Rob954 wrote:

Anyone remember COBOL's "Alter goto?"

Ugh! Yes, but, thankfully, in most COBOL shops I worked in, the nasty beast didn't make it through code review because it was specifically proscribed by published coding standards. Of course, published coding standards seem to be a rare thing these days, too.

AlexCode wrote:

you put this in the past when you say "we use to"

Uh, actually, not. If I had said "we used to use", that would've been past tense. There are references to the past in my post but this isn't one of them. ;) I guess I need to clarify what I was objecting to in my post. Two things and two things only: 1) The notion that a comparison of dinosaurs to Porsches was somehow an appropriate metaphor of the differences between COBOL and more modern languages. It's not and never has been. Dinosaurs were animals not cars. When you compare dinosaurs and Porsches you're comparing representatives from 2 completely different categories. COBOL is not in a completely different category from C#, it's merely an older tool used for the same purpose as C#; creating software. Of course, there's also the fact that dinosaurs no longer exist whereas COBOL obviously does. :-D My objection was only to the error in reasoning represented by the comparison. It was not to the notion that most current software development should be done using the best tools available. 2) What I saw as the implied disparagement/disrespect towards people who do work or have worked in COBOL. That part wasn't even addressed directly to you, if you'll review my post. At the time I was referring to postings from others but apparently you saw yourself in it since it was the first thing you addressed in your reply. I wasn't pointing fingers; just weighing in against an attitude I run into all too often these days from those I consider to be newbies. I guess this is a hot button for me, but I'm just plain tired of hearing people who (seem to) have no historical perspective and little (apparent) knowledge of the realities of how platform purchasing decisions are made in corporate America (or wherever) devalue the contribution of developers who worked well in technologies that they usually didn't have much choice about but that were, usually, state of the art at the time. Worse than that is the notion that COBOL is somehow still being kept around because the COBOL developers are stuck in their rut and refuse to change. The vast majority of us are/were not making budget decisions and are/were not really heard by those that do. I admit I don't really know what's being taught in universities today but classically trained software developers learned to see the choice of development tool(s) as something yo

Okay, I wasn't going to weigh in on this but now you're mixing your metaphors here or something... You wouldn't replace a dinosaur with a Porsche... a horse maybe but not a Porsche. What you might replace with a Porsche is your '57 Chevy with the large block V8. And the thing is, when you put it in this context you realize that while there might be good reasons to buy that Porsche and retire the Chevy (better gas mileage, easier to find parts), the Chevy is still a thing of beauty, was a wonderful ride while it lasted, and actually got you to where you were going when you needed it to. What gets me about a lot of the posts on this thread is the disrespect for those things that paved the way to where we are today. We're not actually talking about dinosaurs here just older versions or types of the tools we use to build the software we get paid to build. Your average carpenter today doesn't use hand saws much but the good ones who only had hand saws and other hand tools to use built some pretty solid houses that are still standing today. Let's not disparage the old tools or the workers just because the trade has evolved and some things (not all) are easier to do with the new tools. Carl

Ah! Thanks for the clarification! FWIW, I intended no such implication but I can understand why you saw one where none was intended. So much for intentions, eh? The historical reference (allusion, really) I made was intended to be to the role immigrants played in building the country rather than to any resistance that there may or may not have been to their participation at the time. I seem to be having a real problem expressing myself clearly today...

jschell wrote:

I am rather certain that throughout most of the US's history there have been protectionists policies in any number of areas. And those policies were often supported by newly arrived immigrants and those that weren't newly arrived as well.

Sorry, I'm confused about whether you're making an argument or chiming in with additional points. Either is certainly valid; I'm just having difficulty understanding your reply in the context of my post. All I can say that seems at all relevant, is that many real historical actions/events cause sadness.

Yeah, I figured someone would slam me for the utopian tone. It was deliberate but I think it probably completely obfuscated my own position on H1B visas. It was probably a mistake on my part to jump up to a 50,000 foot level when the entire thread is basically a ground-level scrimmage but I was in a philosophical mood. FWIW, I don't really delude myself that what I outlined as an ideal will ever actually happen given the politics involved. While I do support legal immigration of talented workers I don't really feel that I can support raising the limit on H1Bs. I'm well aware that the goal of many, if not most, H1B holders is not permanent immigration and that many of the companies that hire them are doing so disingenuously. Although I take your point regarding the relevance of my post, I did think I was clear that I would prefer that high paying IT jobs in America primarily go to Americans, whether they be immigrants or current citizens. I didn't use the word "immigrants" by accident or in ignorance of its meaning although I realize now that it may have appeared so in the context of this thread. FWIW, I was attempting to counter others who seemed to me to be confusing temporary H1B workers with all foreign born workers which, IMO, would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As a parent with grown children I personally think it's just as big a mistake to solely blame the parents for the child's choices as it is to solely blame society, which I don't but I realize that that may not have been as clearly stated in my earlier post as it should have been. I was trying to say that I think any shortage of good, qualified American developers is a systemic problem and that one aspect of that problem is that we've created a situation where more respect, attention, and rewards appear to come easier and faster to folks in professions that I tend to lump together and call "entertainment". I believe, right or wrong, that this contributes to the confusion young people experience when it comes time to make choices regarding their careers. Do you shoot for the glossy, sexy option or go with the plodding, geeky option? Again, this is a matter of perception but think about what's being sold hard every day to this demographic. I think all too many of them are looking at the former option and that can't be laid entirely at their parents' feet.

This is one of those issues that seems to generate incredibly emotional responses and I have to admit that, looking at the bigger picture, I'm mainly just saddened by what we've come to. First off, I believe that America was built by talented, hard-working immigrants that were willing to come to this country and become Americans. We would never be as strong as we are without them and I believe we should continue to encourage participation from like-minded individuals. It saddens me that a large number of Americans seem to feel that we can afford to turn these people away. Criminals and terrorists should certainly be discouraged but not hard-working folk who are simply trying to find a better way of life. Having said that, I'm also saddened by the culture we've built where so many of our children, with their postmodern perspective on life, seem to be rejecting science and technology as viable career choices in favor of quicker (they think) paths to fame and fortune. The perception of so many of them (not all) seems to be that hard work and the pursuit of excellence in one's craft are a sucker's bet when they see the wealth and fame that we heap on performers, professional atheletes, and even reality TV "stars". To completely blame our educational system for this disenchantment is unfair (not that a lot of work isn't needed there) and fails to acknowledge our failure as a society to reward achievement in all worthwhile endeavors. How well attended is the high school science quiz contest (by non-parents) compared to the football game? We all bear responsibility for the ascendancy of entertainment and athletic achievement over scientific and/or technical prowess. What would make me happy would be a society where we understand both the importance of growing our internal brain trust, if you will, and the continuing need for talented, hard working immigrants to continue bringing new ideas to contribute to the overall quality of life here. I really don't see why it has to be one or the other as so many here seem to think.

Personally, I think it's a question of who really cares as long as you can read the thing and it kinda depends on what language I'm working with. For C# I pretty much go with the second example but as a complete heretic who occasionally finds himself coding Perl in a hurry, I've been known to chuck both examples and go with the following blasphemy: do something if true; Or even (gasp!): do something unless true; Both of which eliminate the braces altogether... :-D

The link was supposed to be convincing? This was from a company that makes money locking down employee Internet access. Do you also trust the mechanic that tells you that you need to pay him $1,500 for a head gasket replacement to correct that engine overheating problem? Or, do you get a second opinion? In my experience browsing controls that attempt to go beyond removing access to the most extreme or egregious websites limit productivity without really providing the effective limits on abuse that they're intended to provide. I'm routinely restricted from getting access to answers to technical questions just because they happen to be hosted on a site that indicates "chat" or some such thing in its metadata but I can come to the CP Lounge and lurk and discuss topics that aren't really related to improving my job performance. I can look up supermodels and movie stars any time I want if they are mentioned on Wikipedia but I'm barred from IMDB and, apparently, the sys admins think that prevents me from wasting my time on "entertainment" topics. The point being that a lot of time and energy are wasted on trying to fine tune the prevention when what they really should focus on is addressing any abuse if/when it occurs.

"Dr. Suler notes that disinhibition can be either benign — when a shy person feels free to open up online — or toxic, as in flaming."

No SOX at your company, huh? LUCKY!!! :^):^)