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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/1/2022 6:45 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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 believe there are still places where they teach C. Either
for OS or for embedded.

But more important they are not teaching OO only languages. They
teach multi-paradigm languages that support OOP and other paradigms.

C++ was born with procedural, OO and generic support - plus some
rudimentary FP support that got expanded a lot in version 11.

Java was born with procedural and OO support - got generic support
in version 5 and FP support in version 8. No builtin AOP support,
but AspectJ provide both static weaving and dynamic weaving (the
latter via Spring DI).

C# was born with procedural and OO support - plus some
rudimentary FP support that got extended a lot in version 3.
Generic support was added in version 2.

PHP started procedural. Added OOP later (version 4.0?).
Added FP later (version 5.3). Genric does not make sense
in dynamic typed language.

Python started procedural and OO. Added FP later (not sure when).
Generic does not make sense in dynamic typed language.

JavaScript was born with procedural, OO and FP support.
Generic does not make sense in dynamic typed language.

Universities are not really pushing OOP. They are pushing
multi-paradigm.

And if comparing University usage to industry usage, then
I believe they are over-prioritizing FP and under-prioritizing OOP.

>> 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.

You can always get people if you are willing to pay enough money.

"not being able to get people" really means "the stuff I am
doing generate less money than what other companies are doing
so the other companies get the people".

>>>> 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.

There are a lot of Cobol code running. And there will continue to
be for decades.

But the new stuff are done with other languages.

And companies slowly migrate off. Not many, maybe just a few percent
per year. But it accumulate over many years.

Arne