Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

Expand Messages
  • arekiony
    Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be interrested Thanks Yannick ... anymore ... COBOL2
    Message 1 of 25 , May 4, 2005
      Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be
      interrested

      Thanks
      Yannick
      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Clarke Ching" <lists@c...>
      wrote:
      > Hi Ian,
      >
      > You've not, so far, received many responses. Did you receive
      anymore
      > responses offlist?
      >
      > I'd really like to know how you get on with this ...
      >
      > Clarke
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianbren99
      > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
      > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
      >
      >
      >
      > We're planning to perform some serious rework on some of our
      COBOL2
      > mainframe apps.
      >
      > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit Testing models?
      >
      > cheers
      >
      > ian
    • Mark Nakamura
      Microfocus claims they have unit test framework for COBOL. http://www.microfocus.com/ However, I think it s very difficult to write effective unit test code in
      Message 2 of 25 , May 5, 2005
        Microfocus claims they have unit test framework for COBOL.
        http://www.microfocus.com/

        However, I think it's very difficult to write effective unit test code
        in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.

        Mark Nakamura

        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "arekiony" <arekiony@y...> wrote:
        > Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be
        > interrested
        >
        > Thanks
        > Yannick
        > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Clarke Ching" <lists@c...>
        > wrote:
        > > Hi Ian,
        > >
        > > You've not, so far, received many responses. Did you receive
        > anymore
        > > responses offlist?
        > >
        > > I'd really like to know how you get on with this ...
        > >
        > > Clarke
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > _____
        > >
        > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianbren99
        > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
        > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > We're planning to perform some serious rework on some of our
        > COBOL2
        > > mainframe apps.
        > >
        > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit Testing models?
        > >
        > > cheers
        > >
        > > ian
      • Mike Dwyer
        Please explain your term monolistic language as it does not google. Michael F. Dwyer Mike.Dwyer1@comcast.net ... From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 25 , May 5, 2005
          Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not google.

          Michael F. Dwyer

          Mike.Dwyer1@...



          -----Original Message-----
          From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
          Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:57 PM
          To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

          Microfocus claims they have unit test framework for COBOL.
          http://www.microfocus.com/

          However, I think it's very difficult to write effective unit test code
          in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.

          Mark Nakamura

          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "arekiony" <arekiony@y...> wrote:
          > Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be
          > interrested
          >
          > Thanks
          > Yannick
          > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Clarke Ching" <lists@c...>
          > wrote:
          > > Hi Ian,
          > >
          > > You've not, so far, received many responses. Did you receive
          > anymore
          > > responses offlist?
          > >
          > > I'd really like to know how you get on with this ...
          > >
          > > Clarke
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > _____
          > >
          > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianbren99
          > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
          > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > We're planning to perform some serious rework on some of our
          > COBOL2
          > > mainframe apps.
          > >
          > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit Testing models?
          > >
          > > cheers
          > >
          > > ian




          To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Michael James
          ... google. (Answering for Mark with no malice intended:) Well, Java has ArrayLists, LinkedLists, Vectors.... Maybe COBOL has only one such structure. I once
          Message 4 of 25 , May 6, 2005
            > Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not
            google.

            (Answering for Mark with no malice intended:)
            Well, Java has ArrayLists, LinkedLists, Vectors.... Maybe COBOL has
            only one such structure.

            I once worked for a spacecraft control system company that erected a
            replica of the "2001 A Space Odyssey" monolith in the atrium. I'm not
            sure they actually watched the movie. Shouldn't someone have realized
            2001 is about a spacecraft control system that goes berzerk and kills
            most of the astronauts?

            Seriously, is there any reason test-driven development wouldn't work
            for procedural languages like COBOL and FORTRAN?
          • Jeff Martin
            I think he meant monolithic language , meaning the programs are all one big entity. Monolistic is not a word in the English language.
            Message 5 of 25 , May 6, 2005
              I think he meant "monolithic language", meaning the programs are all one
              big entity. Monolistic is not a word in the English language.

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
              > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:18 PM
              > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
              >
              > Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not google.
              >
              > Michael F. Dwyer
              >
              > Mike.Dwyer1@...
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
              > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:57 PM
              > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
              >
              > Microfocus claims they have unit test framework for COBOL.
              > http://www.microfocus.com/
              >
              > However, I think it's very difficult to write effective unit test code
              > in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.
              >
              > Mark Nakamura
              >
              > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "arekiony"
              > <arekiony@y...> wrote:
              > > Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be
              > > interrested
              > >
              > > Thanks
              > > Yannick
              > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Clarke Ching"
              > <lists@c...>
              > > wrote:
              > > > Hi Ian,
              > > >
              > > > You've not, so far, received many responses. Did you receive
              > > anymore
              > > > responses offlist?
              > > >
              > > > I'd really like to know how you get on with this ...
              > > >
              > > > Clarke
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > _____
              > > >
              > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianbren99
              > > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
              > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > We're planning to perform some serious rework on some of our
              > > COBOL2
              > > > mainframe apps.
              > > >
              > > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit Testing models?
              > > >
              > > > cheers
              > > >
              > > > ian
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Adrian Howard
              On 6 May 2005, at 10:48, Michael James wrote: [snip] ... [snip] None at all. For example Perl s base test framework is mostly procedural in nature (even though
              Message 6 of 25 , May 6, 2005
                On 6 May 2005, at 10:48, Michael James wrote:
                [snip]
                > Seriously, is there any reason test-driven development wouldn't work
                > for procedural languages like COBOL and FORTRAN?
                [snip]

                None at all. For example Perl's base test framework is mostly
                procedural in nature (even though it has an OO xUnit layer built on top
                if you want/need one.)

                Adrian
              • Mark Nakamura
                Sorry about miss spelling... I meant monolithic. Beavis said: Words suck, there are too many and stuff. Mark Nakamura
                Message 7 of 25 , May 6, 2005
                  Sorry about miss spelling...
                  I meant monolithic.

                  Beavis said: "Words suck, there are too many and stuff."

                  Mark Nakamura

                  --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Martin" <jmartin@s...>
                  wrote:
                  > I think he meant "monolithic language", meaning the programs are all one
                  > big entity. Monolistic is not a word in the English language.
                  >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
                  > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:18 PM
                  > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                  > >
                  > > Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not google.
                  > >
                  > > Michael F. Dwyer
                  > >
                  > > Mike.Dwyer1@c...
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
                  > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:57 PM
                  > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                  > >
                  > > Microfocus claims they have unit test framework for COBOL.
                  > > http://www.microfocus.com/
                  > >
                  > > However, I think it's very difficult to write effective unit test code
                  > > in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.
                  > >
                  > > Mark Nakamura
                  > >
                  > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "arekiony"
                  > > <arekiony@y...> wrote:
                  > > > Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be
                  > > > interrested
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks
                  > > > Yannick
                  > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Clarke Ching"
                  > > <lists@c...>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > > Hi Ian,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > You've not, so far, received many responses. Did you receive
                  > > > anymore
                  > > > > responses offlist?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I'd really like to know how you get on with this ...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Clarke
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > _____
                  > > > >
                  > > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianbren99
                  > > > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
                  > > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > We're planning to perform some serious rework on some of our
                  > > > COBOL2
                  > > > > mainframe apps.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit Testing models?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > cheers
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ian
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                  > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                  > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                • Mike Dwyer
                  Oh monolithic, I thought there was some class I hadn t heard of that COBOL didn t handle. BTW Do you really think we didn t use TDD great grandparents when we
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 6, 2005
                    Oh monolithic, I thought there was some class I hadn't heard of that COBOL
                    didn't handle.

                    BTW Do you really think we didn't use TDD great grandparents when we had to
                    make a choice between typing all those damn cards once or twice? You know
                    they didn't have a backspace that put the chads back in the holes. In fact
                    where do you think the idea of story cards, walkthroughs and a whole bunch
                    of really extreme concepts came from? Don't kid yourselves, one of the
                    reasons you have all the toys is because they were the last great wave of
                    programmer productivity that addressed your parents and grandparents
                    'attitude'. Trust me we were and continue to be bigger pains in the butt
                    than you ever thought of when it came to doing only what we have to - do it
                    once and do it well. After all how many times did one missed character in
                    the 79th position gave you a chance to type the whole line over again.

                    Michael F. Dwyer

                    Mike.Dwyer1@...



                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael James
                    Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 5:48 AM
                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                    > Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not
                    google.

                    (Answering for Mark with no malice intended:)
                    Well, Java has ArrayLists, LinkedLists, Vectors.... Maybe COBOL has
                    only one such structure.

                    I once worked for a spacecraft control system company that erected a
                    replica of the "2001 A Space Odyssey" monolith in the atrium. I'm not
                    sure they actually watched the movie. Shouldn't someone have realized
                    2001 is about a spacecraft control system that goes berzerk and kills
                    most of the astronauts?

                    Seriously, is there any reason test-driven development wouldn't work
                    for procedural languages like COBOL and FORTRAN?




                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Mike Dwyer
                    Jeez where did you learn these myths about COBOL? Do you have any idea why compilers and linkers were built? Michael F. Dwyer Mike.Dwyer1@comcast.net ...
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 6, 2005
                      Jeez where did you learn these myths about COBOL? Do you have any idea why
                      compilers and linkers were built?

                      Michael F. Dwyer

                      Mike.Dwyer1@...



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Martin
                      Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 8:25 AM
                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                      I think he meant "monolithic language", meaning the programs are all one
                      big entity. Monolistic is not a word in the English language.

                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
                      > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:18 PM
                      > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                      >
                      > Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not google.
                      >
                      > Michael F. Dwyer
                      >
                      > Mike.Dwyer1@...
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
                      > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:57 PM
                      > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                      >
                      > Microfocus claims they have unit test framework for COBOL.
                      > http://www.microfocus.com/
                      >
                      > However, I think it's very difficult to write effective unit test code
                      > in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.
                      >
                      > Mark Nakamura
                      >
                      > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "arekiony"
                      > <arekiony@y...> wrote:
                      > > Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be
                      > > interrested
                      > >
                      > > Thanks
                      > > Yannick
                      > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Clarke Ching"
                      > <lists@c...>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > > Hi Ian,
                      > > >
                      > > > You've not, so far, received many responses. Did you receive
                      > > anymore
                      > > > responses offlist?
                      > > >
                      > > > I'd really like to know how you get on with this ...
                      > > >
                      > > > Clarke
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > _____
                      > > >
                      > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianbren99
                      > > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
                      > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > We're planning to perform some serious rework on some of our
                      > > COBOL2
                      > > > mainframe apps.
                      > > >
                      > > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit Testing models?
                      > > >
                      > > > cheers
                      > > >
                      > > > ian
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Mike Dwyer
                      Yup that is why all good languages don t use vowels There are languages where this parses cp #$&& / x don t ask me it was the 60 s and I was there.
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 6, 2005
                        Yup that is why all good languages don't use vowels There are languages
                        where this parses cp \\ #$&& / x don't ask me it was the 60's and I was
                        there.

                        Michael F. Dwyer

                        Mike.Dwyer1@...



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
                        Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:01 PM
                        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                        Sorry about miss spelling...
                        I meant monolithic.

                        Beavis said: "Words suck, there are too many and stuff."

                        Mark Nakamura

                        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Martin" <jmartin@s...>
                        wrote:
                        > I think he meant "monolithic language", meaning the programs are all one
                        > big entity. Monolistic is not a word in the English language.
                        >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
                        > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:18 PM
                        > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                        > >
                        > > Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not google.
                        > >
                        > > Michael F. Dwyer
                        > >
                        > > Mike.Dwyer1@c...
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
                        > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:57 PM
                        > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                        > >
                        > > Microfocus claims they have unit test framework for COBOL.
                        > > http://www.microfocus.com/
                        > >
                        > > However, I think it's very difficult to write effective unit test code
                        > > in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.
                        > >
                        > > Mark Nakamura
                        > >
                        > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "arekiony"
                        > > <arekiony@y...> wrote:
                        > > > Anyone has some info, experience to share on this I would be
                        > > > interrested
                        > > >
                        > > > Thanks
                        > > > Yannick
                        > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Clarke Ching"
                        > > <lists@c...>
                        > > > wrote:
                        > > > > Hi Ian,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > You've not, so far, received many responses. Did you receive
                        > > > anymore
                        > > > > responses offlist?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I'd really like to know how you get on with this ...
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Clarke
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > _____
                        > > > >
                        > > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianbren99
                        > > > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
                        > > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > We're planning to perform some serious rework on some of our
                        > > > COBOL2
                        > > > > mainframe apps.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit Testing models?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > cheers
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ian
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                        > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                        > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >




                        To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • hal arnold
                        I ve heard GW use the term.. ... Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 7, 2005
                          I've heard GW use the term..
                          --- Mark Nakamura <masayang@...> wrote:
                          > Sorry about miss spelling...
                          > I meant monolithic.
                          >
                          > Beavis said: "Words suck, there are too many and
                          > stuff."
                          >
                          > Mark Nakamura
                          >
                          > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff
                          > Martin" <jmartin@s...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > I think he meant "monolithic language", meaning
                          > the programs are all one
                          > > big entity. Monolistic is not a word in the
                          > English language.
                          > >
                          > > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On
                          > Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
                          > > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:18 PM
                          > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing
                          > Mainframe COBOL
                          > > >
                          > > > Please explain your term "monolistic language"
                          > as it does not google.
                          > > >
                          > > > Michael F. Dwyer
                          > > >
                          > > > Mike.Dwyer1@c...
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On
                          > Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
                          > > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:57 PM
                          > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing
                          > Mainframe COBOL
                          > > >
                          > > > Microfocus claims they have unit test framework
                          > for COBOL.
                          > > > http://www.microfocus.com/
                          > > >
                          > > > However, I think it's very difficult to write
                          > effective unit test code
                          > > > in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.
                          > > >
                          > > > Mark Nakamura
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com,
                          > "arekiony"
                          > > > <arekiony@y...> wrote:
                          > > > > Anyone has some info, experience to share on
                          > this I would be
                          > > > > interrested
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Thanks
                          > > > > Yannick
                          > > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com,
                          > "Clarke Ching"
                          > > > <lists@c...>
                          > > > > wrote:
                          > > > > > Hi Ian,
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > You've not, so far, received many responses.
                          > Did you receive
                          > > > > anymore
                          > > > > > responses offlist?
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > I'd really like to know how you get on with
                          > this ...
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Clarke
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > _____
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On
                          > Behalf Of ianbren99
                          > > > > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
                          > > > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing
                          > Mainframe COBOL
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > We're planning to perform some serious
                          > rework on some of our
                          > > > > COBOL2
                          > > > > > mainframe apps.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit
                          > Testing models?
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > cheers
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > ian
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > To Post a message, send it to:
                          > scrumdevelopment@e...
                          > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                          > > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                          > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > To Post a message, send it to:
                          > scrumdevelopment@e...
                          > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                          > > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                          > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          >
                          >
                          >



                          Yahoo! Mail
                          Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
                          http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
                        • mike.dwyer1@comcast.net
                          AND . . . -- Mike Dwyer I Keep six faithful serving-men Who serve me well and true: Their names are What and Where and When And How and Why and Who. -
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 8, 2005
                            AND . . .
                             
                            --
                            Mike Dwyer

                            "I Keep six faithful serving-men
                            Who serve me well and true:
                            Their names are What and Where and When
                            And How and Why and Who." - Kipling
                             
                            -------------- Original message --------------

                            > I've heard GW use the term..
                            > --- Mark Nakamura wrote:
                            > > Sorry about miss spelling...
                            > > I meant monolithic.
                            > >
                            > > Beavis said: "Words suck, there are too many and
                            > > stuff."
                            > >
                            > > Mark Nakamura
                            > >
                            > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff
                            > > Martin"
                            > > wrote:
                            > > > I think he meant "monolithic language", meaning
                            > > the programs are all one
                            > > > big entity. Monolistic is not a word in the
                            > > English language.
                            > > >
                            > > > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On
                            > > Behalf Of Mike Dwyer
                            > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:18 PM
                            > > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing
                            > > Mainframe COBOL
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Please explain your term "monolistic language"
                            > > as it does not google.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Michael F. Dwyer
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Mike.Dwyer1@c...
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On
                            > > Behalf Of Mark Nakamura
                            > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:57 PM
                            > > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing
                            > > Mainframe COBOL
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Microfocus claims they have unit test framework
                            > > for COBOL.
                            > > > > http://www.microfocus.com/
                            > > > >
                            > > > > However, I think it's very difficult to write
                            > > effective unit test code
                            > > > > in COBOL, because COBOL is monolistic language.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Mark Nakamura
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com,
                            > > "arekiony"
                            > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > > Anyone has some info, experience to share on
                            > > this I would be
                            > > > > > interrested
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Thanks
                            > > > > > Yannick
                            > > > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com,
                            > > "Clarke Ching"
                            > > > >
                            > > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > > > Hi Ian,
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > You've not, so far, received many responses.
                            > > Did you receive
                            > > > > > anymore
                            > > > > > > responses offlist?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > I'd really like to know how you get on with
                            > > this ...
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Clarke
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > _____
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On
                            > > Behalf Of ianbren99
                            > > > > > > Sent: 27 April 2005 23:55
                            > > > > > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > > > > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Unit Testing
                            > > Mainframe COBOL
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > We're planning to perform some serious
                            > > rework on some of our
                            > > > > > COBOL2
                            > > > > > > mainframe apps.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Anybody out there have any ideas about Unit
                            > > Testing models?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > cheers
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > ian
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > To Post a message, send it to:
                            > > scrumdevelopment@e...
                            > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            > > > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                            > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > To Post a message, send it to:
                            > > scrumdevelopment@e...
                            > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            > > > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                            > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Mail
                            > Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
                            > http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
                            >
                            > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • ianbren99
                            So, to summarise all the threads.. - run away (thanks Mike - can t do that)! - our grand-daddy s used punched cards, to testing wasn t needed - all those
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 9, 2005
                              So, to summarise all the threads..

                              - run away (thanks Mike - can't do that)!
                              - our grand-daddy's used punched cards, to testing wasn't needed
                              - all those millions of lines of COBOL have all been tested by walk-
                              throughs or not all all.
                              - although TDD wasn't my original thread, it seems that nobody has
                              heard of it and COBOL used in the same paragraph.

                              Thanks Anyway

                              IanBren
                              http://www.combisoft.com


                              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dwyer"
                              <mike.dwyer1@c...> wrote:
                              > Oh monolithic, I thought there was some class I hadn't heard of
                              that COBOL
                              > didn't handle.
                              >
                              > BTW Do you really think we didn't use TDD great grandparents when
                              we had to
                              > make a choice between typing all those damn cards once or twice?
                              You know
                              > they didn't have a backspace that put the chads back in the
                              holes. In fact
                              > where do you think the idea of story cards, walkthroughs and a
                              whole bunch
                              > of really extreme concepts came from? Don't kid yourselves, one
                              of the
                              > reasons you have all the toys is because they were the last great
                              wave of
                              > programmer productivity that addressed your parents and
                              grandparents
                              > 'attitude'. Trust me we were and continue to be bigger pains in
                              the butt
                              > than you ever thought of when it came to doing only what we have
                              to - do it
                              > once and do it well. After all how many times did one missed
                              character in
                              > the 79th position gave you a chance to type the whole line over
                              again.
                              >
                              > Michael F. Dwyer
                              >
                              > Mike.Dwyer1@c...
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                              > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
                              James
                              > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 5:48 AM
                              > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL
                              >
                              > > Please explain your term "monolistic language" as it does not
                              > google.
                              >
                              > (Answering for Mark with no malice intended:)
                              > Well, Java has ArrayLists, LinkedLists, Vectors.... Maybe COBOL has
                              > only one such structure.
                              >
                              > I once worked for a spacecraft control system company that erected
                              a
                              > replica of the "2001 A Space Odyssey" monolith in the atrium. I'm
                              not
                              > sure they actually watched the movie. Shouldn't someone have
                              realized
                              > 2001 is about a spacecraft control system that goes berzerk and
                              kills
                              > most of the astronauts?
                              >
                              > Seriously, is there any reason test-driven development wouldn't
                              work
                              > for procedural languages like COBOL and FORTRAN?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            • Ron Jeffries
                              ... None of those was quite the message I got. It s true, as far as I know that there is no TDD /tool/ for COBOL. That wouldn t mean that I couldn t do TDD,
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 10, 2005
                                On Monday, May 9, 2005, at 6:45:07 PM, ianbren99 wrote:

                                > So, to summarise all the threads..

                                > - run away (thanks Mike - can't do that)!
                                > - our grand-daddy's used punched cards, to testing wasn't needed
                                > - all those millions of lines of COBOL have all been tested by walk-
                                > throughs or not all all.
                                > - although TDD wasn't my original thread, it seems that nobody has
                                > heard of it and COBOL used in the same paragraph.

                                None of those was quite the message I got. It's true, as far as I
                                know that there is no TDD /tool/ for COBOL. That wouldn't mean that
                                I couldn't do TDD, though, would it?

                                Ron Jeffries
                                www.XProgramming.com
                                There is no award for "being XP". There is an award for doing the right
                                combination of practices: success.
                              • Doug Swartz
                                ... Ian, Please don t run away! COBOL is a critical element in the IT toolset which hasn t been well addressed to-date by the tools and techniques we use in
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 10, 2005
                                  Monday, May 09, 2005, 5:45:07 PM, ianbren99 wrote:

                                  > So, to summarise all the threads..

                                  > - run away (thanks Mike - can't do that)!
                                  > - our grand-daddy's used punched cards, to testing wasn't needed
                                  > - all those millions of lines of COBOL have all been tested by walk-
                                  > throughs or not all all.
                                  > - although TDD wasn't my original thread, it seems that nobody has
                                  > heard of it and COBOL used in the same paragraph.

                                  > Thanks Anyway

                                  Ian,

                                  Please don't run away! COBOL is a critical element in the IT
                                  toolset which hasn't been well addressed to-date by the
                                  tools and techniques we use in the agile world.

                                  I absolutely believe a COBOL unit testing framework can be
                                  created which will help create well-tested COBOL modules.
                                  Contrary to some, I know that modern COBOL can certainly be
                                  structured in a non-monolithic manner, up-to, and including,
                                  fully object-oriented COBOL with methods and classes.

                                  In the mid-90's (before general availability of OO COBOL), I
                                  worked with some folks to build a unit testing type framework
                                  for COBOL routines. Unfortunately we built it using
                                  technologies only available on workstations, but most of the
                                  developers in the organization were loathe to leave TSO/ISPF
                                  as their main development environment. Additionally, as we've
                                  found in other languages, COBOL code must be "designed to be
                                  tested", and we never figured out how to effectively
                                  communicate and socialize those techniques through our
                                  developer community. Thus, we were unsuccessful at the time in
                                  having automated unit testing become a norm in our shop.

                                  Much of the problem with unit testing COBOL code lies with the
                                  fact that most COBOL code (because it's been so darn
                                  successful, for so long) is legacy. In this case legacy means:
                                  preexisting, and not originally designed with automated unit
                                  tests in mind. This is really no different than legacy
                                  applications in other languages and can be addressed by many
                                  of the same approaches outlined in Michael Feathers book
                                  "Working Effectively with Legacy Code".

                                  Honestly, COBOL is definitely not my language of
                                  choice for developing most new applications. I have lots of
                                  years of experience, many of them in a COBOL world, but I'd
                                  certainly choose another toolset for most things. However,
                                  sometimes it is the only available choice, for whatever
                                  reason. If I found myself in that situation, building new
                                  COBOL modules, I'd bootstrap myself with a unit testing
                                  framework, and have at it.

                                  I encourage you to "go for it". Unfortunately, most of us here
                                  in agile-land have done little, if any, TDD or automated unit
                                  testing in the COBOL world, so will probably be of little
                                  assistance to you. I, for one, however, am very interested in
                                  how it goes for you. Please keep us updated on your progress.



                                  --

                                  Doug Swartz
                                  daswartz@...
                                • Adrian Howard
                                  On 10 May 2005, at 12:24, Doug Swartz wrote: [snip] ... [snip] I also knew somebody who was doing COBOL TDD with an in-house testing framework so it s
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 10, 2005
                                    On 10 May 2005, at 12:24, Doug Swartz wrote:
                                    [snip]
                                    > I absolutely believe a COBOL unit testing framework can be
                                    > created which will help create well-tested COBOL modules.
                                    [snip]

                                    I also knew somebody who was doing COBOL TDD with an in-house testing
                                    framework so it's certainly possible. As I remember her team were
                                    trying to move to full-on XP but were hitting management (rather than
                                    technical) problems.

                                    Adrian
                                  • Clarke Ching lists
                                    thanks for sharing your experiences Doug. _____ From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Swartz Sent:
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 10, 2005
                                      thanks for sharing your experiences Doug.


                                      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Swartz
                                      Sent: 10 May 2005 12:24
                                      To: ianbren99
                                      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL


                                      Monday, May 09, 2005, 5:45:07 PM, ianbren99 wrote:

                                      > So, to summarise all the threads..

                                      > - run away (thanks Mike - can't do that)!
                                      > - our grand-daddy's used punched cards, to testing wasn't needed
                                      > - all those millions of lines of COBOL have all been tested by walk-
                                      > throughs or not all all.
                                      > - although TDD wasn't my original thread, it seems that nobody has
                                      > heard of it and COBOL used in the same paragraph.

                                      > Thanks Anyway

                                      Ian,

                                      Please don't run away! COBOL is a critical element in the IT
                                      toolset which hasn't been well addressed to-date by the
                                      tools and techniques we use in the agile world.

                                      I absolutely believe a COBOL unit testing framework can be
                                      created which will help create well-tested COBOL modules.
                                      Contrary to some, I know that modern COBOL can certainly be
                                      structured in a non-monolithic manner, up-to, and including,
                                      fully object-oriented COBOL with methods and classes.

                                      In the mid-90's (before general availability of OO COBOL), I
                                      worked with some folks to build a unit testing type framework
                                      for COBOL routines. Unfortunately we built it using
                                      technologies only available on workstations, but most of the
                                      developers in the organization were loathe to leave TSO/ISPF
                                      as their main development environment. Additionally, as we've
                                      found in other languages, COBOL code must be "designed to be
                                      tested", and we never figured out how to effectively
                                      communicate and socialize those techniques through our
                                      developer community. Thus, we were unsuccessful at the time in
                                      having automated unit testing become a norm in our shop.

                                      Much of the problem with unit testing COBOL code lies with the
                                      fact that most COBOL code (because it's been so darn
                                      successful, for so long) is legacy. In this case legacy means:
                                      preexisting, and not originally designed with automated unit
                                      tests in mind. This is really no different than legacy
                                      applications in other languages and can be addressed by many
                                      of the same approaches outlined in Michael Feathers book
                                      "Working Effectively with Legacy Code".

                                      Honestly, COBOL is definitely not my language of
                                      choice for developing most new applications. I have lots of
                                      years of experience, many of them in a COBOL world, but I'd
                                      certainly choose another toolset for most things. However,
                                      sometimes it is the only available choice, for whatever
                                      reason. If I found myself in that situation, building new
                                      COBOL modules, I'd bootstrap myself with a unit testing
                                      framework, and have at it.

                                      I encourage you to "go for it". Unfortunately, most of us here
                                      in agile-land have done little, if any, TDD or automated unit
                                      testing in the COBOL world, so will probably be of little
                                      assistance to you. I, for one, however, am very interested in
                                      how it goes for you. Please keep us updated on your progress.



                                      --

                                      Doug Swartz
                                      daswartz@...



                                      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


                                    • mike.dwyer1@comcast.net
                                      Some of the true legacy COBOL (pre 66) is very difficult to test as the code was straight-lined that is to say the if the same routine were to be used six
                                      Message 18 of 25 , May 10, 2005
                                        Some of the true legacy COBOL (pre 66) is very difficult to test as the code was "straight-lined" that is to say the if the same routine were to be used six different time during the execution of the program, the soure code was found in 6 different places.  The PROCedure capability came into play when we moved to 'structure' the code.  This allowed the source code to be listed once and then 'called' from many different places.  These Procedures lent themselves to unit testing as they would (when properly defined) use data from shared memory, manipulate it and store it in a common temp area and then return information to a specific offset.  One could build a 'test harness' where a data set could be passed into the shared memory and then the procedure run.  Results, particularly the management of bad data, would provide feedback to the programmers.
                                        Good habits that went bad back then included leaving globs of logic and data in the code that allowed for debugging.  They were good habits before the advent of symbolic, real-time, debuggers.   They turned bad when left in structured code.
                                         
                                        So why this stroll down trauma lane.   If you know when the code was compiled, and can look at the compiled code - it may be possible to tree in on these artifacts.
                                         
                                        More later.
                                         
                                        --
                                        Mike Dwyer

                                        "I Keep six faithful serving-men
                                        Who serve me well and true:
                                        Their names are What and Where and When
                                        And How and Why and Who." - Kipling
                                         
                                        -------------- Original message --------------
                                        thanks for sharing your experiences Doug.


                                        From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Swartz
                                        Sent: 10 May 2005 12:24
                                        To: ianbren99
                                        Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                                         

                                        Monday, May 09, 2005, 5:45:07 PM, ianbren99 wrote:

                                        > So, to summarise all the threads..

                                        > - run away (thanks Mike - can't do that)!
                                        > - our grand-daddy's used punched cards, to testing wasn't needed
                                        > - all those millions of lines of COBOL have all been tested by walk-
                                        > throughs or not all all.
                                        > - although TDD wasn't my original thread, it seems that nobody has
                                        > heard of it and COBOL used in the same paragraph.

                                        > Thanks Anyway

                                        Ian,

                                        Please don't run away! COBOL is a critical element in the IT
                                        toolset which hasn't been well addressed to-date by the
                                        tools and techniques we use in the agile world.

                                        I absolutely believe a COBOL unit testing framework can be
                                        created which will help create well-tested COBOL modules.
                                        Contrary to some, I know that modern COBOL can certainly be
                                        structured in a non-monolithic manner, up-to, and including,
                                        fully object-oriented COBOL with methods and classes.

                                        In the mid-90's (before general availability of OO COBOL), I
                                        worked with some folks to build a unit testing type framework
                                        for COBOL routines. Unfortunately we built it using
                                        technologies only available on workstations, but most of the
                                        developers in the organization were loathe to leave TSO/ISPF
                                        as their main development environment. Additionally, as we've
                                        found in other languages, COBOL code must be "designed to be
                                        tested", and we never figured out how to effectively
                                        communicate and socialize those techniques through our
                                        developer community. Thus, we were unsuccessful at the time in
                                        having automated unit testing become a norm in our shop.

                                        Much of the problem with unit testing COBOL code lies with the
                                        fact that most COBOL code (because it's been so darn
                                        successful, for so long) is legacy. In this case legacy means:
                                        preexisting, and not originally designed with automated unit
                                        tests in mind. This is really no different than legacy
                                        applications in other languages and can be addressed by many
                                        of the same approaches outlined in Michael Feathers book
                                        "Working Effectively with Legacy Code".

                                        Honestly, COBOL is definitely not my language of
                                        choice for developing most new applications. I have lots of
                                        years of experience, many of them in a COBOL world, but I'd
                                        certainly choose another toolset for most things. However,
                                        sometimes it is the only available choice, for whatever
                                        reason. If I found myself in that situation, building new
                                        COBOL modules, I'd bootstrap myself with a unit testing
                                        framework, and have at it.

                                        I encourage you to "go for it". Unfortunately, most of us here
                                        in agile-land have done little, if any, TDD or automated unit
                                        testing in the COBOL world, so will probably be of little
                                        assistance to you. I, for one, however, am very interested in
                                        how it goes for you. Please keep us updated on your progress.



                                        --

                                        Doug Swartz
                                        daswartz@...



                                        To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...




                                        To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


                                      • ianbren99
                                        Thank you all for your replies! Ron - it was a gambit to shake the trees a bit more and it seemed to work. We ve got 1980 s COBOL applications that are well
                                        Message 19 of 25 , May 11, 2005
                                          Thank you all for your replies!

                                          Ron - it was a gambit to shake the trees a bit more and it seemed to
                                          work. We've got 1980's COBOL applications that are well structured
                                          (PROC etc) so we have defined entry/exit points.

                                          Now that we all seem to think that it is desirable, I need to get my
                                          head around what can be done to drive a TDD effort with repeatable
                                          tests.

                                          What we're probably missing is the xUnit view of the world of having
                                          TDD with repeatable tests for the life of the code. I've not seen
                                          anything remotely like it in Mainframe land - and I've checked other
                                          groups.

                                          thanks for your help.

                                          Ian

                                          www.combisoft.com
                                        • Mike Dwyer
                                          Some more droppings from a failing mind. There was a push in the 80’s to optimize COBOL, particularly when it came to code with large globs of screen I/O.
                                          Message 20 of 25 , May 12, 2005

                                            Some more droppings from a failing mind.

                                             

                                            There was a push in the 80’s to optimize COBOL, particularly when it came to code with large globs of screen I/O.  Two ‘tricks that were common in the compiler and linker clichés were to create straight lined code, that is not used the shared memory or worse yet cached memory,  now there was a nightmare.  The second and far more fun option was to use a variety of languages (PL/1, C, RPGII, BASIC, ASSMbler) to do stuff and then link it statically to the code.  Outside of the fact that you got to write in multiple languages, use very complex linkers and some really cool debuggers the code gave you a chance to brush up on reading hex in offsets.  This led to some neat error msg management and some of the first error state tables  if you run into this the big hint will be a large table of gibberish that is read by either assembler, c, or basic.  It is a bit map that cold be using nibbles to track a transaction moving through the application.  The gibberish would be written off with the error message so that you could track the path of the transaction to see where it went bad.  Very cool very clean but what a hassle to maintain.

                                             

                                            Michael F. Dwyer

                                             

                                            Mike.Dwyer1@...

                                             

                                             

                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike.dwyer1@...
                                            Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:48 PM
                                            To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                                             

                                            Some of the true legacy COBOL (pre 66) is very difficult to test as the code was "straight-lined" that is to say the if the same routine were to be used six different time during the execution of the program, the soure code was found in 6 different places.  The PROCedure capability came into play when we moved to 'structure' the code.  This allowed the source code to be listed once and then 'called' from many different places.  These Procedures lent themselves to unit testing as they would (when properly defined) use data from shared memory, manipulate it and store it in a common temp area and then return information to a specific offset.  One could build a 'test harness' where a data set could be passed into the shared memory and then the procedure run.  Results, particularly the management of bad data, would provide feedback to the programmers.

                                            Good habits that went bad back then included leaving globs of logic and data in the code that allowed for debugging.  They were good habits before the advent of symbolic, real-time, debuggers.   They turned bad when left in structured code.

                                             

                                            So why this stroll down trauma lane.   If you know when the code was compiled, and can look at the compiled code - it may be possible to tree in on these artifacts.

                                             

                                            More later.

                                             

                                            --
                                            Mike Dwyer

                                            "I Keep six faithful serving-men
                                            Who serve me well and true:
                                            Their names are What and Where and When
                                            And How and Why and Who." - Kipling

                                             

                                            -------------- Original message --------------

                                            thanks for sharing your experiences Doug.

                                             


                                            From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Swartz
                                            Sent: 10 May 2005 12:24
                                            To: ianbren99
                                            Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                                             


                                            Monday, May 09, 2005, 5:45:07 PM, ianbren99 wrote:

                                            > So, to summarise all the threads..

                                            > - run away (thanks Mike - can't do that)!
                                            > - our grand-daddy's used punched cards, to testing wasn't needed
                                            > - all those millions of lines of COBOL have all been tested by walk-
                                            > throughs or not all all.
                                            > - although TDD wasn't my original thread, it seems that nobody has
                                            > heard of it and COBOL used in the same paragraph.

                                            > Thanks Anyway

                                            Ian,

                                            Please don't run away! COBOL is a critical element in the IT
                                            toolset which hasn't been well addressed to-date by the
                                            tools and techniques we use in the agile world.

                                            I absolutely believe a COBOL unit testing framework can be
                                            created which will help create well-tested COBOL modules.
                                            Contrary to some, I know that modern COBOL can certainly be
                                            structured in a non-monolithic manner, up-to, and including,
                                            fully object-oriented COBOL with methods and classes.

                                            In the mid-90's (before general availability of OO COBOL), I
                                            worked with some folks to build a unit testing type framework
                                            for COBOL routines. Unfortunately we built it using
                                            technologies only available on workstations, but most of the
                                            developers in the organization were loathe to leave TSO/ISPF
                                            as their main development environment. Additionally, as we've
                                            found in other languages, COBOL code must be "designed to be
                                            tested", and we never figured out how to effectively
                                            communicate and socialize those techniques through our
                                            developer community. Thus, we were unsuccessful at the time in
                                            having automated unit testing become a norm in our shop.

                                            Much of the problem with unit testing COBOL code lies with the
                                            fact that most COBOL code (because it's been so darn
                                            successful, for so long) is legacy. In this case legacy means:
                                            preexisting, and not originally designed with automated unit
                                            tests in mind. This is really no different than legacy
                                            applications in other languages and can be addressed by many
                                            of the same approaches outlined in Michael Feathers book
                                            "Working Effectively with Legacy Code".

                                            Honestly, COBOL is definitely not my language of
                                            choice for developing most new applications. I have lots of
                                            years of experience, many of them in a COBOL world, but I'd
                                            certainly choose another toolset for most things. However,
                                            sometimes it is the only available choice, for whatever
                                            reason. If I found myself in that situation, building new
                                            COBOL modules, I'd bootstrap myself with a unit testing
                                            framework, and have at it.

                                            I encourage you to "go for it". Unfortunately, most of us here
                                            in agile-land have done little, if any, TDD or automated unit
                                            testing in the COBOL world, so will probably be of little
                                            assistance to you. I, for one, however, am very interested in
                                            how it goes for you. Please keep us updated on your progress.



                                            --

                                            Doug Swartz
                                            daswartz@...



                                            To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...




                                            To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



                                            To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



                                          • Mike Dwyer
                                            Also look for the COPYBOOK approach where entire programs were copyed into the mainline. These copy books were used in large applications to do standard tasks
                                            Message 21 of 25 , May 12, 2005

                                              Also look for the COPYBOOK approach where entire programs were copyed into the mainline.  These copy books were used in large applications to do standard tasks like updating data in multiple places, insuring the interfaces were properly managed and finally returning a consistent set of information.  Gee it almost sounds like a primitive form of encapsulation.  Too bad we weren’t smart enough to call it that.  This by the way drove the entire area of code and module control.  Here the testing you want to do really got started and the end of the general programmer began.  Now we could have specialists that focused on optimizing the what ever you want to meet some idiot criteria.   Ah the good old days.  Some of you belong back there because you have been bad and the Code Dominatrix wants to punish you.

                                               

                                              Michael F. Dwyer

                                               

                                              Mike.Dwyer1@...

                                               

                                               

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mike.dwyer1@...
                                              Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:48 PM
                                              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                                               

                                              Some of the true legacy COBOL (pre 66) is very difficult to test as the code was "straight-lined" that is to say the if the same routine were to be used six different time during the execution of the program, the soure code was found in 6 different places.  The PROCedure capability came into play when we moved to 'structure' the code.  This allowed the source code to be listed once and then 'called' from many different places.  These Procedures lent themselves to unit testing as they would (when properly defined) use data from shared memory, manipulate it and store it in a common temp area and then return information to a specific offset.  One could build a 'test harness' where a data set could be passed into the shared memory and then the procedure run.  Results, particularly the management of bad data, would provide feedback to the programmers.

                                              Good habits that went bad back then included leaving globs of logic and data in the code that allowed for debugging.  They were good habits before the advent of symbolic, real-time, debuggers.   They turned bad when left in structured code.

                                               

                                              So why this stroll down trauma lane.   If you know when the code was compiled, and can look at the compiled code - it may be possible to tree in on these artifacts.

                                               

                                              More later.

                                               

                                              --
                                              Mike Dwyer

                                              "I Keep six faithful serving-men
                                              Who serve me well and true:
                                              Their names are What and Where and When
                                              And How and Why and Who." - Kipling

                                               

                                              -------------- Original message --------------

                                              thanks for sharing your experiences Doug.

                                               


                                              From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Swartz
                                              Sent: 10 May 2005 12:24
                                              To: ianbren99
                                              Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Unit Testing Mainframe COBOL

                                               


                                              Monday, May 09, 2005, 5:45:07 PM, ianbren99 wrote:

                                              > So, to summarise all the threads..

                                              > - run away (thanks Mike - can't do that)!
                                              > - our grand-daddy's used punched cards, to testing wasn't needed
                                              > - all those millions of lines of COBOL have all been tested by walk-
                                              > throughs or not all all.
                                              > - although TDD wasn't my original thread, it seems that nobody has
                                              > heard of it and COBOL used in the same paragraph.

                                              > Thanks Anyway

                                              Ian,

                                              Please don't run away! COBOL is a critical element in the IT
                                              toolset which hasn't been well addressed to-date by the
                                              tools and techniques we use in the agile world.

                                              I absolutely believe a COBOL unit testing framework can be
                                              created which will help create well-tested COBOL modules.
                                              Contrary to some, I know that modern COBOL can certainly be
                                              structured in a non-monolithic manner, up-to, and including,
                                              fully object-oriented COBOL with methods and classes.

                                              In the mid-90's (before general availability of OO COBOL), I
                                              worked with some folks to build a unit testing type framework
                                              for COBOL routines. Unfortunately we built it using
                                              technologies only available on workstations, but most of the
                                              developers in the organization were loathe to leave TSO/ISPF
                                              as their main development environment. Additionally, as we've
                                              found in other languages, COBOL code must be "designed to be
                                              tested", and we never figured out how to effectively
                                              communicate and socialize those techniques through our
                                              developer community. Thus, we were unsuccessful at the time in
                                              having automated unit testing become a norm in our shop.

                                              Much of the problem with unit testing COBOL code lies with the
                                              fact that most COBOL code (because it's been so darn
                                              successful, for so long) is legacy. In this case legacy means:
                                              preexisting, and not originally designed with automated unit
                                              tests in mind. This is really no different than legacy
                                              applications in other languages and can be addressed by many
                                              of the same approaches outlined in Michael Feathers book
                                              "Working Effectively with Legacy Code".

                                              Honestly, COBOL is definitely not my language of
                                              choice for developing most new applications. I have lots of
                                              years of experience, many of them in a COBOL world, but I'd
                                              certainly choose another toolset for most things. However,
                                              sometimes it is the only available choice, for whatever
                                              reason. If I found myself in that situation, building new
                                              COBOL modules, I'd bootstrap myself with a unit testing
                                              framework, and have at it.

                                              I encourage you to "go for it". Unfortunately, most of us here
                                              in agile-land have done little, if any, TDD or automated unit
                                              testing in the COBOL world, so will probably be of little
                                              assistance to you. I, for one, however, am very interested in
                                              how it goes for you. Please keep us updated on your progress.



                                              --

                                              Doug Swartz
                                              daswartz@...



                                              To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...




                                              To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



                                              To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.