Re: Supress Option List

Pete,
This is my memory / knowledge on the subject of IBM COBOL compilers:
I started to work for Hughes Aircraft Co. in October, 1966. I was hired as an operator. After some months, I transferred to a programming group. This group had just begun to work on the IBM 360, perhaps a model 40 or 50. They didn't have anyone to train folks, so I was handed over to a "scientific" guy. He made sure I knew ForTran, then with another new hire, we started on the IBM. The "scientific" guy would learn something, then teach us. We learned Assembler, the Linkage Editor, and JCL. The "scientific" guy turned us over to our supervisors, saying we were trained.

Well, of course, the first thing I learned was that all our programs were written in COBOL, so I had to learn that on my own. The compiler I used was COBOL(F), although I also worked with COBOL, ForTran, and assembler on the GE-635, which was brought in to replace the IBM 7094. That went on for about two years. In about 1970, there was a consolidation of programming groups at Hughes, and I moved to another site.

Just at that time, ANS COBOL V2 came in, and I started to use that. The other programmers weren't aware of it yet, so suddenly, I became the trainer. Just as we got somewhat comfortable with ANS COBOL V2, in came V4. The name of these compiler signified that they were the first compilers IBM offered that conformed to the 1968 ANSI COBOL Standard.

The second ANSI COBOL Standard was adopted in 1974, and led to the release of OS/VS COBOL. As Bill said, it offered 1968 and 1974 COBOL language support. In our shop(s), both LANGLVL(1) and (2) were used, right up until we forced everyone to adopt a new, supported compiler right around Y2K time.

Between the mid-1970's and Y2K, IBM released multiple versions of OS/VS COBOL, then started with VS COBOL II. This was again a sort of "any type of COBOL you want" compiler, with support for 1974 and 1985 ANSI COBOL, and maybe even extensions allowing some 1968 syntax. VS COBOL II was pretty much a "new" compiler, not based on the technology of the earlier compilers. The basic code of VS COBOL II, as I understand it, continues today, through the COBOL/370, COBOL for MVS & VM, COBOL for OS/390 & VM, and COBOL for z/OS & OS/390 offerings.

Our shop(s) pretty much became consolidated down to two development environments (from at one time, as many as eleven or maybe more), and the one in California moved everyone onto the latest COBOL, and kept moving forward as compilers were released, and the operating system was updated.

I spent time in the late 1970's until the mid-1980's working with the man who had been the project leader for COBOL(F) at IBM. (We wrote COBOL compilers for a number of mini- and micro-computer companies, including MicroSoft.) The story I was told was that IBM had started three COBOL projects when S/360 came out - COBOL(D) for DOS, COBOL(E) for MFT, and COBOL(F) for MVT. My man was first to deliver by a good amount of time, and the three compilers were rather different in design and performance.

I believe that the COBOL(F) code was the base used for the ANS COBOL and OS/VS COBOL compilers, but I am not positive of that. Tom Ross of IBM might know, but he's too young to have been there, I think.
Colin Campbell
=====
Pete Dashwood wrote:


I remember the unbundling furore and I worked with IBM COBOL before it happened. Unfortunately, I don't directly recall if it was COBOL(F), although I have certainly heard the term used for one of the early COBOL compilers. I remember the first ANSI COBOL compiler replacing what we were then using, (it might have been COBOL(F) but I can't be sure) and I remember discussing new features in the ANSI version with people at IBM in Auckland. Here's what I remember on IBM COBOL Compilers:
(It is a long time ago and I was working on different platforms, so I could be in error, but this is my recollection).

1. The first one I used was COBOL 59 and it was running on a 360-30 under TOS which replaced a 1401 in (or around) 1967.
2. The compiler was upgraded sometime a few years later around the time of unbundling.
3. Everyone got very excited about COBOL 74 which I think was the first ANSI release (?).
4. Somewhere in there, disks became available and the OS became DOS, then later, DOS/VS. I have a feeling this also coincided with a new compiler release but I can't be certain.

Pete.

TOP POST nothing new below.

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:PQUOe.120084$576.107641@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"IKFCBL00" was certainly what one "executed" for OS/VS COBOL (and I think for ANS COBOL Vx). However, COBOL(F) was a specific release (version) - very early - of IBM's COBOL. It was (as I recall) one of the early "bundled in" software products that caused the original "IBM decree" starting "unbundling" of software from O/S (and hardware). Again, this was all before my time, so I could be mistaken on all/some of it.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:11gnpfvpmma64fe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6xOOe.105532$576.81016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Do you SERIOUSLY mean the IBM "COBOL-F" version (that pre-dated their ANS


COBOL


product that predated their OS/VS COBOL), i.e. the compiler that (sort-of)


meet


the '68 Standard, but didn't even include support for the '74 Standard.
 ????

Someone else may actually have a better view of exactly when/what


"COBOL-F"


(from IBM) was. I didn't start using COBOL(IBM COBOL) until OS/VS COBOL


was


available, in 1978 (or so - as I recall).


Bill, I think COBOL F was the same as ANS COBOL.
The manual I have, GC28-6396-5, IBM OS Full American
National Standard COBOL, shows, in the JCL for a sample
program, "EXEC PGM=IKFCBL00". This manual also has
the documentation for the first release of OS/VS COBOL
and the publication date on the amendment is May 15, 1974.
Only the standards X3.23-1968 and ISO/R 1989-1972 are
mentioned for both.

While I said "I think", above, I never used the OS compiler
at the college; but I do have a source listing produced by a
DOS compiler I used at work. The title on the output is IBM
DOS AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD COBOL
with the additional text CBF CL3-6, which I take to mean
COBOL F or ANS COBOL Version 3.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heres one problem
    ... When the IBM PC came out in 1982, I knew it WAS The One. ... MSDOS version 1 didn't support hard disks well. ... Cobol and Basic compilers, so there were always at least 4. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: COBOL on RosettaCode
    ... somebody else's code and I saw he was coding COBOL like a C programmer. ... to the issue of whether PERFORM works recursively or not in IBM Enterprise ... PERFORM para-a and in para-a you could PERFORM para-a and it would ... standard and later compilers. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: COBOL and XML (was Re: OT - "lie" vs "error")
    ... I cannot speak for all users of all COBOL compilers. ... that this is turning out to be the BIGGEST justification for several IBM ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Price of Microfocus Visual Cobol (Windows)
    ... From the (Cobol) forums, ... Many people are moving to Fujitsu to avoid the run time fees. ... The Visual products are OO COBOL compilers that shine when running ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Price of Microfocus Visual Cobol (Windows)
    ... From the (Cobol) forums, ... Many people are moving to Fujitsu to avoid the run time fees. ... The Visual products are OO COBOL compilers that shine when running ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)