Email from Jobsite.com: Mainframe programmer wanted

[billyskank]

In the subject heading it said: "Mainframe Analyst Programmer."

Surely not, thought I, nobody uses mainframes any more? They must mean something else, right? So I followed the link. It said:

An excellent opportunity has arisen for a Mainframe Analyst Programmer to work for a major financial client in Edinburgh.
Essential skills-
Programming Cobol and DB2

Cobol? SERIESLY?? Fucking Cobol!! Fear and loathing! :rofl:

I wonder if they still use punch cards. :D

[DS1]

1. They'll be back

in 2037

[kay1864]

2. And it's an *excellent* opportunity

Lots of growth potential :rofl:

[matcom]

3. I used to TEACH Cobol!

I loved Cobol. it was the fucking JCL that SUCKED x(

[DS1]

4. what the fuck is a JCL?

[matcom]

5. a horrible horrible language that passes parameters to a Cobol program

that, when you are on call, usually breaks down around 2:00am x(

here is an example I pulled off the web....

//* This is a sample program that shows how a COBOL program can
//* process input from the JCL using the PARM keyword from the EXEC
//* statement.
//*
//* The COBOL program will set a condition and JCL will procees
//* accordingly.
//*
//* This set of programs will run on a mainframe under MVS or on a
//* Personal Computer with Windows and Micro Focus Mainframe Express
//*
//* *******************************************************************
//* Execute the COBOL program without a parameter.
//*
//NOPARM EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1
//*
//* *******************************************************************
//* Execute the COBOL program with a parameter.
//* Based on the PARM='parameter' the COBOL program will set the Return
//* code to 0.
//*
//COND00A EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,PARM='MSG-00 --- This is message zero...'
//*
//COND00B EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,COND=(0,LT),PARM='Return Code = 00...'
//*
//* The preceding step (COND00B) will be bypassed if the Return Code
//* of any of the preceding job steps is not zero (0).
//*
//* *******************************************************************
//* Execute the COBOL program with a parameter.
//* Based on the PARM='parameter' the COBOL program will set the Return
//* code to 4.
//*
//COND04A EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,PARM='MSG-04 -- This is message four...'
//*
//COND04B EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,COND=(4,NE,COND04A),
// PARM='Return Code is equal to 04...'
//*
//* The preceding step (COND04B) will be bypassed if COND=4 is not
//* equal to the Return Code of the preceding job step (COND04A).
//*
//* *******************************************************************
//* Execute the COBOL program with a parameter.
//* Based on the PARM='parameter' the COBOL program will set the Return
//* code to 8.
//*
//COND08A EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,PARM='MSG-08 -- This is message eight...'
//*
//COND08B EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,COND=(8,LT,COND08A),
// PARM='Return Code is equal to or greater than 08...'
//*
//* The preceding step (COND08B) will be bypassed if COND=8 is less
//* than or equal to the Return Code of the preceding job step
//* (COND08A).
//*
//* *******************************************************************
//* Execute the COBOL program with a parameter.
//*
//EOJTEST1 EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,COND=(1,GE),
// PARM='All Job Steps had a zero Return Code...'
//*
//* The preceding step (EOJTEST1) should be bypassed.
//*
//EOJTEST2 EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,COND=(8,LT),
// PARM='All Job Steps had a Return Code of 0 through 8...'
//*
//* The preceding step (EOJTEST2) should execute.
//*
//EOJTEST3 EXEC PGM=JCLCONC1,COND=(9,GE),
// PARM='Return Code greater than 8 for a job step.'

[madinmaryland]

6. Dude! Don't make fun of punch cards. I learned Assembly

language on a DEC PDP11/70 with those things. If you made one screw-up, you had to re-do all of your punch cards.

:(

[Deja Q]

7. Assembly, whenecompiled, is far more efficient than C.

That's why all those DOS-based memory management programs were boasting "made entirely with assembly language!!!!"

Now it's all made with sloppy C. :D

Or java.

[billyskank]

13. You mean, when assembled.

;)

I learned assembly language on our family computer as a teenager. That must be why I'm so successful with women. :D

[billyskank]

12. You used punch cards on a PDP-11??

I thought DEC machines were the Shiny New World of Interactive computing!

Ken Thompson (seated) and Dennis Ritchie, the fathers of Unix, at a PDP-11, 1972. Notice the teletype terminals. No batch processing here:

[no name no slogan]

8. There's more COBOL code than Java code out there

I work with several people who still code in COBOL on a daily basis. We still have tons of stuff running on mainframes and still have programmers doing old-skool coding on terminal emulators.

A lot of financial companies and government agencies still have a lot of apps running on mainframes that are too complicated or too expensive to replace, and they still need to be maintained.

I was a bit surprised when I first heard it a few years ago, but having seen it at work it makes perfect sense.

:)

[seemunkee]

9. My first IT job was doing Y2K work in Cobol

Exxon/Mobil has tons of it still in use.

[Elidor]

10. Welcome to 1975!

Do they have indoor plumbing yet in Edinburra?

[Brigid]

11. That's just what I was thinking,

How do they keep a program that old running? :wtf:

[Xithras]

14. Most large corporations still have COBOL apps running.

COBOL is a bulletproof language, which is why the apps written on it are still around. Big iron mainframes don't require constant training to keep up on the latest updates and mods, they don't crash (unless you ignore your HW maintenance), and they are very fast. Why mess with a good thing?

As I've mentioned here many times in the past, I own a small (8 person) web and software development company. One of the questions on the written interview-test sets up a hypothetical situation with a client wanting some new software services to interface with their legacy COBOL or Delphi back-end. In the hypothetical, the applicant is asked whether they would recommend an upgrade for the back-end, and which technologies they would utilize. The correct answer, always, should say something like "I would not recommend an upgrade unless the system is having difficulties, the technologies are limiting their expansion abilities, or something along those lines". People who replace software just to keep up with modern languages should be unemployed. Exposing a company to potential harm and loss by replacing business-essential applications, without a technologically necessary reason to do so, simply demonstrates the ineptness of the technology managers responsible.

Think about it. What is the point of spending months or years of programmer time on a project that will result in an application with the exact same functionality as the application it was replacing?

[billyskank]

15. No arguments here.

I was just shocked to see the job advertisement in my inbox. :hi: