|
It's just entertainment 
|
|
|
|
|
You have no clue to how many systems are still running on mainframes.
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the COBOL part
|
|
|
|
|
There are computerized systems that need to permit tens of thousands — if not hundreds of thousands — of users to access it simultaneously.
Examples would be banks, airlines (for reservation systems), stock brokerages, etc.
In all of these instances, the amount of I/O bandwidth required is enormous.
Mainframes happen to be designed with this in mind since the 1960s.
The IBM/360 series (now, the Z series) had a maximum of 16 channels in its largest configurations on its biggest processors.
There were byte multiplexor channels for handling slow character-at-a-time input devices (terminals) and selector channels which talked to tape drives, disk drives, printers and such high-speed devices. The maximum speed on a selector channel used to be 16 MB/sec.
A few years ago when I checked, you could have 64 channels s(c/t)reaming at 256 MB/sec. I am sure both the number of channels and the throughput per channel have gone up since then.
Most commercial data processing requires high I/O bandwidth because the applications are I/O bound, not compute bound.
There is no point in increasing the MIPS ( million instructions per second) rate if you can’t get data in and out fast.
You can try and find out the maximum I/O throughput on your favorite PC or Unix box and see how it is dwarfed by mainframes.
I blame your lack of knowledge about these matters on the educational system.
Learning about the design of Intel processors, ARM chips, RISC chips, etc., is not learning about computer architecture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tl;dr 
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's now "object-oriented" COBOL. With storage redefinition, "records", sort, merge, embedded SQL, strong typing ... it's still ahead of some "modern" languages (and faster).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Interviewer: How much milk do these cows give?
Farmer: Which one? The Black one or the brown one?
Interviewer: Brown one.
Farmer: A couple of liters per day.
Interviewer: And the black one?
Farmer: A couple of liters per day.
Interviewer (naturally a bit flummoxed): I see. What do you give them to eat?
Farmer: Which one? Black or brown?
Interviewer: Black.
Farmer: It eats grass.
Interviewer: And the other one?
Farmer: Grass.
Interviewer (now annoyed): Why do you keep asking which one when the answers are the same?!
Farmer: Because the black one’s mine.
Interviewer: Oh, and the brown one?
Farmer: It’s also mine
|
|
|
|
|
Me too!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in 2018 I had to add a certificate to a website hosted on an Azure App Service.
Buying a certificate, generating a key, whatever, I don't know anymore, it was a lot of work.
I'm a developer, I don't know how certificates work and I don't really want to do that kind of stuff.
A year later, in 2019, the certificate expired and I had to install a new one.
Needless to say, I went looking for alternatives to buying and installing a new certificate every year.
I found an App Service plugin that uses Let's Encrypt that should automagically refresh my free certificate every few months.
The refreshing never worked for whatever reason, so I'm still refreshing that certificate every six months, although it's just a few button clicks, so it's easier than it was.
Then at the end of 2019 I got a newsletter saying App Services could now create and refresh Let's Encrypt certificates with a single button click!
It worked and I was happy, but not all was good.
Only subdomains were supported for some reason and I still had a website that does not have a subdomain.
Yesterday, I needed to install yet another certificate on another website that also does not have a subdomain.
And then I found out App Services now supports creating and refreshing Let's Encrypt certificates for bare domains as well!
All my certificate woes are now solved with the click of a single button and I am happy! 
Azure really is a delight 
|
|
|
|
|
I just manage my - and my clients' sites - via Plesk and that (generally) has a LetsEncrypt plugin installed by default. 2 mouse clicks to setup initially, then forget about.
I agree, mucking about purchasing and installing certs was a pain. Thankfully my needs are fully met by LetsEncrypt, and it's unlikely I'll have to go through the rigmarole of more "extensive" certification again.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never really understood this certificate thing.
To me, this is just a level of unnecessary complication for everybody : the ones issuing it, the ones installing it, and the ones having to use them. I really wonder if it is worth it, all in all.
|
|
|
|
|
Something about making sure the data you send through a website is properly encrypted and unreadable to prying eyes, I don't know the specifics.
Some very smart security people have thought about it and came up with this solution.
On the other hand, JavaScript is also a widely adopted technology, so maybe certificates are just as bad except I can't really tell because I don't know half as much about certificates as I know about JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
God, please God, don't make me do web work. 
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to do desktop development (WinForms) and it had its flaws.
Updating a web app is far more easy, as are automated releases.
With a web site, you simply deploy and all your users have the newest version.
Handling secrets is far more easy, for example connection strings.
They live on a server and users simply don't have access.
And, well, those are pretty much all the pro's 
Although I love .NET (Core) and going back to .NET Framework, even the latest version, now feels archaic to me
Of course that doesn't have to be a problem anymore with WinForms being in .NET 5+.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: They live on a server and users simply don't have access.
That could be discussed about... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I hate you. You are making a good argument for maybe the tech has progressed. I need more drugs 
My wife was a web developer in the wild days... before 2000. Note pad was your friend. So... I had to deal with 404 errors, backend server weirdness. It was maddening.
But I have this app I need to develop. And it seems everything is ROARING to "let's put it on the cloud, what could go wrong?" Years ago I went through OLE/ActiveX/COM/COM+ and there might have been something else - damn Microsoft clowns.
So when I see .net times 13, azure, this that and the other... I have tools from Microsoft that won't work properly, it's a complete charlie foxtrot.
I am afraid.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And if you look at the comments, you see that the first one refers precisely to this.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Not only that, but this is a comic from almost 5 years ago.
Are you regression-testing?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: this is a comic from almost 5 years ago.
I've read through the entire Dilbert oeuvre (over the past couple of years) and I'm just 5 years out from finishing them all.
Yes, I'm serious.
Dailies started on April 16, 1989 and I've read through all those years so far.
Yes, I believe my brain has been altered from reading them.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I've been reading it daily for years, and I'm sure I've missed out on more than the first 5 years. If it's a competition, you win...
|
|
|
|
|
0.33 amps at my bench. That's what the circuit I'm working on is drawing off my USB port.
Just 36 of these and I'd have the same draw as a relatively powerful vacuum cleaner.
This is bad, because the whole thing needs to run on a battery. I wish it didn't.
It's got a large (for its class) display like the size of the largest display you could find for any phone. (it would be a big phone). I think that's where most of the draw is coming from. Then there's the bluetooth (since I don't have a button for it it's always on) which takes at least .10 amps by itself.
But my client is like, "don't worry about it right now"
I don't know how to explain to him just how expensive it will be to worry about it later.
I really don't want to have to remodel my entire codebase a month (or less) from now.
It's not about the extra work - I get paid one way or another - but it's the high probability of breakage. With IoT code, it can't always afford to be written in such a way that it's compartmentalized and abstracted out, so the blast radius of a design change tends to be pretty large.
I don't like being in situations where I can't communicate the consequences of a hasty decision effectively to someone that needs to hear it, but this is compounded with IoT stuff because of the way the code has to be written.
It's a strange landscape for me. All of this IoT dev is relatively new to me and I'm still learning the pitfalls.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
