[Info-vax] For sale: VAXstation 4000/90 128MB Fully Working and Tested

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/1/22 16:38, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/1/2022 2:25 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/1/22 11:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2022 8:14 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/2022 4:30 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> ensure that frontend/UI technology is modern, there are so much
>>>>>> to choose from, I would suggest Grails
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea whether Grails is good or bad.  To my mind there are 
>>>>> too many of
>>>>> these frameworks, it feels like a new one appears most days, spreading
>>>>> themselves too thinly.
>>>>
>>>> It is not so much the quantity of "new" that is occurring, as the 
>>>> contention of some that we all must embrace the "new", regardless of 
>>>> whether what exists is working well and is not broken.
>>>
>>> I don't think the claim is that you should embrace the new.
>>
>> Of course it is.  Just look at OOP.  COBOL users refused to accept it
>> because it really offered nothing they needed to get the job done and
>> added layers of unneeded complexity.  The result was a full force attack
>> against COBOL that continues to this day.
> 
> I don't think anyone is telling developers to embrace OOP.

Of course they did.  Everything taught at University (at least on
our side of the pond) went to OOP.  People, like the COBOL community,
who refused to accept it became outcasts.  University's stopped
teaching (or even discussing COBOL except to denigrate it).  Even
CIS courses where COBOL was still the best fit dropped it.  I was
there.  I saw it.  I fought it.  I still do.  But, alas, to no avail.

> 
> Modern software development is very much multi-paradigm. Procedural,
> OOP, generic, FP and possibly with a tiny sprinkle of AOP. Developers
> pick the tools they consider best for the task at hand.

What non-OOP language is mainstream in Universities today?

> 
> I know you think the reason why Cobol is not in demand is that
> universities does not teach it and attack it. But demand rules.
> If the companies wanted Cobol for the new application they
> create, then it would be Cobol. But they don't.

But they do.  Recent surveys have shown that not only is the number
of lines of COBOL not decreasing it is increasing.  The only major
COBOL IS I have seen go away went away not because of a desire to
use another language but because the maintainer of the IS has been
unable to find graduates who know or are willing to learn the
language.  They don't know it because it isn't taught and they
aren't willing to learn it because they had professors like some
of ours who repeatedly told them even learning the language was
detrimental to their futures.

> 
>>> More like continuously evaluating whether new stuff has some
>>> advantages over old stuff.
>>
>> Most of it does not.  It's the old risk/benefit argument.  Most of the
>> changes foisted onto the IT world offered little if any needed benefit
>> and brought a lot of risk that adversely affects business daily.
> 
> If you look at the world, then I think you will see that companies
> that are investing in new technologies thrive, while those that stick
> to what just works fine as always dwindle.

Most of the Fortune 500 still use mainframes and COBOL. Most major banks
still use mainframes and COBOL.  Credit Card companies.  Airlines.  All
of the major automobile companies.  All of the major Aircraft companies.
The Government at all levels except maybe local who never made it past
the PC.

> 
>>>> Once again I refer to the wheel, which isn't broken, and doesn't 
>>>> need replaced.
>>>
>>> If you took the wheels from your first car and put on your current 
>>> car, > then I suspect that you would not like them.
>>
>> But is that due to a flaw in the wheel or the fact that they forced
>> changes in the car to require different wheels?
>>
>>>
>>> The old wheels worked but some progress has been made since then.
>>
>> Not in their general design.  I suppose you are one of those
>> people who think low profile tires are the cat's pajamas.
> 
> A wheel is defined as a round thing you drive on, so that
> cannot change - else it would not be a wheel anymore.
> 
> But wheels has changed over time.
> 
> Antique massive wood wheels to middleage/renaissance wood with spokes
> and iron "tire" to metal with tension spokes and round rubber tire with
> tube to massive metal wheels with with more square rubber ties with tube
> to alloy wheels with tubeless radial tires.
> 
> Just with the tires the design, the thread patterns and the rubber
> compound has changed a lot to improve characteristics.


And the same is true about legacy IT Systems.  But some people
still see mainframes and COBOL or Fortran or PL/I, etc. as old
and needing replacement.  I would think the VMS community would
be well aware of this by now.

bill