Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CSGI ...READY FOR TAKE-OFF! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TEDennis who wrote (1438)	12/1/1997 11:14:00 AM
From: tech	Respond to of 3391

TED, thank you for your post, I have many questions and will post them later when I have time.

To: TEDennis who wrote (1438)	12/1/1997 3:40:00 PM
From: tech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3391

TED's visit to ConSyGen. Questions "They advertise IBM support. While it does analyze and convert native IBM COBOL source code, they are weak in the support of MVS environments." 1. Where did you get the idea that they are "weak" in MVS ? Was that something that you were told, or does that conclusion come from something else ? * * * "Currently, CSGI estimates that 70% of all fields that are identified as date candidates are "for sure". The other 30% are identified and listed for the client to make the final determination." 2. How does this 70 / 30 ratio compare to other companies who have similar toolset that automatically find date fields ? How does this ratio compare to the tool vendors who license their tools such as PTUS, DDIM, PLAT ? 3. How many companies, if any, are you aware of that can find 70% of date occurrences and then provide a detailed list of the others fields that may be "suspect" ? * * * "CSGI claims their date find algorithms are better than their competitors' algorithms. I don't think so. Other tools perform the same kind of search algorithms, using the same kind of seeds, and performing the same kind of logic flow analysis. Perhaps there will be a percent or two different one way or the other, but I would say that in the overall scheme of things they're about as effective as others I have seen." 4. Could you please specify what others you have seen and where these companies fall in the year 2000 sector. i.e. are they near the upper or lower end of the spectrum? * * * "The list of candidate dates is sent back to the users for validation in report format. Note that this is OK for a small application (1 million lines or less), but for a larger application the report becomes too large to be of use (thousands of pages). To help alleviate the paper overload, CSGI also sends the information to the client in CDF format (Comma Delimited File) so they can load it into their own database handler, such as Microsoft's Access or Excel products." 5. How does CSGI's handling of this aspect differ from other companies ? 6. How would you rather see it done ? * * * "After each date on the list of candidates is verified as a date or rejected as a non-date field by the client, the conversion rules are defined for each field. This is done in conjunction with the client. Then, they push a button, and it automatically finds all occurrences of each date field and converts the definition to be Y2K compliant. " 7. You state that "they push a button, and it automatically finds all occurrences of each date field and converts the definition to be Y2K compliant." Are you aware of any other companies that can "push" a button and then have code converted WITHOUT any programmers touching a single line of code ? If so, please state which ones. 8. If CSGI is the only one, or one of the only ones, that can convert code "automatically", then does that give them any kind of advantage over companies who have to hire hundreds and hundreds of programmers to convert code ? * * * "The converted code is then delivered back to the client, untested. It can't be tested because CSGI doesn't have the client's data or environment." 9. CSGI has always claimed to be a "conversion house", therefore testing is left to the client. What other companies that consider themselves "conversion houses" test the code for the client ? * * * "In summary, CSGI has a conversion tool that performs the functionality required to make source code Y2K compliant. It is absolutely NOT "fully automated". I am a little confused here. I thought you stated that CSGI has a toolset that Automatically finds 70% of the date occurrences and provides a detailed list of the other 30% that are suspect. You also stated that once the "conversion rules are defined for each field" then, "they push a button, and it automatically finds all occurrences of each date field and converts the definition to be Y2K compliant." 10. Isn't it true that during this entire process not one single line of code is converted by a programmer ? 11. Are you aware of any other companies that have the combination of a automated search engine and an automated conversion?, if so, could you please list the ones you know. 12. If companies who only have automated search engines to find date occurrences, then have to hire hundreds of programmers to actually convert the code, can call themselves "automated", then what should CSGI call themselves ? Doesn't the fact that they have automated both the identification and the conversion phases set them apart ? 13. If we are going to criticize CSGI for calling themselves "fully-automated", then should the companies who claim automation, while not even having automated the conversion phase, fall under even worse criticism ? * * * " However, they appear to have a leg up on their competition for the non-IBM environments." 14. Could you please explain what you mean by "leg up", what advantages do they have ? Thank you.