Prev: COBOL/CICS/DB2 - COBOL for MVS and compile option DYNAM -solution from 2006
Next: Still one more Overlapping operands test
From: Howard Brazee on 12 Dec 2008 15:06 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:57:18 -0500, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >Robert's correct that Java and C# are relatively high-level languages >with decent abstraction and expressiveness. Both are available free of >charge (other than your own costs for downloading and learning them, >of course), and there are various tutorials available online that >could give you a taste. That free-of-charge aspect have been huge in speeding up their acceptance. -- "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 12 Dec 2008 15:08 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:24:18 -0500, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> I had a macro-assembler for the Atari 800 in which I could write what >> looked like Basic, and then assemble it. It was kind of fun, but >> not as much fun as Action! or Forth which I had for the same computer. > >The distinction between assembled and compiled languages is vague at best. I remember reading about a chip that was used Java p-code natively. Doesn't quite fit into standard definitions. -- "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: Bill Gunshannon on 12 Dec 2008 15:24 In article <34h5k4td4l98q98308mkg2ri53h0raakvg(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> writes: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:24:18 -0500, Michael Wojcik > <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >>> I had a macro-assembler for the Atari 800 in which I could write what >>> looked like Basic, and then assemble it. It was kind of fun, but >>> not as much fun as Action! or Forth which I had for the same computer. >> >>The distinction between assembled and compiled languages is vague at best. > > I remember reading about a chip that was used Java p-code natively. That was done with UCSD P-code by the Western Digital Pascal Microengine a couple of decades ago. Yet another wheel re-invented. 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: PR on 12 Dec 2008 15:45 On Dec 12, 12:28 am, Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > 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. > C was written at Bell Labs from 1969 to 1972, on an early PDP-7 and later, around 1970, on a PDP-11. C was to be the systems programming language for Unix. C does owe much to BCPL as a grandparent language. The 'B' language in it's lineage is still a little open to debate - instead of a contraction of BCP it might be a contraction of the Bonnie or BON language. You can guess who that language is named after I suppose. However, there is no doubt that B was influenced by BCPL. However, C owes much more to it's PDP parentage. It was originally designed to be a language that was close to the machine, and in fact it is. There are plenty of 1 to 1 references to PDP Macro language in it, the most obvious being the increment and decrement use of ++ and --. Pointer arithmetic being another. Just go write a few thousand lines of PDP-11 Macro Assembler and you will never again doubt that C is in fact a "portable assembler" and based upon PDP-11 Macro. -Paul > > 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: PR on 12 Dec 2008 15:50
On Dec 12, 11:29 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > docdw...(a)panix.com wrote: > > > 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. > > Compiled languages in general were designed as a replacement for > assembly programming. That doesn't make them "like assembly". > > > It is a compiled language, true, but still provides low-level > > system/memory/device access in an Assembley-like manner. > > No, it doesn't. Some C implementations may extend the language to > provide direct access to memory and devices (whatever that may mean on > the platform), but that's not part of the C language. > Actually, yes it it. Access to memory is always defined in C, as pointers are intrinsic. And pointers are not special variable types, they originally were integers, and for the most part, still are. This more than anything else, separates C from the Algol language family, especially in any of its modern implementations. -Paul > -- > Michael Wojcik > Micro Focus > Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University |