I need a new compiler...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL/CICS/DB2 - COBOL for MVS and compile option DYNAM -solution from 2006
Next: Still one more Overlapping operands test
From: Paul H on 11 Dec 2008 23:00 "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message news:XXh0l.41033$b05.1694(a)newsfe06.iad... Paul H wrote: > I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I want to > write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. MF would > charge > a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a different Compiler. > Where can I find a list of inexpensive compilers, with ratings? Does such > a > list exist? TIA, Paul > > I neglected to mention that I need to use it in a Vista environment. > Thanks. > ================================= So you've got it working with Vista :-). Now you will have to check this out specifically - a LONnnnngggg time ago, M/F upped the ante on Net Express by telling us they wanted more 'loot'. They obviously got some very nasty messages back, because they relented, somewhat. Again check specifics, but it goes something like this - if you were using N/E V 3.1, up to Fixpack # ?, and your sale price to customers was LESS than $1,000 - then you were OK - they introduced an amnesty clause. Now assuming one upgraded to N/E V 5.1, I'm not sure that those same rules would apply. I haven't seem him in writing for quite a while now but probably the best man to contact is Alan Wheeler, who was the M/F spokesman for the 'Amnesty' clause. The last e-mail address I have for him is :- Alan.Wheeler(a)microfocus.com No need to rush elsewhere, ignoring your existing skills with M/F COBOL, if the 'Amnesty' clause applies to you. (Bearing in mind that both Acu and RM(Liant), are now both owned by Micro Focus, it doesn't leave you much choice if you want to stick with a 'professional' compiler - just Fujitsu - but that's not cheap now either). Jimmy ================================= Thanks, Jimmy, I am using the last version of NETX 3.1, prior to the fixpack that implemented the run-time charge. I have not successfully installed it in Vista. It worked as a 30 day trial version briefly (one day), then reverted to the "corrupted license" message. While it worked, it would not recognize files on other "mapped" drive letters. So I'm out of luck unless MF offers a solution. I'm back to looking at Clarion - it did nice things (sorting ascending, then descending when one clicks on a column heading, etc.) when I had someone implement an application for me in year 2000. Look at www.verifycharges.com. I don't market it now, but I may update it and try again now that identity theft and other financial issues are prominent. Paul
From: Paul on 11 Dec 2008 23:15 On 2008-12-10 22:22:57 -0600, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoSpam(a)att.net> said: > I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I want to > write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. MF would charge > a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a different Compiler. > Where can I find a list of inexpensive compilers, with ratings? Does such a > list exist? TIA, Paul OpenCOBOL is most likley going to make you very happy. And it is free of course. Go give it a try. :) By the way, C is pretty much based upon PDP-11 Macro Assembler. It isn't hard, you just have to master a few little details. Now using it with a GUI and such is very much *not* simple. If you want to move away from COBOL, look at RealBasic. It is simple, easy, and works on Windows, Linux, and MacOS. $99 is not free, but well worth it. No runtime costs. -Paul
From: Richard on 12 Dec 2008 01:28 On Dec 12, 5:15 pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 2008-12-10 22:22:57 -0600, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> said: > > > I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I want to > > write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. MF would charge > > a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a different Compiler. > > Where can I find a list of inexpensive compilers, with ratings? Does such a > > list exist? TIA, Paul > > OpenCOBOL is most likley going to make you very happy. And it is free > of course. > Go give it a try. :) > > By the way, C is pretty much based upon PDP-11 Macro Assembler. Where did that come from ? C was derived from B which was a simplified version of BCPL. BCPL stands for 'Basic CPL' (Basic as in fundemental and not BASIC). CPL was Combined Programming Language, a combination of APL (Atlas, not the IBM APL) amd ACL (Atlas Commercial Language) with much influence from Algol 60, produced at the Atlas Laboratory. > It > isn't hard, you just have to master a few little details. Now using it > with a GUI and such is very much *not* simple. > If you want to move away from COBOL, look at RealBasic. It is simple, > easy, and works on Windows, Linux, and MacOS. $99 is not free, but well > worth it. No runtime costs. > > -Paul
From: Anonymous on 12 Dec 2008 06:01 In article <d9d518da-09d2-48d5-8382-81f0f3fe9f05(a)i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >On Dec 12, 5:04�am, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> wrote: [snip] >>�Isn't using C or Java like >> coding in assembly language? � > >No. Using GOTO or not using scope terminators in Cobol is "like using >assembly language". Really? I thought that using a language which is assembled into object languange with a one-to-one statement correlation 'is like using assembley language', while using a language which gets a single statement compiled into one or more object language ('machine code') statements isn't. Perhaps someone dropped the differentiation between first-, second- and third-generation languages out of some curricula... or someone else forgot that 'a good programmer can write FORTRAN in any language'. DD
From: Anonymous on 12 Dec 2008 08:08
In article <4941e558$0$5493$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, Paul <paul-nospamatall.raulerson(a)mac.com> wrote: [snip] >By the way, C is pretty much based upon PDP-11 Macro Assembler. It >isn't hard, you just have to master a few little details. Leaving aside the 'all ya gotta do is...' I find in the second sentence... the first resonates; as I recall it Ritchie designed C at Bell Labs (back when it was Bell Labs, early 1970s) as a replacement for Assembley mnemonics. It is a compiled language, true, but still provides low-level system/memory/device access in an Assembley-like manner. (This, I was taught, showed it to be more suited for Operating System functions than for applications development... but such may have been the bias of my instructors; others may argue strongly for the advantages to be found in writing your batch quarterly inventory reports (early 1970s, remember?) in such a language.) DD |