Re: Differences in data description in programming languages

From: James J. Gavan (jjgavan_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:54:31 GMT

Warren Simmons wrote:

> You are right about the features of the TC compiler, but
> the 85 is their objective. In fact, in some cases they have
> gone beyond 85, or even added extensions. AFAIK, they now
> combine the efforts of the open Cobol group (not sure of
> name). It appears that some users have adopted it, and
> because the intermediate is C, more help is easier to get.
> I believe they have made large advances. My download
> installed in programs just like any other program. There
> are other requirements. Burkley DB for example. They
> support fixed and free form. There are provisions for debugging.
> It's not the final product, but with this release, more
> of the world will be able to speed the effort and contribute
> to it.
>
That's why I asked Warren. Their objective is COBOL 85. As you well know
I'm lousy at math - but next year their objective is to catch up with
something which will be 20 years out-of-date.

Totally ignoring OO, because that's a 'biggie' to take on - what
features do they have actually running from the COBOL 2002 standard ?
That doesn't mean they have to be 1,000% COBOL 2002 compliant - nobody
else is ! For starters do they have the Intrinsic Functions .What is
their target market with, "It's not the final product, but with this
release.......". Are they seriously hoping to knock-off AcuCorp,
Fujitsu, Liant or Micro Focus.

I've rarely looked at this stuff, and it might have been an Open Source
other than Tiny C., but I recall one comment at the site where it said
something like, "Jesus Gonzalez from Argentina won't be contributing on
a regular basis, because unfortunately there is a power shortage in the
city, cutting off his computer supply randomly". (Either that or he
hadn't got a nickel to put into the electricity meter). In the real
world what sort of Mickey Mouse operations are these Open Sources -
about as useful as our Infinite Loop threads !

Jimmy

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Differences in data description in programming languages
    ... Open source has a definition ... I see this effort as a good thing for all Cobol vendors ... the cost of ownership of a compiler and things that go with ... Warren Simmons ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Differences in data description in programming languages
    ... Joe Zitzelberger wrote: ... Their objective is COBOL 85. ... >>I've rarely looked at this stuff, and it might have been an Open Source ... Linux did get some publicity up here through the ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Differences in data description in programming languages
    ... > I've rarely looked at this stuff, and it might have been an Open Source ... The problem is that COBOL has had its day. ... Now, if there had been a free COBOL compiler in 1985, one that implemented ... managing it with MySQL server. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: I need a new compiler...
    ... would charge a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a ... I moved off COBOL altogether and today enjoy a free ... compiler, a free IDE that is light years ahead of the COBOL one, and instant ... There are more existing lines of code written for Open Source now, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Cobol Copybook Parsing
    ... Warren Simmons a écrit: ... Their compiler is written in C, ... Open Source COBOL Tools Developer ... >>>I was wondering if there were any sample copybooks and associated data ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
Loading