Re: command line arguments like on mainframe under fujitsu

Well ... Yes and No (from MY perspective),

One of the "selling points" (historically) for COBOL was (is) its portability.
Therefore, if one sticks to ONLY ANSI/ISO conforming syntax, then the source
code should be portable. (At least since the '74 Standard, there have been
requirements for "flagging" extension language). However, even with "portable
source code" the Standard doesn't require all "limits" (ellipsis in the
Standard) to be the same and some semantics are "implementor defined".

Make to the original request,
*IF* one is doing "IBM mainframe development" on a Workstation (PC, Unix, or
Linux), then I think it is important that the workstation environment support
*all* the "peculiarities" of the original environment (e.g. EBCDIC, JCL, PARMs,
file-status 9x, etc). Both Micro Focus and CA-Realia have (and continue) to
"target" this environment. To a lesser extent, Fujitsu also provides such an
environment. On the other hand, if one is PORTING an (IBM) mainframe
application to the workstation (for production use), then I think that part of
the "porting" process SHOULD be an evaluation of what is "new and different" in
the target platform. However, for cost-effectiveness, I understand the QUESTION
of "can I do this the SAME way on the workstation" and understand replies that
indicate that "NO, but there is a way to do an equivalent process).

P.S. It may or may not be worth adding here, that Fujitsu is RELATIVELY unusual
among COBOL products in that it DOES require one to identify "main" vs
"non-main" programs at compile-time. For an IBM mainframe application (with NO
Procedure Division USING statement) it is entirely possible to use the same
object code as a "main" program in some cases and a "sub-program" in other
cases. This restriction does not exist in Micro Focus or CA-Realia (and I don't
think in most Unix-supporting COBOLs). If one is a "paying customer" to
Fujitsu, one might want to raise this issue with them; it certain does turn out
to be "migration inhibitor" for some (not all) IBM mainframe COBOL customers.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PBBTe.1239$jE2.159@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To steer this thread 'slightly' back toward its initial vector...
>
> I guess I am just intolerant of the condition "without changing all the
> programs."
>
> For crying out loud, if you are changing operating systems as well as
> compilers, what did you expect?
>
> There is no magic wand.
>
> There is no silver bullet.
>
> There is no stake to drive thru the heart of the beast.
>
> Ye shall reap as ye shall sow, so you may as well get off your dead *** and
> start sowing.
>
> Besides, if one spent just a little sowing time *wisely*, one could probably
> come up with a COPYLIB or additonal module allowing the required change to
> all the programs to consist of adding precisely one line of source code:
> "COPY libname" or "CALL entryname USING ... RETURNING.."
>
> MCM
>
>
>


.