<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_1915205</id>
	<title>Automated Migration From Cobol To Java On Linux</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245830520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:durand.didier@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">Didier DURAND</a> writes <i>"Just published an article about our 100\% automated migration <a href="http://media-tech.blogspot.com/2009/06/naca-presented-jazoon-2009.html">from IBM mainframe with Cobol to Linux Java</a>: we could convert of our own application (4 million lines of code) through the tools that we developed. Those tools are open-sourced under GPL for other companies to benefit from them. We save 3 millions euros / year after this migration!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Didier DURAND writes " Just published an article about our 100 \ % automated migration from IBM mainframe with Cobol to Linux Java : we could convert of our own application ( 4 million lines of code ) through the tools that we developed .
Those tools are open-sourced under GPL for other companies to benefit from them .
We save 3 millions euros / year after this migration !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didier DURAND writes "Just published an article about our 100\% automated migration from IBM mainframe with Cobol to Linux Java: we could convert of our own application (4 million lines of code) through the tools that we developed.
Those tools are open-sourced under GPL for other companies to benefit from them.
We save 3 millions euros / year after this migration!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458367</id>
	<title>Serious Question Here</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245836820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though I could think of a ton of jokes - and have already seen a few - my first question is, "why."<br><br>I can see the possible benefits of no longer relying on aging cobol programmers. I am often dealing with just this issue as I migrate '70's and '80's era systems off off ADABAS and COBOL.  However, why would one want to make a one for one class creation of existing mainframe applications. I honestly remember a few programmers I knew doing this right before they retired back in '05. They took a COBOL/IMS application  running on an AS390 and turned it into a HTML/ASP.NET application written in C# with IMS and SQL Server on a z890 in virtual MVS and SLES environments.  The screens - web based now - were one for one matching with the previous mainframe screens.<br><br>My question then too, was why bother?<br><br>I just finished a second project in taking a '80's era mainframe application - this one to track the purchase of vital (birth death marriage) records - from mainframe into an n-tier model. Instead of simply copying the mainframe screens we spent time deciding what worked on the mainframe and what didn't.  Some of the mainframe concepts - particularly in the public lookup - were fine. They stayed and became web-based applications. Other items were thrown out the window and completely re-worked into a user-friendly and efficient system.  (In this case, we used MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2005 and C#, but we could have just as easily used Java. I'm not trying to say anything about the choice of language or underlying platform.)<br><br>Having done a similar project for real property records in '07, we learned many lessons and were able to reuse assemblies in the new application. In fact, the entire UI, security, printing, data encapsulation, image import (there are over 160M TIFF files in our system), reporting and cashiering/finance/cash handling subsystems are identical and shared among both applications.<br><br>I can see possibly wanting to utilize some classes for back end work but wouldn't it be better to review these individually and decide what is best?<br><br>Oh, and we're saving roughly $3M/year in mainframe costs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br><br>(Okay, post finished now to wait for someone to mod me as a troll...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I could think of a ton of jokes - and have already seen a few - my first question is , " why .
" I can see the possible benefits of no longer relying on aging cobol programmers .
I am often dealing with just this issue as I migrate '70 's and '80 's era systems off off ADABAS and COBOL .
However , why would one want to make a one for one class creation of existing mainframe applications .
I honestly remember a few programmers I knew doing this right before they retired back in '05 .
They took a COBOL/IMS application running on an AS390 and turned it into a HTML/ASP.NET application written in C # with IMS and SQL Server on a z890 in virtual MVS and SLES environments .
The screens - web based now - were one for one matching with the previous mainframe screens.My question then too , was why bother ? I just finished a second project in taking a '80 's era mainframe application - this one to track the purchase of vital ( birth death marriage ) records - from mainframe into an n-tier model .
Instead of simply copying the mainframe screens we spent time deciding what worked on the mainframe and what did n't .
Some of the mainframe concepts - particularly in the public lookup - were fine .
They stayed and became web-based applications .
Other items were thrown out the window and completely re-worked into a user-friendly and efficient system .
( In this case , we used MS .NET 2005 and C # , but we could have just as easily used Java .
I 'm not trying to say anything about the choice of language or underlying platform .
) Having done a similar project for real property records in '07 , we learned many lessons and were able to reuse assemblies in the new application .
In fact , the entire UI , security , printing , data encapsulation , image import ( there are over 160M TIFF files in our system ) , reporting and cashiering/finance/cash handling subsystems are identical and shared among both applications.I can see possibly wanting to utilize some classes for back end work but would n't it be better to review these individually and decide what is best ? Oh , and we 're saving roughly $ 3M/year in mainframe costs .
: ) ( Okay , post finished now to wait for someone to mod me as a troll... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I could think of a ton of jokes - and have already seen a few - my first question is, "why.
"I can see the possible benefits of no longer relying on aging cobol programmers.
I am often dealing with just this issue as I migrate '70's and '80's era systems off off ADABAS and COBOL.
However, why would one want to make a one for one class creation of existing mainframe applications.
I honestly remember a few programmers I knew doing this right before they retired back in '05.
They took a COBOL/IMS application  running on an AS390 and turned it into a HTML/ASP.NET application written in C# with IMS and SQL Server on a z890 in virtual MVS and SLES environments.
The screens - web based now - were one for one matching with the previous mainframe screens.My question then too, was why bother?I just finished a second project in taking a '80's era mainframe application - this one to track the purchase of vital (birth death marriage) records - from mainframe into an n-tier model.
Instead of simply copying the mainframe screens we spent time deciding what worked on the mainframe and what didn't.
Some of the mainframe concepts - particularly in the public lookup - were fine.
They stayed and became web-based applications.
Other items were thrown out the window and completely re-worked into a user-friendly and efficient system.
(In this case, we used MS .NET 2005 and C#, but we could have just as easily used Java.
I'm not trying to say anything about the choice of language or underlying platform.
)Having done a similar project for real property records in '07, we learned many lessons and were able to reuse assemblies in the new application.
In fact, the entire UI, security, printing, data encapsulation, image import (there are over 160M TIFF files in our system), reporting and cashiering/finance/cash handling subsystems are identical and shared among both applications.I can see possibly wanting to utilize some classes for back end work but wouldn't it be better to review these individually and decide what is best?Oh, and we're saving roughly $3M/year in mainframe costs.
:)(Okay, post finished now to wait for someone to mod me as a troll...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457981</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a modest disturbance in the job market.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually that disturbance was all 9 of the world's still-living Cobol coders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually that disturbance was all 9 of the world 's still-living Cobol coders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually that disturbance was all 9 of the world's still-living Cobol coders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463403</id>
	<title>Maintainable output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is utter baloney. The idea of creating 'maintainable' Java from COBOL is a Joke - right? How do you deal with GOTO statements and have them work in a non-obfuscated way?</p><p>There is a big market for moving from Cobol to something else, but pretending you end up with anything maintainable is marketing spin.</p><p>Cobol is a big, horrible language with many obscure constructs. It will always be translated into equivalently big, horrible, obscure code - in whatever language it goes to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is utter baloney .
The idea of creating 'maintainable ' Java from COBOL is a Joke - right ?
How do you deal with GOTO statements and have them work in a non-obfuscated way ? There is a big market for moving from Cobol to something else , but pretending you end up with anything maintainable is marketing spin.Cobol is a big , horrible language with many obscure constructs .
It will always be translated into equivalently big , horrible , obscure code - in whatever language it goes to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is utter baloney.
The idea of creating 'maintainable' Java from COBOL is a Joke - right?
How do you deal with GOTO statements and have them work in a non-obfuscated way?There is a big market for moving from Cobol to something else, but pretending you end up with anything maintainable is marketing spin.Cobol is a big, horrible language with many obscure constructs.
It will always be translated into equivalently big, horrible, obscure code - in whatever language it goes to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458357</id>
	<title>The King is Dead! Long live the King!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245836760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? Someone had to say it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Someone had to say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Someone had to say it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461349</id>
	<title>Re:Inline documentation?</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1245851940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously didn't read the article.  They are turning it into java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously did n't read the article .
They are turning it into java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously didn't read the article.
They are turning it into java.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458717</id>
	<title>No change in the job market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This looks like a cute toy that will auto-generate some bloated code. No way big iron financial systems are moving to Java, especially auto-generated Java that will perform like crap and be harder to maintain than the COBOL it replaced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks like a cute toy that will auto-generate some bloated code .
No way big iron financial systems are moving to Java , especially auto-generated Java that will perform like crap and be harder to maintain than the COBOL it replaced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks like a cute toy that will auto-generate some bloated code.
No way big iron financial systems are moving to Java, especially auto-generated Java that will perform like crap and be harder to maintain than the COBOL it replaced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</id>
	<title>I sense a modest disturbance in the job market...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As though a few hundred cobol coders cried out in terror, and were suddenly obsolete...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As though a few hundred cobol coders cried out in terror , and were suddenly obsolete.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As though a few hundred cobol coders cried out in terror, and were suddenly obsolete...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28465857</id>
	<title>Readability of generated Java code</title>
	<author>ciaran.mchale</author>
	<datestamp>1245942180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some people have expressed scepticism about the readability and maintainability of the generated Java code. That's a simple concern to deal with. Just run the generated Java code though a Java-to-Perl translator. Then there won't be any question at all about its level of readability and maintainability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people have expressed scepticism about the readability and maintainability of the generated Java code .
That 's a simple concern to deal with .
Just run the generated Java code though a Java-to-Perl translator .
Then there wo n't be any question at all about its level of readability and maintainability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people have expressed scepticism about the readability and maintainability of the generated Java code.
That's a simple concern to deal with.
Just run the generated Java code though a Java-to-Perl translator.
Then there won't be any question at all about its level of readability and maintainability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458387</id>
	<title>Inline documentation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245836880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens to the commenting? Won't this turn into an unreadable turd?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens to the commenting ?
Wo n't this turn into an unreadable turd ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens to the commenting?
Won't this turn into an unreadable turd?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457905</id>
	<title>Cobol was crap and JAVA is crap;  a marriage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a freakn waste.  These code translators never work.  Try to change something and good luck.  I assume that everything was written perfectly in Coobol and there never was any maintenance correct?

Go the land of the past lost -- Coobol and then go to the land of the current lost -- Jaava.

Structured programming shiit and object programming shiit.

Coobol is a past dinosaur and Jaava is a current dinosaur.  Welcome to the LAND OF THE LOST.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a freakn waste .
These code translators never work .
Try to change something and good luck .
I assume that everything was written perfectly in Coobol and there never was any maintenance correct ?
Go the land of the past lost -- Coobol and then go to the land of the current lost -- Jaava .
Structured programming shiit and object programming shiit .
Coobol is a past dinosaur and Jaava is a current dinosaur .
Welcome to the LAND OF THE LOST .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a freakn waste.
These code translators never work.
Try to change something and good luck.
I assume that everything was written perfectly in Coobol and there never was any maintenance correct?
Go the land of the past lost -- Coobol and then go to the land of the current lost -- Jaava.
Structured programming shiit and object programming shiit.
Coobol is a past dinosaur and Jaava is a current dinosaur.
Welcome to the LAND OF THE LOST.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460001</id>
	<title>Re:What about the grey-beards?</title>
	<author>ralphdaugherty</author>
	<datestamp>1245843720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But now what will the poor grey-beards do for a living?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They stated clearly they were migrating the people along with it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; For the post before yours, they stated clearly they were doing this for the money it saves them to move from a mainframe to PC server farms.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's not even really an article to read, just a few bullet points.</p><p>
&nbsp; rd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But now what will the poor grey-beards do for a living ?
      They stated clearly they were migrating the people along with it .
      For the post before yours , they stated clearly they were doing this for the money it saves them to move from a mainframe to PC server farms .
      It 's not even really an article to read , just a few bullet points .
  rd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But now what will the poor grey-beards do for a living?
      They stated clearly they were migrating the people along with it.
      For the post before yours, they stated clearly they were doing this for the money it saves them to move from a mainframe to PC server farms.
      It's not even really an article to read, just a few bullet points.
  rd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463603</id>
	<title>Re:Scary Thot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245960780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>new math.operators.Addition()?</p><p>math.operators.Addition should be static.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>new math.operators.Addition ( ) ? math.operators.Addition should be static .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>new math.operators.Addition()?math.operators.Addition should be static.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457857</id>
	<title>Automated Migration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Automated Migration from Africa to America!*
<br> <br> <br> <br>
*The Fine Print - Lots of Cotton-Picking Will Be Involved.  Also, future historians will pretend like only white people had black slaves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Automated Migration from Africa to America !
* * The Fine Print - Lots of Cotton-Picking Will Be Involved .
Also , future historians will pretend like only white people had black slaves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Automated Migration from Africa to America!
*
   
*The Fine Print - Lots of Cotton-Picking Will Be Involved.
Also, future historians will pretend like only white people had black slaves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458803</id>
	<title>I have automatic translation to machine code</title>
	<author>obarel</author>
	<datestamp>1245838320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I just have to train my staff to read and write machine code, and it's bye bye COBOL forever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I just have to train my staff to read and write machine code , and it 's bye bye COBOL forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I just have to train my staff to read and write machine code, and it's bye bye COBOL forever!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459709</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a modest disturbance in the job market.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1245842160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, we do not fear the dark side for we have seen the light. ( of course that light came from a 3270 in a dark basement 20 years ago... )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , we do not fear the dark side for we have seen the light .
( of course that light came from a 3270 in a dark basement 20 years ago... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, we do not fear the dark side for we have seen the light.
( of course that light came from a 3270 in a dark basement 20 years ago... )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458255</id>
	<title>Per slide 25</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1245836520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All it appears to be doing is mapping COBOL line of code to Java Line of code, per Slide 25.</p><p>This is more about being able to find someone who can read and write java. The code remains procedural, the COBOL programmers do the same stuff, just in Java now.</p><p>Here's an example of the code that was spit out:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>sql("SELECT * FROM RS0403 WHERE CDPROJ=#1").into(vrs0403a.dvrs0403a).param(1, tuazone.tua\_I\_Cdproj)</p></div><p>Not to dissuade, but in someways, they avoided doing a rewrite at all cost.</p><p>Great if you want to get off legacy systems, but it's not going to magically improve your code base. GIGO rules still apply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All it appears to be doing is mapping COBOL line of code to Java Line of code , per Slide 25.This is more about being able to find someone who can read and write java .
The code remains procedural , the COBOL programmers do the same stuff , just in Java now.Here 's an example of the code that was spit out : sql ( " SELECT * FROM RS0403 WHERE CDPROJ = # 1 " ) .into ( vrs0403a.dvrs0403a ) .param ( 1 , tuazone.tua \ _I \ _Cdproj ) Not to dissuade , but in someways , they avoided doing a rewrite at all cost.Great if you want to get off legacy systems , but it 's not going to magically improve your code base .
GIGO rules still apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All it appears to be doing is mapping COBOL line of code to Java Line of code, per Slide 25.This is more about being able to find someone who can read and write java.
The code remains procedural, the COBOL programmers do the same stuff, just in Java now.Here's an example of the code that was spit out:sql("SELECT * FROM RS0403 WHERE CDPROJ=#1").into(vrs0403a.dvrs0403a).param(1, tuazone.tua\_I\_Cdproj)Not to dissuade, but in someways, they avoided doing a rewrite at all cost.Great if you want to get off legacy systems, but it's not going to magically improve your code base.
GIGO rules still apply.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28464357</id>
	<title>Why not just compile for .Net?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245926700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Fujitsu make a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net compiler for COBOL? Then it would run any where Mono runs...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Fujitsu make a .Net compiler for COBOL ?
Then it would run any where Mono runs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Fujitsu make a .Net compiler for COBOL?
Then it would run any where Mono runs...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458631</id>
	<title>Hmmmm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hacked into their source code, and found something a little odd:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>while (f = getFiles(srcDir)) {<br>
&nbsp; sendToBangalore(f);<br>
&nbsp; wait\_a\_little();<br>
&nbsp; result = getFromBangalore();<br>
&nbsp; save(result);<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hacked into their source code , and found something a little odd : while ( f = getFiles ( srcDir ) ) {   sendToBangalore ( f ) ;   wait \ _a \ _little ( ) ;   result = getFromBangalore ( ) ;   save ( result ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hacked into their source code, and found something a little odd: while (f = getFiles(srcDir)) {
  sendToBangalore(f);
  wait\_a\_little();
  result = getFromBangalore();
  save(result);} 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460417</id>
	<title>Re:Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1245845820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Java will probably be around for some time to come.  It's becoming a pretty major force in embedded devices.</p><p>That being said, maybe converting to something like C might guarantee long-term viability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Java will probably be around for some time to come .
It 's becoming a pretty major force in embedded devices.That being said , maybe converting to something like C might guarantee long-term viability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Java will probably be around for some time to come.
It's becoming a pretty major force in embedded devices.That being said, maybe converting to something like C might guarantee long-term viability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458177</id>
	<title>What do transcoders really buy you?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245836280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll say what they don't buy you:  The ability to throw away the old language.</p><p>If changes need to be made - and they will - you will want to change the original language not some intermediate that is stilted and hard to read at best and a candidate for an obscufated insert-language-here contest at worst.</p><p>What transcoders do buy you:</p><p>The ability to compile code on a platform that doesn't have a compiler for your flavor of your language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say what they do n't buy you : The ability to throw away the old language.If changes need to be made - and they will - you will want to change the original language not some intermediate that is stilted and hard to read at best and a candidate for an obscufated insert-language-here contest at worst.What transcoders do buy you : The ability to compile code on a platform that does n't have a compiler for your flavor of your language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say what they don't buy you:  The ability to throw away the old language.If changes need to be made - and they will - you will want to change the original language not some intermediate that is stilted and hard to read at best and a candidate for an obscufated insert-language-here contest at worst.What transcoders do buy you:The ability to compile code on a platform that doesn't have a compiler for your flavor of your language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715</id>
	<title>"Automated"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245834420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like it could turn out like WYSIWYG HTML Editor code. Where every word you bold has the bold tags, etc.</p><p>Dreamweaver, Word, etc all make some dang ugly HTML.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like it could turn out like WYSIWYG HTML Editor code .
Where every word you bold has the bold tags , etc.Dreamweaver , Word , etc all make some dang ugly HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like it could turn out like WYSIWYG HTML Editor code.
Where every word you bold has the bold tags, etc.Dreamweaver, Word, etc all make some dang ugly HTML.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458691</id>
	<title>Not so fast</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1245837840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will just carry forward and old bugs and give them life a new in a new executing environment, where no one knows what will happen. Seems like makings for several DailyWTFs to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will just carry forward and old bugs and give them life a new in a new executing environment , where no one knows what will happen .
Seems like makings for several DailyWTFs to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will just carry forward and old bugs and give them life a new in a new executing environment, where no one knows what will happen.
Seems like makings for several DailyWTFs to me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459725</id>
	<title>Programmer's Cut</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245842280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"We save 3 millions euros / year after this migration!"</p></div></blockquote><p>
And what cut of this savings have your given your programmers who have made it all possible?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We save 3 millions euros / year after this migration !
" And what cut of this savings have your given your programmers who have made it all possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We save 3 millions euros / year after this migration!
"
And what cut of this savings have your given your programmers who have made it all possible?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28466427</id>
	<title>Proving yet again...</title>
	<author>RedMage</author>
	<datestamp>1245945000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proving yet again that you can write COBOL in any language.</p><p>Seriously tho, the resulting code can't be all that great for a true Java programmer to maintain after the conversion - at its heart it would still be organized in a non-OOP (procedural) manner, which would certainly require some cross-thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proving yet again that you can write COBOL in any language.Seriously tho , the resulting code ca n't be all that great for a true Java programmer to maintain after the conversion - at its heart it would still be organized in a non-OOP ( procedural ) manner , which would certainly require some cross-thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proving yet again that you can write COBOL in any language.Seriously tho, the resulting code can't be all that great for a true Java programmer to maintain after the conversion - at its heart it would still be organized in a non-OOP (procedural) manner, which would certainly require some cross-thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458267</id>
	<title>Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245836520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I generally agree. Perhaps the translated result will "run" at first, but the subject of maintenance cannot be ignored because it's usually the largest cost factor. The generated code is likely to be very verbose and filled with ugly translation artifacts. Machine translators are very literal in their technique to ensure compatibility.</p><p>A human translator may use knowledge of the domain or common sense to dump certain idioms or artifacts that are not likely to be necessary any more in the new language. They may take small but rational risks in order to toss some ugly nitty gritty code, for example. Machine translators are not smart enough to evaluate such risks, doing it the long way to "make sure".</p><p>One must find a way to read all that machine-generated fluff to make any changes or fixes. This makes maintenance costly and error-prone.</p><p>It would be more effective to gradually manually convert one program or module at a time.</p><p>Plus, as somebody else pointed out, Java may become a "dead" language also. I've seen about 4 language fad eras in my years in IT. The chance of Java surviving as a non-legacy language is not very big based on past patterns. Thus, one is mostly just converting one legacy language to another.</p><p>And Java has some really annoying features that I feel future languages will avoid, including putting type declarations on the left side of statements, keeping C's ugly switch/case syntax, lack of stand-alone functions, and others.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally agree .
Perhaps the translated result will " run " at first , but the subject of maintenance can not be ignored because it 's usually the largest cost factor .
The generated code is likely to be very verbose and filled with ugly translation artifacts .
Machine translators are very literal in their technique to ensure compatibility.A human translator may use knowledge of the domain or common sense to dump certain idioms or artifacts that are not likely to be necessary any more in the new language .
They may take small but rational risks in order to toss some ugly nitty gritty code , for example .
Machine translators are not smart enough to evaluate such risks , doing it the long way to " make sure " .One must find a way to read all that machine-generated fluff to make any changes or fixes .
This makes maintenance costly and error-prone.It would be more effective to gradually manually convert one program or module at a time.Plus , as somebody else pointed out , Java may become a " dead " language also .
I 've seen about 4 language fad eras in my years in IT .
The chance of Java surviving as a non-legacy language is not very big based on past patterns .
Thus , one is mostly just converting one legacy language to another.And Java has some really annoying features that I feel future languages will avoid , including putting type declarations on the left side of statements , keeping C 's ugly switch/case syntax , lack of stand-alone functions , and others .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally agree.
Perhaps the translated result will "run" at first, but the subject of maintenance cannot be ignored because it's usually the largest cost factor.
The generated code is likely to be very verbose and filled with ugly translation artifacts.
Machine translators are very literal in their technique to ensure compatibility.A human translator may use knowledge of the domain or common sense to dump certain idioms or artifacts that are not likely to be necessary any more in the new language.
They may take small but rational risks in order to toss some ugly nitty gritty code, for example.
Machine translators are not smart enough to evaluate such risks, doing it the long way to "make sure".One must find a way to read all that machine-generated fluff to make any changes or fixes.
This makes maintenance costly and error-prone.It would be more effective to gradually manually convert one program or module at a time.Plus, as somebody else pointed out, Java may become a "dead" language also.
I've seen about 4 language fad eras in my years in IT.
The chance of Java surviving as a non-legacy language is not very big based on past patterns.
Thus, one is mostly just converting one legacy language to another.And Java has some really annoying features that I feel future languages will avoid, including putting type declarations on the left side of statements, keeping C's ugly switch/case syntax, lack of stand-alone functions, and others.
     </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28462899</id>
	<title>Re:Serious Question Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you have to lease the mainframe and pay a support contract whether there are problems or not.  that's probably why.</p><p>in this way, windows is an antidote to mainframes.  the "maintenance" costs are much, much cheaper with windows.  that doesn't make one better than the other, but that's part of the thinking.</p><p>also, hardware failure on obsolete systems can mean a delay waiting to find a part or paying high repair costs if you aren't paying the high monthly support contract cost.  again, pc repair has its own problems, but for recently manufactured servers, getting parts is pretty fast (if they aren't out of stock!).  with older systems, the part you need may be \_rare\_ as in not even ebay has it for sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you have to lease the mainframe and pay a support contract whether there are problems or not .
that 's probably why.in this way , windows is an antidote to mainframes .
the " maintenance " costs are much , much cheaper with windows .
that does n't make one better than the other , but that 's part of the thinking.also , hardware failure on obsolete systems can mean a delay waiting to find a part or paying high repair costs if you are n't paying the high monthly support contract cost .
again , pc repair has its own problems , but for recently manufactured servers , getting parts is pretty fast ( if they are n't out of stock ! ) .
with older systems , the part you need may be \ _rare \ _ as in not even ebay has it for sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you have to lease the mainframe and pay a support contract whether there are problems or not.
that's probably why.in this way, windows is an antidote to mainframes.
the "maintenance" costs are much, much cheaper with windows.
that doesn't make one better than the other, but that's part of the thinking.also, hardware failure on obsolete systems can mean a delay waiting to find a part or paying high repair costs if you aren't paying the high monthly support contract cost.
again, pc repair has its own problems, but for recently manufactured servers, getting parts is pretty fast (if they aren't out of stock!).
with older systems, the part you need may be \_rare\_ as in not even ebay has it for sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460877</id>
	<title>while this is nice....</title>
	<author>sulfide</author>
	<datestamp>1245848280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what is their solution to a&gt; making cobol programmers java developers or b&gt; renting new java developers and having them understand the codebase quick enough to make emergency changes to the code when all is said and done.

Either way migration is still a monumental task.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is their solution to a &gt; making cobol programmers java developers or b &gt; renting new java developers and having them understand the codebase quick enough to make emergency changes to the code when all is said and done .
Either way migration is still a monumental task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is their solution to a&gt; making cobol programmers java developers or b&gt; renting new java developers and having them understand the codebase quick enough to make emergency changes to the code when all is said and done.
Either way migration is still a monumental task.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28464537</id>
	<title>Re:What about the grey-beards?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245930000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're retire, then come back in a year as consultants (making more in a week than they currently do in a year) to help the new programmers make changes to Java code automatically generated from COBOL by a machine, which can only be understood by someone who knows Java, COBOL, and the underlying business logic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're retire , then come back in a year as consultants ( making more in a week than they currently do in a year ) to help the new programmers make changes to Java code automatically generated from COBOL by a machine , which can only be understood by someone who knows Java , COBOL , and the underlying business logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're retire, then come back in a year as consultants (making more in a week than they currently do in a year) to help the new programmers make changes to Java code automatically generated from COBOL by a machine, which can only be understood by someone who knows Java, COBOL, and the underlying business logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458105</id>
	<title>Yes, but does it run MVS?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245835980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just asking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460451</id>
	<title>Three Million Euros!?</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1245845940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy cow, exactly what was the environment they had that cost $3M Euros/year more than the hand full  of Linux boxes they replaced it with?</p><p>They could have had a collection of mainframes for $3M Euros, they were vastly under-used if they had that much in savings locked up in that environment.</p><p>Their code matches line for line, so they have the most basic of Java code in place of the COBOL code (it likely looks very similar to COBOL code) I guess.</p><p>As for the transcoding effort, they could also have fired up any one of several alternative environments that could support the COBOL natively without making some Frankenstein-like Java code...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy cow , exactly what was the environment they had that cost $ 3M Euros/year more than the hand full of Linux boxes they replaced it with ? They could have had a collection of mainframes for $ 3M Euros , they were vastly under-used if they had that much in savings locked up in that environment.Their code matches line for line , so they have the most basic of Java code in place of the COBOL code ( it likely looks very similar to COBOL code ) I guess.As for the transcoding effort , they could also have fired up any one of several alternative environments that could support the COBOL natively without making some Frankenstein-like Java code.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy cow, exactly what was the environment they had that cost $3M Euros/year more than the hand full  of Linux boxes they replaced it with?They could have had a collection of mainframes for $3M Euros, they were vastly under-used if they had that much in savings locked up in that environment.Their code matches line for line, so they have the most basic of Java code in place of the COBOL code (it likely looks very similar to COBOL code) I guess.As for the transcoding effort, they could also have fired up any one of several alternative environments that could support the COBOL natively without making some Frankenstein-like Java code...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458755</id>
	<title>The 1990s called...</title>
	<author>VampireByte</author>
	<datestamp>1245838140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 1990s called... they want their "automated convert Xxxx to Java" idea back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1990s called... they want their " automated convert Xxxx to Java " idea back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1990s called... they want their "automated convert Xxxx to Java" idea back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463409</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>guliverk</author>
	<datestamp>1245871800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool thing but I think the best language is that language which you known best</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool thing but I think the best language is that language which you known best</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool thing but I think the best language is that language which you known best</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457999</id>
	<title>Well, convert it, first.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"we could convert of our own application (4 million lines of code) through the tools that we developed"</p><p>Well, convert it, first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we could convert of our own application ( 4 million lines of code ) through the tools that we developed " Well , convert it , first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we could convert of our own application (4 million lines of code) through the tools that we developed"Well, convert it, first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457979</id>
	<title>Re:"Automated"</title>
	<author>farmkid</author>
	<datestamp>1245835500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought, exactly.  But it turns out that human-maintainable code was a high priority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought , exactly .
But it turns out that human-maintainable code was a high priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought, exactly.
But it turns out that human-maintainable code was a high priority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459061</id>
	<title>COBOL Does Not Support F/OSS, Java Does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245839280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no good open-source COBOL compilers. The GCC COBOL project is dead. TinyCOBOL is very incomplete. Then, the one I like, OpenCOBOL simply transcodes COBOL-85 to C and then compiles the C-code.</p><p>The COBOL, i.e. Business, community does not support F/OSS compilers. There is a great deal of money involved in hardware/COBOL systems still.</p><p>The main article describes a migration from an IBM/zOS mainframe running COBOL to Linux on Intel hardware. There is no professional-grade COBOL available for Linux so that they must convert to another language. They chose to transcode COBOL into Java.</p><p>I don't see anything bad about COBOL, or good about Java here. The issue is closed-standards, and the cost savings of cheaper hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no good open-source COBOL compilers .
The GCC COBOL project is dead .
TinyCOBOL is very incomplete .
Then , the one I like , OpenCOBOL simply transcodes COBOL-85 to C and then compiles the C-code.The COBOL , i.e .
Business , community does not support F/OSS compilers .
There is a great deal of money involved in hardware/COBOL systems still.The main article describes a migration from an IBM/zOS mainframe running COBOL to Linux on Intel hardware .
There is no professional-grade COBOL available for Linux so that they must convert to another language .
They chose to transcode COBOL into Java.I do n't see anything bad about COBOL , or good about Java here .
The issue is closed-standards , and the cost savings of cheaper hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no good open-source COBOL compilers.
The GCC COBOL project is dead.
TinyCOBOL is very incomplete.
Then, the one I like, OpenCOBOL simply transcodes COBOL-85 to C and then compiles the C-code.The COBOL, i.e.
Business, community does not support F/OSS compilers.
There is a great deal of money involved in hardware/COBOL systems still.The main article describes a migration from an IBM/zOS mainframe running COBOL to Linux on Intel hardware.
There is no professional-grade COBOL available for Linux so that they must convert to another language.
They chose to transcode COBOL into Java.I don't see anything bad about COBOL, or good about Java here.
The issue is closed-standards, and the cost savings of cheaper hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459341</id>
	<title>Re:Serious Question Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245840420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There I modded you troll you dumb bitch.  Keep doing the karma martyrdom, and I will keep modding you down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There I modded you troll you dumb bitch .
Keep doing the karma martyrdom , and I will keep modding you down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There I modded you troll you dumb bitch.
Keep doing the karma martyrdom, and I will keep modding you down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458391</id>
	<title>What about the grey-beards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245836880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But now what will the poor grey-beards do for a living?</p><p>Wont' someone <i>please</i> think of the grey-beards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But now what will the poor grey-beards do for a living ? Wont ' someone please think of the grey-beards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But now what will the poor grey-beards do for a living?Wont' someone please think of the grey-beards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28462009</id>
	<title>Re:Inline documentation?</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1245857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't the comments just be converted along with the rest of the code?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't the comments just be converted along with the rest of the code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't the comments just be converted along with the rest of the code?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458727</id>
	<title>Is it certified as a conforming COBOL compiler?</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1245838080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there is a certification program to check that a commercial COBOL compiler processes the whole language and produces output code that performs correctly.  (Can't recall the name at the moment though I think it was in the US government - perhaps in the DoD.)  I'm wondering if this tool has been submitted to that and, if so, whether it passed.</p><p>I'd occasionally thought it would be a useful thing to do something similar to this (but with ANSI V2 C++, rather than JAVA, as the target language) - and then get the tool certified.  With such a certified tool IT administrators could, with confidence, transcode a COBOL application base into a language with multiple commercial and open compilers a long expected support lifetime, generating native code for virtually all possible targets (from PC clusters to current and future mainframes).  If the transcoded output doesn't become excessively opaque and class-dependent it could later be warped into a more native form, should that be desirable.</p><p>Perhaps this project will be able to actually do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there is a certification program to check that a commercial COBOL compiler processes the whole language and produces output code that performs correctly .
( Ca n't recall the name at the moment though I think it was in the US government - perhaps in the DoD .
) I 'm wondering if this tool has been submitted to that and , if so , whether it passed.I 'd occasionally thought it would be a useful thing to do something similar to this ( but with ANSI V2 C + + , rather than JAVA , as the target language ) - and then get the tool certified .
With such a certified tool IT administrators could , with confidence , transcode a COBOL application base into a language with multiple commercial and open compilers a long expected support lifetime , generating native code for virtually all possible targets ( from PC clusters to current and future mainframes ) .
If the transcoded output does n't become excessively opaque and class-dependent it could later be warped into a more native form , should that be desirable.Perhaps this project will be able to actually do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there is a certification program to check that a commercial COBOL compiler processes the whole language and produces output code that performs correctly.
(Can't recall the name at the moment though I think it was in the US government - perhaps in the DoD.
)  I'm wondering if this tool has been submitted to that and, if so, whether it passed.I'd occasionally thought it would be a useful thing to do something similar to this (but with ANSI V2 C++, rather than JAVA, as the target language) - and then get the tool certified.
With such a certified tool IT administrators could, with confidence, transcode a COBOL application base into a language with multiple commercial and open compilers a long expected support lifetime, generating native code for virtually all possible targets (from PC clusters to current and future mainframes).
If the transcoded output doesn't become excessively opaque and class-dependent it could later be warped into a more native form, should that be desirable.Perhaps this project will be able to actually do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458151</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a modest disturbance in the job market.</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1245836160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that someone will still need to fine tune the Java, and that will require an understanding of the original Cobol.  Given the undeserved disparaging comments I hear around here on Cobol, Fortran, even C, I suspect the average modern developers feels overwork if they have to deal with anything more complex than Python, not saying anything bad about Python, or, even worse, does not fit into their preferred IDE.  I find that if you have a basis in the original computer coding methods, all the new stuff is just a simple walk in the park.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that someone will still need to fine tune the Java , and that will require an understanding of the original Cobol .
Given the undeserved disparaging comments I hear around here on Cobol , Fortran , even C , I suspect the average modern developers feels overwork if they have to deal with anything more complex than Python , not saying anything bad about Python , or , even worse , does not fit into their preferred IDE .
I find that if you have a basis in the original computer coding methods , all the new stuff is just a simple walk in the park .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that someone will still need to fine tune the Java, and that will require an understanding of the original Cobol.
Given the undeserved disparaging comments I hear around here on Cobol, Fortran, even C, I suspect the average modern developers feels overwork if they have to deal with anything more complex than Python, not saying anything bad about Python, or, even worse, does not fit into their preferred IDE.
I find that if you have a basis in the original computer coding methods, all the new stuff is just a simple walk in the park.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458005</id>
	<title>Sign of the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replace something that has a <i>proven</i> track record with something that is a <i>fad</i>.</p><p>Whoever the project lead is on this must have supreme bullshitting skills; to be able to convince an entity that has the cash for an IBM/compiled program route to switch to an OSS/interpreted program route.</p><p>I can't imagine Linux and Java lasting nearly as long as IBM and COBOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace something that has a proven track record with something that is a fad.Whoever the project lead is on this must have supreme bullshitting skills ; to be able to convince an entity that has the cash for an IBM/compiled program route to switch to an OSS/interpreted program route.I ca n't imagine Linux and Java lasting nearly as long as IBM and COBOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace something that has a proven track record with something that is a fad.Whoever the project lead is on this must have supreme bullshitting skills; to be able to convince an entity that has the cash for an IBM/compiled program route to switch to an OSS/interpreted program route.I can't imagine Linux and Java lasting nearly as long as IBM and COBOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461445</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a modest disturbance in the job market.</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1245852780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, i based my future plans on learning Cobol and translating it to some of the more modern languges i know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , i based my future plans on learning Cobol and translating it to some of the more modern languges i know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, i based my future plans on learning Cobol and translating it to some of the more modern languges i know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459769</id>
	<title>We did this with a bunch of pascal code</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1245842460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We used p2c to migrate a bunch of pascal code to C many years ago. It was not perfect, but not that bad. You got pretty good at figuring-out the likely places that screwed-up. Also save for the with statements in pascal being translated to accesses to structures, it made relatively readable C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We used p2c to migrate a bunch of pascal code to C many years ago .
It was not perfect , but not that bad .
You got pretty good at figuring-out the likely places that screwed-up .
Also save for the with statements in pascal being translated to accesses to structures , it made relatively readable C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used p2c to migrate a bunch of pascal code to C many years ago.
It was not perfect, but not that bad.
You got pretty good at figuring-out the likely places that screwed-up.
Also save for the with statements in pascal being translated to accesses to structures, it made relatively readable C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457861</id>
	<title>But can it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>convert Java to COBOL?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>convert Java to COBOL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>convert Java to COBOL?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458707</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a modest disturbance in the job market.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, a few hundred cobol coders announced their retirement, and a few dozen PHBs cried out in terror.
<p>
My question is, "Do you also convert the CICS calls embedded in the code (and possibly 3270 terminal commands?!?) or is there a Java library to interface with CICS?"  My experience with converters is that they follow the 90-10 rule, where they do great with 90\% of the code, but that's the easiest, and could almost be done with global Find/Replace.  The remaining 10\% is why the conversion wasn't already done.
</p><p>
Later . . .   Jim</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , a few hundred cobol coders announced their retirement , and a few dozen PHBs cried out in terror .
My question is , " Do you also convert the CICS calls embedded in the code ( and possibly 3270 terminal commands ? ! ?
) or is there a Java library to interface with CICS ?
" My experience with converters is that they follow the 90-10 rule , where they do great with 90 \ % of the code , but that 's the easiest , and could almost be done with global Find/Replace .
The remaining 10 \ % is why the conversion was n't already done .
Later .
. .
Jim</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, a few hundred cobol coders announced their retirement, and a few dozen PHBs cried out in terror.
My question is, "Do you also convert the CICS calls embedded in the code (and possibly 3270 terminal commands?!?
) or is there a Java library to interface with CICS?
"  My experience with converters is that they follow the 90-10 rule, where they do great with 90\% of the code, but that's the easiest, and could almost be done with global Find/Replace.
The remaining 10\% is why the conversion wasn't already done.
Later .
. .
Jim</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458907</id>
	<title>OpenCOBOL on Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245838740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cobol apps from mainframes easily runs on Linux when you just simply recompile using the free, open source, GPL'ed <a href="http://www.opencobol.org/" title="opencobol.org" rel="nofollow"> OpenCobol </a> [opencobol.org] compiler. I've moved a bunch of old IBM mainframe cobol stuff to Linux with OpenCOBOL and so far, I've run into very few issues, none of which weren't solvable with a minimal amount of code changes.</p><p>OpenCOBOL also works great if you have any Oracle Cobol apps  (that used the Oracle Pro*Cobol precompiler). I'm in the middle of moving a bunch of Cobol-on-Oracle stuff from an old RS/6000 AIX box to 64-bit Linux right now. I'm using Oracle's free "Oracle Enterprise Linux" which is basically a repackaged RHEL distro, and you can even buy formal support contract from Oracle for OEL. So far everything is working out great. The commodity hardware  (HP Proliant DL580) server costs a mere fraction of what a new AIX box of comparable power would've cost, and I'm also benefiting from Oracle's free Virtual Server stuff  (Xen-based) so I've got the functional equivalent of IBM's LPAR virtual machine technology going on commodity hardware with 10 times the speed, and 1/10th the hardware cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cobol apps from mainframes easily runs on Linux when you just simply recompile using the free , open source , GPL'ed OpenCobol [ opencobol.org ] compiler .
I 've moved a bunch of old IBM mainframe cobol stuff to Linux with OpenCOBOL and so far , I 've run into very few issues , none of which were n't solvable with a minimal amount of code changes.OpenCOBOL also works great if you have any Oracle Cobol apps ( that used the Oracle Pro * Cobol precompiler ) .
I 'm in the middle of moving a bunch of Cobol-on-Oracle stuff from an old RS/6000 AIX box to 64-bit Linux right now .
I 'm using Oracle 's free " Oracle Enterprise Linux " which is basically a repackaged RHEL distro , and you can even buy formal support contract from Oracle for OEL .
So far everything is working out great .
The commodity hardware ( HP Proliant DL580 ) server costs a mere fraction of what a new AIX box of comparable power would 've cost , and I 'm also benefiting from Oracle 's free Virtual Server stuff ( Xen-based ) so I 've got the functional equivalent of IBM 's LPAR virtual machine technology going on commodity hardware with 10 times the speed , and 1/10th the hardware cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cobol apps from mainframes easily runs on Linux when you just simply recompile using the free, open source, GPL'ed  OpenCobol  [opencobol.org] compiler.
I've moved a bunch of old IBM mainframe cobol stuff to Linux with OpenCOBOL and so far, I've run into very few issues, none of which weren't solvable with a minimal amount of code changes.OpenCOBOL also works great if you have any Oracle Cobol apps  (that used the Oracle Pro*Cobol precompiler).
I'm in the middle of moving a bunch of Cobol-on-Oracle stuff from an old RS/6000 AIX box to 64-bit Linux right now.
I'm using Oracle's free "Oracle Enterprise Linux" which is basically a repackaged RHEL distro, and you can even buy formal support contract from Oracle for OEL.
So far everything is working out great.
The commodity hardware  (HP Proliant DL580) server costs a mere fraction of what a new AIX box of comparable power would've cost, and I'm also benefiting from Oracle's free Virtual Server stuff  (Xen-based) so I've got the functional equivalent of IBM's LPAR virtual machine technology going on commodity hardware with 10 times the speed, and 1/10th the hardware cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28476927</id>
	<title>Programmers vs Typists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cobol programmers are few and far between, they are expensive, and can charge huge rates.</p><p>Java programmers are a dime a dozen. Many will work for free, just to get their name out there.</p><p>Cobol to java conversion is fine, but the program will need some re-factoring, basically cut-copy-paste, and maybe some manual typing, just the type of stuff java programmers are best suited for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cobol programmers are few and far between , they are expensive , and can charge huge rates.Java programmers are a dime a dozen .
Many will work for free , just to get their name out there.Cobol to java conversion is fine , but the program will need some re-factoring , basically cut-copy-paste , and maybe some manual typing , just the type of stuff java programmers are best suited for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cobol programmers are few and far between, they are expensive, and can charge huge rates.Java programmers are a dime a dozen.
Many will work for free, just to get their name out there.Cobol to java conversion is fine, but the program will need some re-factoring, basically cut-copy-paste, and maybe some manual typing, just the type of stuff java programmers are best suited for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460927</id>
	<title>Someone wrote a COBOL to JAVA compiler</title>
	<author>kpoole55</author>
	<datestamp>1245848580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now you have a situation where you need someone who not only understand COBOL but JAVA as well.  Most of the code will likely translate pretty easily but there are going to be some things that won't work the way they figured.

I remember a little bit of COBOL I was involved in while on a work term at university and someone had used an odd assignment to prune the first few characters from a long string.  I warned them at the time that the assignment was iffy and a different compiler could produce a result they wouldn't expect but they dismissed it.  Now, what will happen when these sorts of odd assignments are passed through a COBOL to Java translator?  That's where you end up needing someone who can work with both languages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you have a situation where you need someone who not only understand COBOL but JAVA as well .
Most of the code will likely translate pretty easily but there are going to be some things that wo n't work the way they figured .
I remember a little bit of COBOL I was involved in while on a work term at university and someone had used an odd assignment to prune the first few characters from a long string .
I warned them at the time that the assignment was iffy and a different compiler could produce a result they would n't expect but they dismissed it .
Now , what will happen when these sorts of odd assignments are passed through a COBOL to Java translator ?
That 's where you end up needing someone who can work with both languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you have a situation where you need someone who not only understand COBOL but JAVA as well.
Most of the code will likely translate pretty easily but there are going to be some things that won't work the way they figured.
I remember a little bit of COBOL I was involved in while on a work term at university and someone had used an odd assignment to prune the first few characters from a long string.
I warned them at the time that the assignment was iffy and a different compiler could produce a result they wouldn't expect but they dismissed it.
Now, what will happen when these sorts of odd assignments are passed through a COBOL to Java translator?
That's where you end up needing someone who can work with both languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458651</id>
	<title>A strong evidence...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that Java is the New COBOL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that Java is the New COBOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that Java is the New COBOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457805</id>
	<title>Re:"Automated"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245834840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The alternative is to maintain a pool of cobol developers to maintain the code instead of hiring (probably much cheaper) Java developers to improve any bad code.</p><p>WYSIWYG's are a bad analogy, because it abstracts the process of writing HTML to a tool with the intent of writing HTML. In both cases (by hand or by machine) the results are HTML. With a -converter- like this one, the results may still generate bad code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alternative is to maintain a pool of cobol developers to maintain the code instead of hiring ( probably much cheaper ) Java developers to improve any bad code.WYSIWYG 's are a bad analogy , because it abstracts the process of writing HTML to a tool with the intent of writing HTML .
In both cases ( by hand or by machine ) the results are HTML .
With a -converter- like this one , the results may still generate bad code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alternative is to maintain a pool of cobol developers to maintain the code instead of hiring (probably much cheaper) Java developers to improve any bad code.WYSIWYG's are a bad analogy, because it abstracts the process of writing HTML to a tool with the intent of writing HTML.
In both cases (by hand or by machine) the results are HTML.
With a -converter- like this one, the results may still generate bad code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461551</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a modest disturbance in the job market.</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1245853740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. Automated tools work iff</p><p>a) no external library dependences<br>b) programmers stuck to a good style.<br>c) the languages are well-suited to be translated into each other (otherwise the code may be unmaintainable)</p><p>and a rewrite of your program every 30 years may save even more future maintainance, because i do not believe that the software will takes the old code *and* split it into classes/sort it to patterns in the same way an (intelligent?) human programmer would. So what you may get is java Code, but very different from the normal java style. I cite from the linked article:</p><p>-------<br>strongly object-oriented architecture of resulting Java objects in order to maximize the effect of all controls done by compiler. As example, each old COBOL programs becomes a Java class whose existence is checked at compile-time by rather than at runtime. Very useful when your application is 4 millions lines of code like ours and when you want to track down every typing mistake in a continuous integration architecture like ours<br>------</p><p>A whole old program is converted into a class? Sounds directly like from a design pattern book.</p><p>-----<br>pre-allocation of all program variable structures (COMMAREA of COBOL) to further improve performances but also to minimize garbage collection that freezes the system while running.<br>-----</p><p>This sounds like a really funny way of saying: sorry guys, we *had* some performance problem, which we fixed by a workaround to get it working.... No, we dont have anny memory leaks/allocation times. We just allocate everything the program may ever need.</p><p>----<br>many levels of cache to maximize performances of the new Java version of the old application. Through them, our Java-transcoded transactions and batches have better performances than their Cobol ancestors used to have on mainframe.<br>----</p><p>Do they want so say, that the performance was inacceptable when turning caches off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Automated tools work iffa ) no external library dependencesb ) programmers stuck to a good style.c ) the languages are well-suited to be translated into each other ( otherwise the code may be unmaintainable ) and a rewrite of your program every 30 years may save even more future maintainance , because i do not believe that the software will takes the old code * and * split it into classes/sort it to patterns in the same way an ( intelligent ?
) human programmer would .
So what you may get is java Code , but very different from the normal java style .
I cite from the linked article : -------strongly object-oriented architecture of resulting Java objects in order to maximize the effect of all controls done by compiler .
As example , each old COBOL programs becomes a Java class whose existence is checked at compile-time by rather than at runtime .
Very useful when your application is 4 millions lines of code like ours and when you want to track down every typing mistake in a continuous integration architecture like ours------A whole old program is converted into a class ?
Sounds directly like from a design pattern book.-----pre-allocation of all program variable structures ( COMMAREA of COBOL ) to further improve performances but also to minimize garbage collection that freezes the system while running.-----This sounds like a really funny way of saying : sorry guys , we * had * some performance problem , which we fixed by a workaround to get it working.... No , we dont have anny memory leaks/allocation times .
We just allocate everything the program may ever need.----many levels of cache to maximize performances of the new Java version of the old application .
Through them , our Java-transcoded transactions and batches have better performances than their Cobol ancestors used to have on mainframe.----Do they want so say , that the performance was inacceptable when turning caches off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Automated tools work iffa) no external library dependencesb) programmers stuck to a good style.c) the languages are well-suited to be translated into each other (otherwise the code may be unmaintainable)and a rewrite of your program every 30 years may save even more future maintainance, because i do not believe that the software will takes the old code *and* split it into classes/sort it to patterns in the same way an (intelligent?
) human programmer would.
So what you may get is java Code, but very different from the normal java style.
I cite from the linked article:-------strongly object-oriented architecture of resulting Java objects in order to maximize the effect of all controls done by compiler.
As example, each old COBOL programs becomes a Java class whose existence is checked at compile-time by rather than at runtime.
Very useful when your application is 4 millions lines of code like ours and when you want to track down every typing mistake in a continuous integration architecture like ours------A whole old program is converted into a class?
Sounds directly like from a design pattern book.-----pre-allocation of all program variable structures (COMMAREA of COBOL) to further improve performances but also to minimize garbage collection that freezes the system while running.-----This sounds like a really funny way of saying: sorry guys, we *had* some performance problem, which we fixed by a workaround to get it working.... No, we dont have anny memory leaks/allocation times.
We just allocate everything the program may ever need.----many levels of cache to maximize performances of the new Java version of the old application.
Through them, our Java-transcoded transactions and batches have better performances than their Cobol ancestors used to have on mainframe.----Do they want so say, that the performance was inacceptable when turning caches off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460819</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a modest disturbance in the job market.</title>
	<author>Heir Of The Mess</author>
	<datestamp>1245847920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As though a few hundred cobol coders cried out in terror, and were suddenly obsolete</p></div></blockquote><p>
No its the other way round. Now we can get rid of all these useless Java programmer, use our Cobol programmers who know what they are doing, and then convert their code to Java so that the PHBs who've been sold on Java can be happy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As though a few hundred cobol coders cried out in terror , and were suddenly obsolete No its the other way round .
Now we can get rid of all these useless Java programmer , use our Cobol programmers who know what they are doing , and then convert their code to Java so that the PHBs who 've been sold on Java can be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As though a few hundred cobol coders cried out in terror, and were suddenly obsolete
No its the other way round.
Now we can get rid of all these useless Java programmer, use our Cobol programmers who know what they are doing, and then convert their code to Java so that the PHBs who've been sold on Java can be happy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458439</id>
	<title>Been there, done that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back around 1997 I worked for a company that did much the same thing: used automated tools to convert gigantic COBOL programs into something that would run on distributed UNIX boxes.  (We used ANSI-C as the target language. [Except that JCL was translated to Perl.])   We charged millions of dollars, but it was worth it to our customers.  For example, one big utility company had merged with the utilities of a neighboring state, and their mainframe simply wasn't big enough to hold the combined customer data.</p><p>The final code was damn ugly, because it was a close translation of the original Cobol.   And Cobol control flow has some concepts not easily reproduced in C, so some of the library functions we wrote to handle those were quite bizarre.  You'd have a hell of a time adding new functionality in "clean" C, but programmers familiar with Cobol could maintain it.</p><p>It was never fully automated (we'd get the contract, then finish customizing the tools to work with whatever flavor of Cobol the particular customer had), but we'd finish a typical engagement in less than a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back around 1997 I worked for a company that did much the same thing : used automated tools to convert gigantic COBOL programs into something that would run on distributed UNIX boxes .
( We used ANSI-C as the target language .
[ Except that JCL was translated to Perl .
] ) We charged millions of dollars , but it was worth it to our customers .
For example , one big utility company had merged with the utilities of a neighboring state , and their mainframe simply was n't big enough to hold the combined customer data.The final code was damn ugly , because it was a close translation of the original Cobol .
And Cobol control flow has some concepts not easily reproduced in C , so some of the library functions we wrote to handle those were quite bizarre .
You 'd have a hell of a time adding new functionality in " clean " C , but programmers familiar with Cobol could maintain it.It was never fully automated ( we 'd get the contract , then finish customizing the tools to work with whatever flavor of Cobol the particular customer had ) , but we 'd finish a typical engagement in less than a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back around 1997 I worked for a company that did much the same thing: used automated tools to convert gigantic COBOL programs into something that would run on distributed UNIX boxes.
(We used ANSI-C as the target language.
[Except that JCL was translated to Perl.
])   We charged millions of dollars, but it was worth it to our customers.
For example, one big utility company had merged with the utilities of a neighboring state, and their mainframe simply wasn't big enough to hold the combined customer data.The final code was damn ugly, because it was a close translation of the original Cobol.
And Cobol control flow has some concepts not easily reproduced in C, so some of the library functions we wrote to handle those were quite bizarre.
You'd have a hell of a time adding new functionality in "clean" C, but programmers familiar with Cobol could maintain it.It was never fully automated (we'd get the contract, then finish customizing the tools to work with whatever flavor of Cobol the particular customer had), but we'd finish a typical engagement in less than a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458725</id>
	<title>They're all going to be consultants</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1245838020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we believe that we succeeded in our project because we clearly demonstrated very early on to the people in place that they would find a new interesting job in the final constellation. That generated their full commitment to the project!</p></div></blockquote><p>
Every person involved can now go out and be a consultant to other companies that want to migrate off their old Cobol codebase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we believe that we succeeded in our project because we clearly demonstrated very early on to the people in place that they would find a new interesting job in the final constellation .
That generated their full commitment to the project !
Every person involved can now go out and be a consultant to other companies that want to migrate off their old Cobol codebase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we believe that we succeeded in our project because we clearly demonstrated very early on to the people in place that they would find a new interesting job in the final constellation.
That generated their full commitment to the project!
Every person involved can now go out and be a consultant to other companies that want to migrate off their old Cobol codebase.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459941</id>
	<title>Re:Scary Thot</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1245843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you were joking, but have you used Java's decimal library before?</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>BigDecimal opA = new BigDecimal(a);<br>BigDecimal opB = new BigDecimal(b);<br>BigDecimal result = opA.add(opB);<br>System.out.println(result);</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Not quite as bad as your fake code, but the difference is... <a href="http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/math/BigDecimal.html" title="sun.com">BigDecimal</a> [sun.com] is actually a real class that exists in the Java standard library.</p><p>The same code in C#:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>decimal result = a + b;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>(provided you don't overflow the decimal value)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you were joking , but have you used Java 's decimal library before ?
BigDecimal opA = new BigDecimal ( a ) ; BigDecimal opB = new BigDecimal ( b ) ; BigDecimal result = opA.add ( opB ) ; System.out.println ( result ) ; Not quite as bad as your fake code , but the difference is... BigDecimal [ sun.com ] is actually a real class that exists in the Java standard library.The same code in C # : decimal result = a + b ; ( provided you do n't overflow the decimal value )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you were joking, but have you used Java's decimal library before?
BigDecimal opA = new BigDecimal(a);BigDecimal opB = new BigDecimal(b);BigDecimal result = opA.add(opB);System.out.println(result); Not quite as bad as your fake code, but the difference is... BigDecimal [sun.com] is actually a real class that exists in the Java standard library.The same code in C#: decimal result = a + b; (provided you don't overflow the decimal value)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458603</id>
	<title>First build the automated test suite....</title>
	<author>Big Smirk</author>
	<datestamp>1245837540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then convert.</p><p>While you are at it, benchmark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then convert.While you are at it , benchmark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then convert.While you are at it, benchmark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463415</id>
	<title>Re:"Automated"</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1245871860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dreamweaver, Word, etc all make some dang ugly HTML.</p></div><p>So what? HTML is not meant for pleasing the human eye anyway, it's for the browser's HTML rendering engine.</p><p>A modem makes some dang ugly white noise</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dreamweaver , Word , etc all make some dang ugly HTML.So what ?
HTML is not meant for pleasing the human eye anyway , it 's for the browser 's HTML rendering engine.A modem makes some dang ugly white noise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dreamweaver, Word, etc all make some dang ugly HTML.So what?
HTML is not meant for pleasing the human eye anyway, it's for the browser's HTML rendering engine.A modem makes some dang ugly white noise
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458429</id>
	<title>Scary Thot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh oh, I envision something like:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>BEFORE<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; ADD A TO B GIVING RESULT.<br>
&nbsp; PRINT RESULT.<br>
&nbsp; <br>AFTER<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; ArithmeticManager am = new math.ArithmeticManager();<br>
&nbsp; opA = new math.Operand((float) a);<br>
&nbsp; opB = new math.Operand((float) b);<br>
&nbsp; am.addOperand(opA);<br>
&nbsp; am.addOperand(opB);<br>
&nbsp; am.operator = new math.operators.Addition();<br>
&nbsp; am.executeMathOperation();<br>
&nbsp; system.io.output.print(am.mathOperationResult());</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Not sure that's a step up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh oh , I envision something like : BEFORE     ADD A TO B GIVING RESULT .
  PRINT RESULT .
  AFTER     ArithmeticManager am = new math.ArithmeticManager ( ) ;   opA = new math.Operand ( ( float ) a ) ;   opB = new math.Operand ( ( float ) b ) ;   am.addOperand ( opA ) ;   am.addOperand ( opB ) ;   am.operator = new math.operators.Addition ( ) ;   am.executeMathOperation ( ) ;   system.io.output.print ( am.mathOperationResult ( ) ) ; Not sure that 's a step up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh oh, I envision something like: BEFORE
  
  ADD A TO B GIVING RESULT.
  PRINT RESULT.
  AFTER
  
  ArithmeticManager am = new math.ArithmeticManager();
  opA = new math.Operand((float) a);
  opB = new math.Operand((float) b);
  am.addOperand(opA);
  am.addOperand(opB);
  am.operator = new math.operators.Addition();
  am.executeMathOperation();
  system.io.output.print(am.mathOperationResult()); Not sure that's a step up.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458139</id>
	<title>COBOL II</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245836100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't see any references to ALTER statements</p><p>I looks like this only supports more recent versions of COBOL II.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see any references to ALTER statementsI looks like this only supports more recent versions of COBOL II .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see any references to ALTER statementsI looks like this only supports more recent versions of COBOL II.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459753</id>
	<title>Re:Sign of the times</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1245842400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An AC writing like an old codger.  I think I bought my first Java book in 1995...  By this standard of "fad," C was a fad when Windows NT came out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An AC writing like an old codger .
I think I bought my first Java book in 1995... By this standard of " fad , " C was a fad when Windows NT came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An AC writing like an old codger.
I think I bought my first Java book in 1995...  By this standard of "fad," C was a fad when Windows NT came out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457783</id>
	<title>From one dead language to another!</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1245834720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, Java isn't dead yet.  But it should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , Java is n't dead yet .
But it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, Java isn't dead yet.
But it should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458145</id>
	<title>Re:"Automated"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245836160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who will be able to maintain this Java code?<br>It's still procedural (sorry, I read TFA), only with a Java syntax.<br>This makes it hard to maintain for both Cobol programmers AND Java programmers.</p><p>At the current state of the art, making it object-oriented in a reasonable way is not possible in a fully automated way. I think that's the only real explanation why they kept the generated Java code procedural.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who will be able to maintain this Java code ? It 's still procedural ( sorry , I read TFA ) , only with a Java syntax.This makes it hard to maintain for both Cobol programmers AND Java programmers.At the current state of the art , making it object-oriented in a reasonable way is not possible in a fully automated way .
I think that 's the only real explanation why they kept the generated Java code procedural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who will be able to maintain this Java code?It's still procedural (sorry, I read TFA), only with a Java syntax.This makes it hard to maintain for both Cobol programmers AND Java programmers.At the current state of the art, making it object-oriented in a reasonable way is not possible in a fully automated way.
I think that's the only real explanation why they kept the generated Java code procedural.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459973</id>
	<title>AnonymousCoward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't think of a way to automate a procedural thingie to a OO thing.</p><p>i work in a place where Cobol developers were sne t to a fast "java school", came 3 weeks after and were supposed to write java. Sure they did. It was procedural Java. And theri programs requested huge CPU load to work.<br>In the end, one year after, all the code the had written was erased, the app completely re-thought.</p><p>Same thing here : for a time it's good, the app is working.<br>But it will  not only need a smart " multi-pass pretty-formatter". The app will require proper OO conception FIRST, and the sooner the cheaper.</p><p>The 3M$ are a  short sighted benefit.<br>In the long run \_provided the application si supposed to continue to live\_ (to be exact : if the needs it covers still exists and cannot be done elsewhere), it will reveal more expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of a way to automate a procedural thingie to a OO thing.i work in a place where Cobol developers were sne t to a fast " java school " , came 3 weeks after and were supposed to write java .
Sure they did .
It was procedural Java .
And theri programs requested huge CPU load to work.In the end , one year after , all the code the had written was erased , the app completely re-thought.Same thing here : for a time it 's good , the app is working.But it will not only need a smart " multi-pass pretty-formatter " .
The app will require proper OO conception FIRST , and the sooner the cheaper.The 3M $ are a short sighted benefit.In the long run \ _provided the application si supposed to continue to live \ _ ( to be exact : if the needs it covers still exists and can not be done elsewhere ) , it will reveal more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of a way to automate a procedural thingie to a OO thing.i work in a place where Cobol developers were sne t to a fast "java school", came 3 weeks after and were supposed to write java.
Sure they did.
It was procedural Java.
And theri programs requested huge CPU load to work.In the end, one year after, all the code the had written was erased, the app completely re-thought.Same thing here : for a time it's good, the app is working.But it will  not only need a smart " multi-pass pretty-formatter".
The app will require proper OO conception FIRST, and the sooner the cheaper.The 3M$ are a  short sighted benefit.In the long run \_provided the application si supposed to continue to live\_ (to be exact : if the needs it covers still exists and cannot be done elsewhere), it will reveal more expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457961</id>
	<title>Thank the Lords of Cobol</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1245835440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BSG humor is mandatory whenever Cobol comes up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BSG humor is mandatory whenever Cobol comes up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSG humor is mandatory whenever Cobol comes up...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460433</id>
	<title>COBOL is self-documenting.</title>
	<author>CouteauTM</author>
	<datestamp>1245845880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the design goals for COBOL was to make it possible for
non-programmers such as supervisors, managers and users, to read and
understand COBOL code.

Wonder if the converted codes generate comments from the code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the design goals for COBOL was to make it possible for non-programmers such as supervisors , managers and users , to read and understand COBOL code .
Wonder if the converted codes generate comments from the code ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the design goals for COBOL was to make it possible for
non-programmers such as supervisors, managers and users, to read and
understand COBOL code.
Wonder if the converted codes generate comments from the code ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28462009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28464537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1915205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28462899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28461349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28462009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28466427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28464537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28463415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28462899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28457905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28458267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28460417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1915205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1915205.28459725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
