Documenting COBOL WAS: Re: Flow chart generators
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 1 Nov 2009 11:38 In article <7l5m57F3c080qU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <7l2opiF3c9700U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> In article <7kvt4jF39ambbU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>>> Are you writing a 'moderately secured system' that gets reviewed >>>>>> by competent auditors? (longtime readers may recall something >>>>>> similar, years ago, when I asked Mr Dashwood about loading tables >>>>>> with 60,000,000 rows) >>>>> >>>>> I have written (and worked on ) major systems for 4 household name >>>>> Banks (even an American Bank) and 3 Insurance Companies. >>>> >>>> I did not ask what you did, Mr Dashwood, I asked 'are you writing'. >>>> Please notice the difference in tense... not that it is anything to >>>> get tense about. >>> >>> The fact that I am not currently doing something does not mean I >>> have never done it or know nothing about it. That was my point. >> >> Mr Dashwood, read the newsgroup and you'll find postings from folks >> who wrote for ICL machines and recall - some, even fondly! - directly >> patching load-modules. The fact that I no longer have white-blonde >> hair and can sing a decent soprano in no wise that I am doing so >> today... or am even capable of doing such. This is my point - that >> 'I did it before' does what was done Back Then is not, necessarily, >> any kind of indication of what one is doing now. > >This is so convoluted as to be totally obtuse. I have no idea what you are >talking about. My apologies for failing to recognise the limitations of my audience, Mr Dashwood, and permit me to rephrase it in a way which might have, at least for you, greater clarity, no word greater than two syllables: The fact that you did something before in no wise means you are either doing it now or can, at all, do it now. > >If you wish to have a response to what is rapidly becoming a pointless >conversation anyway, could you possibly drop the pretentious display of >pomposity and respond in simple, plain, concise, English? > >No...? Ok, never mind... Answering your own questions and refusing to address the legitimate concerns raised by others is a near-surefire way of steering any sort of discourse towards the end you most desire, Mr Dashwood... I hear that Managers are taught such, aye. DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Nov 2009 18:41 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <7l5m57F3c080qU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> In article <7l2opiF3c9700U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>>> In article <7kvt4jF39ambbU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>>>> Are you writing a 'moderately secured system' that gets reviewed >>>>>>> by competent auditors? (longtime readers may recall something >>>>>>> similar, years ago, when I asked Mr Dashwood about loading >>>>>>> tables with 60,000,000 rows) >>>>>> >>>>>> I have written (and worked on ) major systems for 4 household >>>>>> name Banks (even an American Bank) and 3 Insurance Companies. >>>>> >>>>> I did not ask what you did, Mr Dashwood, I asked 'are you >>>>> writing'. Please notice the difference in tense... not that it is >>>>> anything to get tense about. >>>> >>>> The fact that I am not currently doing something does not mean I >>>> have never done it or know nothing about it. That was my point. >>> >>> Mr Dashwood, read the newsgroup and you'll find postings from folks >>> who wrote for ICL machines and recall - some, even fondly! - >>> directly patching load-modules. The fact that I no longer have >>> white-blonde hair and can sing a decent soprano in no wise that I >>> am doing so today... or am even capable of doing such. This is my >>> point - that 'I did it before' does what was done Back Then is not, >>> necessarily, any kind of indication of what one is doing now. >> >> This is so convoluted as to be totally obtuse. I have no idea what >> you are talking about. > > My apologies for failing to recognise the limitations of my audience, > Mr Dashwood, and permit me to rephrase it in a way which might have, > at least for you, greater clarity, no word greater than two > syllables: The fact that you did something before in no wise means > you are either doing it now or can, at all, do it now. > Thank you for the clarification. I now understand what you are saying. As far as having 6 orgasms a night goes, without chemical assistance, this is (sadly) certainly true; however, with regard to building proper controls into computer systems, I can do this as well now as I ever could. Your general statement is observably flawed. For many people (perhaps your Mightiness is excused from this group), SOME things we may not be able to continue doing, others (like the proverbial riding a bicycle) are skills we do not lose. For such a mighty intellect as yours which has to dumb down statements so mere mortals like me can understand them, I am surprised you did not consider the the implications of your generalization. IF what you said were true (and, thankfully, it isn't...) then all of us would only have the skill we were currently using and, like the goldfish in the "Finding Nemo" story we would have to be retrained every 30 seconds. Perhaps THAT is the group that your experience has equipped you to deal with. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 2 Nov 2009 08:20 In article <7l6klvF3bo126U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <7l5m57F3c080qU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> In article <7l2opiF3c9700U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>>>> In article <7kvt4jF39ambbU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>>>>> Are you writing a 'moderately secured system' that gets reviewed >>>>>>>> by competent auditors? (longtime readers may recall something >>>>>>>> similar, years ago, when I asked Mr Dashwood about loading >>>>>>>> tables with 60,000,000 rows) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have written (and worked on ) major systems for 4 household >>>>>>> name Banks (even an American Bank) and 3 Insurance Companies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not ask what you did, Mr Dashwood, I asked 'are you >>>>>> writing'. Please notice the difference in tense... not that it is >>>>>> anything to get tense about. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that I am not currently doing something does not mean I >>>>> have never done it or know nothing about it. That was my point. >>>> >>>> Mr Dashwood, read the newsgroup and you'll find postings from folks >>>> who wrote for ICL machines and recall - some, even fondly! - >>>> directly patching load-modules. The fact that I no longer have >>>> white-blonde hair and can sing a decent soprano in no wise that I >>>> am doing so today... or am even capable of doing such. This is my >>>> point - that 'I did it before' does what was done Back Then is not, >>>> necessarily, any kind of indication of what one is doing now. >>> >>> This is so convoluted as to be totally obtuse. I have no idea what >>> you are talking about. >> >> My apologies for failing to recognise the limitations of my audience, >> Mr Dashwood, and permit me to rephrase it in a way which might have, >> at least for you, greater clarity, no word greater than two >> syllables: The fact that you did something before in no wise means >> you are either doing it now or can, at all, do it now. >> > >Thank you for the clarification. I now understand what you are saying. So you say, Mr Dashwood... future actions might indicate whether there is more behind this assertion than a mere statement. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 2 Nov 2009 11:10 On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:02:26 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>As with the guy who told his psychiatrist that he was a Wigwam and a >>Teepee... > >He wore a Native American dwelling on his toupee to keep kis wig warm? >Perhaps I missed a Holiday somewhere. He was just two tents. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 2 Nov 2009 11:15
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:41:51 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >like the goldfish in the "Finding Nemo" story >we would have to be retrained every 30 seconds. Or maybe the Blue Tang in that movie. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |