Timothy:
Well you did mention it. So I will ask the question to you.
What is the cost benefit to do the conversion?
So far there seems to be a "debug" feature (which I don't believe
anyone says that it is must have feature).
So, other than this so call magical debug feature (which apparently
only available to COBOL why should we convert?)
IBM has been silent about the downsides as well, what about those
(please don't say because as management doesn't like because they
want a business case and so far I have not heard of a business case).
I am advising my clients not to convert unless I see a business case.
Ed
On Sep 13, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
Peter Farley astutely points out:
It seems to me that the first reason for the PDSE requirement
was their choice to use the Java backend code generator....
Precisely.
OK, let's summarize:
1. There is always a migration effort to upgrade anything,
anywhere. It
will cost millions or billions of dollars for the iPhone community to
upgrade from iOS 6 to iOS 7 starting next week, yet it will be
done. And
for most people most of the time it'll be a smooth, low cost, value-
adding
experience because a lot of technical people did a lot of work.
2. Enterprise COBOL 5.1 has a PDSE prerequisite for important
technical
reasons which Peter Farley has helpfully explained. (Thanks, Peter.)
3. You may have a migration effort to get to PDSE. If so, there
will be
some cost/effort. I don't remember characterizing the size of that
cost/effort except that it's far from the biggest in history. (Y2K?
z/Architecture? VS COBOL II? Sysplex?) I do remember recommending an
assessment of that cost/effort via a trial (for example).
4. The migration effort must be assessed along with the benefits --
and wow
there are many of the latter. What's the continuing cost to run XX%
less
efficient code than now available?
John Gilmore opines:
I have made no secret of my view that the management of too many
mainframe shops is compulsively risk-averse, suspiciously
unanimous in
its rejection of innovation, in a word, reactionary.
These attitudes are destroying the mainframe....
I hope that's not going on here, this time. The existence of a cost/
effort
is not a sufficient justification for inertia and inaction --
agreed, John.
I humbly suggest we now, constructively, focus on what's involved
in moving
to PDSE (if you haven't already), techniques for reducing the
costs/risks/effort to move, and develop advice (and/or point to
existing
advice) on how to get the job done as quickly and efficiently as
possible.
We've got a prerequisite, yes. We've also got a fantastic new
compiler,
hurray! And if there's something IBM could or should do better to
make PDSE
better, yes, please let IBM know (the official ways). But don't
wait for
IBM unless that's the only business-justified choice available.
Who's delivering friendly, responsive customer service? Who's
delivering
relevant, valuable innovation? Are you? Or is somebody else?
*Somebody*
will satisfy user and business demands. How about this community?
How about
mainframes *and the talented people who operate them*?
Let's roll up our collective sleeves, figure this out, and get the job
done, OK? Because the folks upgrading 10,000 blade servers from
Windows
Server 2003 to Windows Server 2012 are working, and they don't even
have
coexistence/fallback available (to pick an example).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
