Re: Alternative COBOL "telco" source program
From: L Russ (lruss_at_superlink.net)
Date: 05/20/04
- Next message: Joe Zitzelberger: "Re: Avoiding Logic Error?"
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: *LARGE* COBOL programs - new SHARE requirement"
- In reply to: David Frank: "Re: Alternative COBOL "telco" source program"
- Next in thread: James J. Weinkam: "Re: Alternative COBOL "telco" source program"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 19 May 2004 17:08:43 -0700
"David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Lqiqc.629845$Po1.137460@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> "L Russ" <lruss@superlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cfaeadf3.0405172152.5f351c34@posting.google.com...
> > "David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<AA4qc.625907$Po1.557782@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >
> >> but why doesnt L.Russ post a C++ version?
> >
> > 1) I'm not under any obligation to do so.
> >
>
> You post messages in comp.lang.pl1 recommending PLI'ers migrate
> to C++ if C++ cant translate my simple little 50 line Fortran or
> Weinkam's 167 line Cobol, then why shud PLI'ers take you seriously?
I only reccomend C++ because it's the best language in the whole wide
world and it will even cure medical problems and someday I hope we
will all use C++ instead of clunky languages like English. I'm sure
that Shakespeare would sound better if he were translated to C++.
I never said that C++ can't translate your simple little 50 line
FORTRAN program. OTOH, I'm not sure that your program is just 50
lines. Wasn't there some controversy about some includes you used?
Didn't we already discuss the concept of a language being Turing
Complete?
>
> > 2) You are still thrashing.
> >
> > 3) I believe that you are attempting to benchmark languages. This is
> > not possible. It is possible to benchmark particular compilers or
> > interpreters. These should be carefully done and if possible, on a
> > single platform.
> >
> > 4) Let me know when you have all the details worked out of what you
> > want to do, and when you've stopped changing the rules of the game in
> > the middle and I'll consider sending you some code.
> >
> > LR
> >
>
> Hey its not MY benchmark.
I don't think that you understand what I posted. I didn't say it was
your benchmark. I merely implied that you are misusing it. Your
reasons for this are beyond me.
> If you havent got a grasp on what
> the challenge is,
One may not grasp that which changes it's very nature.
> perhaps its best you continue your READ-ONLY mode
> and suppress future urges to recommend C++ to PL/I'ers as
> migration path to take.
Mr Frank, you may make whatever rules you want for yourself, you may
occasionaly sucker weak-minded individuals into thinking that you have
some power to make and change the rules for them too and amazingly
some people will even go along with you. But don't mistake me for one
of those people.
When you are done thrashing and changing the rules of your little
game, I'll consider writing something in C++.
Let me know when you're done.
LR
- Next message: Joe Zitzelberger: "Re: Avoiding Logic Error?"
- Previous message: Richard: "Re: *LARGE* COBOL programs - new SHARE requirement"
- In reply to: David Frank: "Re: Alternative COBOL "telco" source program"
- Next in thread: James J. Weinkam: "Re: Alternative COBOL "telco" source program"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|