

[soulspirit]

]

Nope. It is a tool. There are areas where it is good, and
others where it is not.

I agree!
I think I would never follow OOP paradigms to program my 10yrs old washing machine's firmware.
But just try to add a little more complexity to the ploblem et voila', OOP comes to.

Reading at your posts Gene, I'm increasingly convinced you'd do better in a computer history museum... even more when you try to defend your anachronistic convincements.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

]

Nope. It is a tool. There are areas where it is good, and
others where it is not.

I agree!
I think I would never follow OOP paradigms to program my 10yrs old washing machine's firmware.
But just try to add a little more complexity to the ploblem et voila', OOP comes to.

Well, no. Not necessarily.

Reading at your posts Gene, I'm increasingly convinced you'd do better in a computer history

museum... even more when you try to defend your anachronistic
convincements.

It is sad that anything different from what we have now is often
considered anachronistic.

I like wheels. Wheels are far older than any of the ideas I have
defended. Do you like wheels?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[soulspirit]

]

I like wheels. Wheels are far older than any of the ideas I have
defended. Do you like wheels?

I do, because there aren't good alternatives to them, nor interesting and affordable evolutions of the concept.

My boss says he can't understand many of the architectural problems we deal with nowadays; he says everything was simpler, clearer, bug free and more linear with COBOL. Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

]

I like wheels. Wheels are far older than any of the ideas I have
defended. Do you like wheels?

I do, because there aren't good alternatives to them, nor interesting and affordable evolutions of the concept.

The wheel has evolved considerably.

My boss says he can't understand many of the architectural problems we deal with

nowadays; he says everything was simpler, clearer, bug free and more
linear with COBOL. Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based
project?

I do not believe him. Do you?

If you have something workable now, why change? This is much the
same as why should a working system written in COBOL be rewritten in
language-flavour-of-the-short-time-period.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[soulspirit]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:25:38 AM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote: [...]
Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?

I do not believe him. Do you?

If you have something workable now, why change? This is much the
same as why should a working system written in COBOL be rewritten in
language-flavour-of-the-short-time-period.

Because things evolve.
How would you add web services capabilities to a COBOL program? How would you publish an AS/400 application to the internet?
Sometimes reworking something from scratch costs less than evolving an obsolete system.

But we were talking about new projects, you diverted from the subject.

I miss your answer here.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:25:38 AM UTC+1, Gene Wirchenko wrote: [...]
Should I evaluate COBOL for my next WEB-based project?

I do not believe him. Do you?

If you have something workable now, why change? This is much the
same as why should a working system written in COBOL be rewritten in
language-flavour-of-the-short-time-period.

Because things evolve.

Do you need the new whatever? You might not. It might possibly
be of interest. It might be vital. It depends.

How would you add web services capabilities to a COBOL program? How would you publish an AS/400 application to the internet?
Sometimes reworking something from scratch costs less than evolving an obsolete system.

Sure, and sometimes (the other sometimes), it is the other way
around.

But we were talking about new projects, you diverted from the subject.


I miss your answer here.

I did not divert from it at all. Why would one change? Are
there deficiencies in what you have now? Are there advantages which
could be gained by changing? How do these weigh out? Then, decide
accordingly.

Please note that I do not say that one should not use the new
stuff. What I say is that one does not necessarily need it. Use your
judgement to determine which is the case for you.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko