Corruption of COBOL.
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: 182966 Constantly updated Free COmputer and business portal 94
Next: Traditional COBOL environment
From: Bill Gunshannon on 10 Feb 2010 09:28 In article <7telkiFcvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes: > SkippyPB wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:39:37 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> SkippyPB wrote: >>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:05:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fred Mobach wrote: >>>>>> Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alistair wrote: >>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 10:32 am, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>>>>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sure. But don't try and rewrite Shakespeare in English, either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can't resist: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2 B / not 2 B? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess it is only a matterof time before someone with more time >>>>>>> on their hands than they should have, produces a TXT version of >>>>>>> the works of Shakespeare. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it would get kids to read the original, I wouldn't complain. >>>>>>> :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> If via >>>>>> lynx -dump >>>>>> to TXT reformatted HTML will do you can have a look at >>>>>> http://shakespeare.mit.edu/ >>>>> >>>>> When I was a teenager I had the Complete works of Shakespeare (and >>>>> a few others of my favourite authors, Kipling, Poe, and Edgar Rice >>>>> Burroughs (many people don't realize he wrote a lot more than >>>>> "Tarzan") in book form, of course, and spent many happy hours >>>>> engrossed in them. Over the years, with travelling and moving (not >>>>> to mention pilferage from storage warehouses) these have been lost >>>>> and I keep thinking I must replace them, but never get round to it. >>>>> From time to time, I get the urge for Shakespeare and I recently >>>>> bought the RSC production of King Lear, on DVD. It came with a >>>>> bound transcript, and, although it is not my favourite Shakespeare >>>>> play (and is pretty heavy going in places) I did enjoy it. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you so much for this link, Fred. I have bookmarked it and >>>>> will be using it. >>>>> >>>>> Pete. >>>> >>>> As a kid I wasn't into Shakespeare so much but I did read everything >>>> Edgar Allen Poe wrote and I read a lot of non-Tarzan books that >>>> Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote as well. I also, at age 10 or 11, read >>>> the original Mary Shelley book Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's >>>> Dracula. Both had what I can only describe as a rich language. I >>>> admit I had strange reading habits as a kid. No idea where they >>>> came from. I also was into reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's >>>> Sherlock Holmes' books and a lot of science fiction by the authors >>>> of the day. >>> >>> Yep, all great stuff and I did the same at around the same age. >>> >>> I wonder if what we read at an early age can shape us? >>> >>> I guess it can if we agree with it or are delighted by it. Or maybe >>> the rich world of fiction is just a good escape for people at any >>> age. >>> >>> I'd like to think any flaws in my current character were not the >>> result of reading the authors you mention... :-) >>> >>> Of course, if I can blame my faults on Poe or Shakespeare, that >>> would be a really good cop out... :-) >>> >>> Pete. >> >> Well Mr. Poe was an Opium addict :) Nevermore, nevermore. > > I never heard of that. He certainly was adicted to alcohol and on ONE > occasion tried to suicide from an overdose of Laudunum (an opiate commonly > used in Victorian times for sleeping problems)... sure you're not thinking > of Samuel Taylor Coleridge? Xanadu is definitely tripping and there are > parts of the Ancient Mariner which look like they were influenced by > substance abuse... > > "The very deeps did rot > Oh, Christ! That ever this should be > Yea... slimy things did crawl with legs > Upon the slimy sea." Poe's opium addiction was well known, at least here in the colonies. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: john on 10 Feb 2010 11:22 On Feb 9, 10:34 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > James J. Gavan wrote: > > j...(a)wexfordpress.com wrote: > > >> Cobol is free. Fujitsu offers a free compiler. Open Cobol runs on > >> Linux and with some fuss and feathers under MSWindows. Ditto for Tiny > >> Cobol. So that argument does not hold water. > > >> John Culleton > >> COBOL since 1968 > > > By and large COBOL is NOT free. IBM - how much for a compiler; are > > there on-going costs ? Unisys - same questions. (Not being in the > > mainframe world I just don't know the answers). > > > Yes there is/was a free version of Fujitsu, but I don't think it is > > the one Pete Dashwood and others are actually using today ? > > Can't speak for others Jimmy, but I am (occassionally) using Version 6, the > last one I bought and registered. The FREE one is version 3, but I can't > imagine anyone seriously using that as the basis for a commercial business. > I believe the current version is V10 but I dropped off this particular > treadmill and stopped paying maintenance when I realised there was very > little functional difference between V6 and v5 and between v5 and v4, and > the support that this payment was supposed to entitle me to was so bad it > wasn't worth paying for. It was shortly after that that I moved to C# and > the whole thing became academic. > > > > > > > So in addition to sticking your head in the mud with a 1985 mindset, > > developers are now recommended to use the 'freebies' only - but be > > extremely careful, even some of those have features beyond COBOL 85, > > which you mustn't use. > > > Let's take this from another angle. While there are government > > standards applied by most countries, the auto-industry more or less > > arrives at a set of self-imposed rules, ('features' would perhaps be > > a better word); it's good for business anyway. There was a time when > > auto indicators were those little thinggies that popped up to > > indicate you wanted to turn left or right. They enhanced those by > > giving them colour and today we have the inbuilt indicators. > > > As well as wanting to make money, the particular auto maker Company X, > > whose vehicles I like, also can see the advantage to consumers of > > adding features which are not yet part of the given 'Auto Industry > > Self-Imposed Features'. So taking a hypothetical, my brand new car > > has the following - which according to you I should ignore :- > > > - I can run on gasoline, ethanol, natural gas or electricity > > - light features, that in an emergency would light up a football field > > - rare, but like Agent 007 - I can take it submarining > > > So because the 'others' don't as yet have these features, I should not > > use them on the spanking new car I just bought ? > > > In technology there is, and has to be progression, to meet consumer > > needs. Like Michael Jackson wanted to be a cryogenic you are > > recommending that we only use something (COBOL 85) which was defined > > THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago. Well of course you will counter, use other > > stuff, perhaps Java, direct calls to Windoes APIs. Somehow, even > > though you spoke to her once, I don't think our Gracie would agree. > She once said that she didn't want to use COBOL for the things FORTRAN was good for, and vice versa. And I met her twice, just for the record, at ACM chapter meetings. > > I doubt she mentioned to you, some of the early machinations in > > COBOL's inception. One company, (a clue, the word 'Blue' fits), for > > whatever reason, wanted a specific feature made 'Confidential'. > > Gracie didn't like that and along with a buddy 'suggested' to the > > Canadian representative that he should 'accidentally' publish the > > feature - it happened - 'Confidentiality' was gonzo !. No, I didn't > > dream that up - I got an e-mail from her 'buddy'. > > > The other thing you should remember is that neither Java nor C# have > > either ANSI or ISO imprimaturs. (Sun gave up on getting Java ISO- > > approved after they saw the BS that was involved). So far as we are > > concerned we have individual compiler vendors putting in their two > > cents, initially via ANSI (J4 now PL22.4), and then going through the > > rigmarole of ISO. Remember our compiler vendors are COMPETITORS for > > the same product. Observing the players at the J4 June/July 2000 > > meeting at Newbury, I asked the question, "How do the Micro Focus and > > IBM representatives get on". Back came the answer, "They get on very > > well socially, but remember they are representing competitors". > > > I sure can't prove it, but looking at some of the features, > > (extensions to you), which M/F introduced, I just wonder why they > > never became part of COBOL. As Bill Klein once pointed out, having > > seen a feature which looked like it had solid approval, M/F > > introduced it, only to find that J4 dickered with it after the event, > > possibly making the M/F approach invalid. It has always been an objective of compiler makers to lock in their customers with proprietary features. > > > Pure conjecture on my part - J4 saw the necessity for changing > > something already established, or what M/F suggested as a new feature > > just wasn't worth the effort - OR - just pure Competitor human > > vindictiveness ? Don't kid yourself it couldn't happen. I've seen > > some several instances of vindictiveness creep into commerce in my > > career. > > As a closing shot, your approach requires using the full shebang of a > > program's format, to which PECD reacts with, 'COBOL is too verbose'. > > Not quite. I think it is too verbose when using OO, IN COMPARISON TO OTHER > OO LANGUAGES. > > It is a subtle, but very important qualifier. > > > M/F introduced the feature 'Get rid of the red tape'. Accepting that > > you probably abhor the thought of COBOL having OO, at this point in > > time I am writing a class to handle Dates and Times in COBOL; yes it > > uses the ACCEPT FROM and DATE FUNCTIONS, but you not need to be > > conversant with them, their use is in my methods (source). Boyo, boyo > > do I use that 'exclude red tape'. Assuming PECD produced a Fujitsu > > version of my DateAndTime class, once he sees it, I can guarantee his > > code will be at least twice as large as mine ! Other vendors just > > didn't somehow see the advantage of getting rid of red tape. > Who is PECD? > At this point I don't anticipate duplicating your code, Jimmy. I have date > components that do everything I want, and the .Net Framework has Classes > that would do anything I overlooked. > > As for Red Tape, most COBOL purists (and I suspect that John is one) will > say that it destroys the readability of COBOL, which has traditionally been > one of its major advantages. They are probably right. But it is academic to > me as I don't care about it. It was important when source code was > everything. For me, at least, it isn't any more. All that matters is > functionality and a documented interface to it. Years ago I was presented with a printout of a program that another branch of state government had written. We wanted to adapt it to our use. So I went to the IDENTIFICATION DIVISION where the author had written his name, organization and even his phone number, and of course a statement of the purpose of the program in the REMARKS section. I called him and we discussed the fine points. Now this information can be documented in any programming language, but except for COBOL the language itself doesn't encourage it. COBOL, at least COBOL in the old days, did encourage it. I do not suggest we go back to the 60's where the style was to go on for pages of description in in the REMARKS section. But a little who what when where why up there is useful. And although we don't use cross-compilers much a comment in the SOURCE COMPUTER paragraph can help when tracing down those pesky non-standard extensions. Again years ago a programmer named Marcello Maniago stated that there was no such thing as a one time program. If it worked well it would be used again, perhaps with modifications. If it didn't work it wouldn't be used the first time. So sound internal documentation of every program is still sound policy. Those who disparage it never ran a programming shop. Programmers as a class love to program and hate to document. That is why the IDENTIFICATION DIVISION was such a brilliant concept---make documentation a part of programming. > As for procedural code versus OO I think we have a distinction without any critical differences. COBOL 85 versions such as OpenCobol have an ability to call programs written in COBOL and in C, passing parameters back and forth. These can be statically or dynamically linked. Programs in other languages can be called by using CALL "system" USING programstring. Where programstring contains something like "wish myprogram.tcl" Parameters can be passed either in the command string or in a file. It is snowing like blazes and I suspect my roof is holding about three feet now. It was built in an era when 2 x 4's etc. were a tad bigger than they are today and load bearing walls were built on 16 in centers rather than 24 in centers. Point is, not every change is an improvement. Cheers, John Culleton, CCP
From: SkippyPB on 10 Feb 2010 12:00 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:57:20 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >SkippyPB wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:39:37 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> SkippyPB wrote: >>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:05:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fred Mobach wrote: >>>>>> Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alistair wrote: >>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 10:32 am, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>>>>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sure. But don't try and rewrite Shakespeare in English, either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can't resist: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2 B / not 2 B? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess it is only a matterof time before someone with more time >>>>>>> on their hands than they should have, produces a TXT version of >>>>>>> the works of Shakespeare. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it would get kids to read the original, I wouldn't complain. >>>>>>> :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> If via >>>>>> lynx -dump >>>>>> to TXT reformatted HTML will do you can have a look at >>>>>> http://shakespeare.mit.edu/ >>>>> >>>>> When I was a teenager I had the Complete works of Shakespeare (and >>>>> a few others of my favourite authors, Kipling, Poe, and Edgar Rice >>>>> Burroughs (many people don't realize he wrote a lot more than >>>>> "Tarzan") in book form, of course, and spent many happy hours >>>>> engrossed in them. Over the years, with travelling and moving (not >>>>> to mention pilferage from storage warehouses) these have been lost >>>>> and I keep thinking I must replace them, but never get round to it. >>>>> From time to time, I get the urge for Shakespeare and I recently >>>>> bought the RSC production of King Lear, on DVD. It came with a >>>>> bound transcript, and, although it is not my favourite Shakespeare >>>>> play (and is pretty heavy going in places) I did enjoy it. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you so much for this link, Fred. I have bookmarked it and >>>>> will be using it. >>>>> >>>>> Pete. >>>> >>>> As a kid I wasn't into Shakespeare so much but I did read everything >>>> Edgar Allen Poe wrote and I read a lot of non-Tarzan books that >>>> Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote as well. I also, at age 10 or 11, read >>>> the original Mary Shelley book Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's >>>> Dracula. Both had what I can only describe as a rich language. I >>>> admit I had strange reading habits as a kid. No idea where they >>>> came from. I also was into reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's >>>> Sherlock Holmes' books and a lot of science fiction by the authors >>>> of the day. >>> >>> Yep, all great stuff and I did the same at around the same age. >>> >>> I wonder if what we read at an early age can shape us? >>> >>> I guess it can if we agree with it or are delighted by it. Or maybe >>> the rich world of fiction is just a good escape for people at any >>> age. >>> >>> I'd like to think any flaws in my current character were not the >>> result of reading the authors you mention... :-) >>> >>> Of course, if I can blame my faults on Poe or Shakespeare, that >>> would be a really good cop out... :-) >>> >>> Pete. >> >> Well Mr. Poe was an Opium addict :) Nevermore, nevermore. > >I never heard of that. He certainly was adicted to alcohol and on ONE >occasion tried to suicide from an overdose of Laudunum (an opiate commonly >used in Victorian times for sleeping problems)... sure you're not thinking >of Samuel Taylor Coleridge? Xanadu is definitely tripping and there are >parts of the Ancient Mariner which look like they were influenced by >substance abuse... > >"The very deeps did rot > Oh, Christ! That ever this should be > Yea... slimy things did crawl with legs > Upon the slimy sea." > >Pete In March of 1834 Edgar's foster father, John Allen, died and left nothing of value. Edgar soon after added Laudanum to his Opium and alcohol diet. In 1835 he went back to Richmond, Virginia and secretly married his 13 year old cousin Virginia. And everyone thought Jerry Lee Lewis was the first celebrity scoundrel :) Seven years later, unfortunately, Virginia was found to be suffering from a disease called consumption. It was the same thing that had killed his mother and father. This drove him to heavy drinking and many foolish acts. However during that very dark period in his life he wrote the poem "The Conqueror Worm", which projects the image of a destructive worm or maggot, and the decay of humankind: But see, amid the mimic rout A crawling shape intrude! A blood-red thing that writhes from out The scenic solitude! It writhes!--it writhes!--with mortal pangs The mimes become its food, And the angels sob at vermin fangs In human gore imbued. Virginia died in 1847 at the age of 25. Poe died in a sanitarium in 1849. He was more of an alcoholic than anything else but he certainly liked his opium as well. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Sam Goldman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Howard Brazee on 10 Feb 2010 12:38 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:00:00 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >Seven years later, unfortunately, Virginia was found to be suffering >from a disease called consumption. It was the same thing that had >killed his mother and father. This drove him to heavy drinking and >many foolish acts. Better known as tuberculosis today. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 10 Feb 2010 12:39
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:22:48 -0800 (PST), "john(a)wexfordpress.com" <john(a)wexfordpress.com> wrote: >She once said that she didn't want to use COBOL for the things FORTRAN >was good for, >and vice versa. And I met her twice, just for the record, at ACM >chapter meetings. Me too, at DPMA meetings. I lost both nano-seconds though. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |