Hobby languages
in [Cobol]
|
From: Fritz Wuehler on 23 Jul 2010 12:21 > Interesting: None of you mentioned Java. That was intentional because we're mostly mainframe guys with sense ;) My opinion is Java is a solution looking for a problem and that it has contributed to the dumbing-down of coding without contributing anything else. It's sloppy, unsafe, and bloated both in source and runtime. I don't know of any reason to use Java anywhere when real programming languages are available instead. > I've been programming PL/I and sometimes COBOL and Assembler for 18 > years. These are great languages for z/OS applications. But if I have to > write something to run on Windows/Unix I would never even consider them. Fair enough. Most people don't have access to PL/I or COBOL on the PC and PC assembly is an abomination. For those reasons and others as well, I don't code on the PC except a little in Ada. Anything else is well, just too offensive! Some of us want to make our PC's as much like mainframes as we can, Ada is the cheapest way to do that. COBOL is fine for what it is for but I agree it's too limited for general purpose programming unless you enjoy stabbing yourself in the eyes with a pen. > As IDE I use Rational Team Concert (RTC). RTC uses a repository which I > run on on DB/2 express and a build server which I run on Linux. > Unfortunately RTC does not run on Mac, but you can use Eclipse with > subversion as repository and ANT for builds alternatively. Do you not have to pay big euros for Rational anything? > So, my recommendation is: Java with Eclipse and ANT. But that takes a PC with alot of power. Most commodity PC's die under the bloat of Java and Eclipse.
From: Howard Brazee on 23 Jul 2010 12:23 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:16:19 -0700 (PDT), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >Python on the Mac has the ability to work with > > * Apple Events (you can use Python instead of Applescript), > * Native Mac libraries (you can call all the Objective-C >libraries, including Cocoa), > * Mac application bundles ("apps", written in Python), > >and much much more of the Mac infrastructure! That's attractive. I wonder if I can access the English language dictionary that OS-X uses. I suppose it depends on what interests me - Haskell looks like a more fun language to learn. Python looks like something that can get me quicker to useful results. CoBOL looks like the hardest thing to set up and know about my environment. -- "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 23 Jul 2010 13:58 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:21:02 +0200, Fritz Wuehler <fritz(a)spamexpire-201007.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >> Interesting: None of you mentioned Java. > >That was intentional because we're mostly mainframe guys with sense ;) > >My opinion is Java is a solution looking for a problem and that it has >contributed to the dumbing-down of coding without contributing anything >else. It's sloppy, unsafe, and bloated both in source and runtime. I don't >know of any reason to use Java anywhere when real programming languages are >available instead. Java's big strength is that it can run everywhere. Other strengths include garbage management, and finding people who can work with it is tops. Since I'm writing only for myself, doing simple projects these aren't useful strengths. The only advantage of OO is if I find objects already written which, say, read the English language dictionary. (although I would be happy with functions or library code that can do that). Resource use doesn't bother me for my needs. Ummm, I guess its ubiquity also means I could find more Internet help with Java. I have no idea what criteria you use for "Real Programming Languages". -- "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: Richard on 23 Jul 2010 15:45 On Jul 24, 4:23 am, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:16:19 -0700 (PDT), Richard > > <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > >Python on the Mac has the ability to work with > > > * Apple Events (you can use Python instead of Applescript), > > * Native Mac libraries (you can call all the Objective-C > >libraries, including Cocoa), > > * Mac application bundles ("apps", written in Python), > > >and much much more of the Mac infrastructure! > > That's attractive. I wonder if I can access the English language > dictionary that OS-X uses. It seems that there is an AppleScript bridge which should allow access. http://appscript.sourceforge.net/py-appscript/index.html When I mentioned 'dictionaries' this was the Python data structure accessible by key value (rather than an array accessed by index number). Other languages may call this a 'hash' or some other. In COBOL one might use an indexed file for this. departments = {} # an empty dictionary fd = open('departments.txt', 'r') # file of CODE,NAME for line in fd: (code,name) = line.strip().split(',') departments[code] = name print departments {'SAL': 'Sales', 'TTT': 'Transport', 'AAB': 'Absolute Masters'}
From: Pete Dashwood on 23 Jul 2010 21:25
Fritz Wuehler wrote: >> Interesting: None of you mentioned Java. > > That was intentional because we're mostly mainframe guys with sense ;) That makes you wrong on two counts, Fritz :-) "Mainframe guys" have no monopoly on sense, and Java is an excellent language. > > My opinion is Java is a solution looking for a problem and that it has > contributed to the dumbing-down of coding without contributing > anything else. It's sloppy, unsafe, and bloated both in source and > runtime. I disagree with your opinion. :-) Java was one of the first generally used OO languages and it serves that purpose admirably. In fact, I would (and have) recommend(ed) people who wish to move out of COBOL to learn Java. It is an excellent way to pick up the concepts of Object Orientation, as it was designed around those concepts. If by "dumbing down" you mean simpler, less intricate code, then how is that a bad thing? Java is far more "powerful" (in the sense that less of it does more...) than COBOL. If you are an old time BAL programmer (as I was in another lifetime) it is easy to equate detail with "cleverness" and decide that anything which removes the detail is dumb. Let's take a look at your criticism: "sloppy" : Languages are not sloppy; programmers are sloppy. "unsafe" : Competent programmers and compilers/interpreters make code in any language safe. "bloated": There's a description of code I haven't heard for a while (apart from references to the Windows OS...). You may not have noticed but a pentium 5 (obsolete) PC has more processing power than an old mainframe (say 370-145) and has more memory also. So why increase resources and power on a computer system unless you intend to use them? There are benefits in using Java or any other high level language over most Assembler level languages, but compactness of code and run time are not one of those particular benefits. That doesn't mean it is bloated, it just means the resources provided are being used to obtain benefits that weren't previously available or to obtain benefits that are considered to be more important than size of runtime. > I don't know of any reason to use Java anywhere when real > programming languages are available instead. > And by "real programming languages" you mean...? ADA, COBOL, Assembler? All of them are useful in some areas and depending on the criteria you have established. If you are unconcerned with resources but are very concerned about readable code, you will probably prefer COBOL, for example. However, if you have an application which is best served by an Object Oriented approach (maybe networked) then Java is an excellent choice. (Although my personal preference is C#) It is just silly in this day and age, with the computing resources now available, to rant about modern languages "dumbing down" the art of programming and requiring bloated resources. There was a time (when we managed overlays manually in very limited memory) when these things were important. Nowadays, except for some highly specialised command and control and real time processing systems (which are not a general part of commercial application development), they are not. >> I've been programming PL/I and sometimes COBOL and Assembler for 18 >> years. These are great languages for z/OS applications. But if I >> have to write something to run on Windows/Unix I would never even >> consider them. > > Fair enough. Most people don't have access to PL/I or COBOL on the PC > and PC assembly is an abomination. ANYONE can have access to COBOL on the PC and there are some excellent implementations available. I have been using Micro Focus and Fujitsu COBOL for over 20 years on PCs. They are both excellent products. PC Assembly is no more an abomination than BAL is. They are just different, that's all. If you consider the unfamiliar to be an "abomination" then that says more about your mind set than it does about the language in question. > For those reasons and others as > well, I don't code on the PC except a little in Ada. Anything else is > well, just too offensive! Making programming into a religion may not be a good path to follow. It is just computer programming. If you feel so strongly that any breach of your commandments for good programming is offensive or an abomination, then you are likely to miss out on much that is good and useful. However, it is of course, a personal choice. For me, to be offended by the facilities offered in a computer programming anguage is about as logical as being offended by the menu at my local diner. Don't like it? Don't order it. Being offended by it is way to sensitive. Life is too short... :-) >Some of us want to make our PC's as much > like mainframes as we can, I can't imagine why. Do you also want your bicycle to be as much like a car as it can? :-) If you view a PC in the same way you view a mainframe, you are missing the point. A PC on its own, is nothing special. When you start connecting them they can do things that mainframes never could. Notice that the arrival of the internet didn't happen in the decades when mainframes ruled the world. It is about synergy from connectedness. And that is also why the OO paradigm has largely replaced the procedural one.That is hard for some "mainframe guys" to take (usually the ones who want their PC to be as much like a mainframe as possible... :-)) but there are some of us who actually made the transition and are happy in either or both camps, recognising things of value in both arenas. >Ada is the cheapest way to do that. COBOL > is fine for what it is for but I agree it's too limited for general > purpose programming unless you enjoy stabbing yourself in the eyes > with a pen. And yet the world stabbed itself in the eyes with a pen for 50 years, and in some quarters is still doing it. Those of us who made a living from COBOL did not notice any soreness of the eyes. On the contrary, we actually loved it. (I still enjoy working in COBOL although I find it more tedious now than I used to before I knew there were better alternatives available.) I would strongly contest your statement that COBOL is "too limited for general purpose programming", having written applications that range from heuristic maze traversal, through syntax scanning and parsing of language and free format postal addresses, to interactive Web Pages with it, but maybe your concept of "limited" and mine are two different ones. > >> As IDE I use Rational Team Concert (RTC). RTC uses a repository >> which I run on on DB/2 express and a build server which I run on >> Linux. Unfortunately RTC does not run on Mac, but you can use >> Eclipse with subversion as repository and ANT for builds >> alternatively. > > Do you not have to pay big euros for Rational anything? > >> So, my recommendation is: Java with Eclipse and ANT. > > But that takes a PC with alot of power. Well, it depends what you mean by a "lot"...Certainly, you wouldn't want to run it on a x86 under DOS, but ANY modern PC can EASILY accomodate this. I was managing projects nearly 10 years ago that used PCs for development in precisely this configuration. Not only did they run Java but they were using AJAX as well. You have become so accustomed to viewing a PC as a Mainframe that you have lost sight of what they CAN accomplish. OK, I'm sure your post was light hearted (as my response has been) but the bottom line is that Java is a perfectly good language... and so are ADA, COBOL, and, in fact, MOST computer programming languages. (In 40 years in the industry I have become familiar with quite a few and the only one I actually loathed and detested was JSP, but it is arguable whether that was a "language" as opposed to a "methodology" and my distaste for it was more because it limited what I could do in COBOL, and because it was "mandated" by an obnoxious little prick who had never written a computer program in his life, and enjoyed abusing the tiny bit of power he had been given. He threatened to have me fired but I was still there when he left.) As a sometime regular poster here remarked on several occasions: "It is the Artist, not the paintbrush." >Most commodity PC's die under > the bloat of Java and Eclipse. Not sure what you mean by "commodity" in this context. I have never had a PC running Java and Eclipse die under the weight of it. Anything bought within the last 3 years should run this easily. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |