Level 78
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: all
Next: Open Cobol is free and standard.
From: Anonymous on 21 Feb 2010 17:26 In article <a988b35c-69d0-472b-af42-8da40ae822f1(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: [snip] >Yes, I should show more respect for our allies from the war of 1812. >BTW, do you mention the great American defeat to anyone from south of >the border? I hear that they proudly proclaim that they have never >lost a war. One might pay as much attention to that bit of hearing, Mr Maclean, as one might to what one has heard/read of habits of sanitation, dentition, reproduction and education in... .... any other place in the world, perhaps. DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 21 Feb 2010 18:07 Alistair wrote: > On Feb 20, 11:03 pm, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletet...(a)shaw.ca> > wrote: >> Alistair wrote: >> >>> October 21st 1805 and 18th June 1815 respectively. My two most >>> favourite battles and I do read up on them often (I found out new >>> stuff about Trafalgar only yesterday). >> >> What, like herself was on board and Nelson said "Kiss me Emma", >> rather than perhaps "Kismet, Hardy" ? >> >>>> It's easily achievable in COBOL date functions to go from what I >>>> term ISO-Format6 (yymmdd) to ISO-Format8 (CCyymmdd); same with the >>>> (North >>>> American) NA-Format6 >> >>> New fangled format which only Americans use. >> >> Oh so wrong. I've already told you. In the Great White North we use >> all six possible formats. A little respect please for a former >> colony; this one, not the one below the 49th. >> > > Yes, I should show more respect for our allies from the war of 1812. > BTW, do you mention the great American defeat to anyone from south of > the border? I hear that they proudly proclaim that they have never > lost a war. > >> >> >>>> PS: Knew you would. Thanks for contacting the guy on N/E 5.1.- >>>> Hide quoted text - >> >>> I nearly didn't see the requirement. Probably best, if you want my >>> attention, to email me direct. >> >> Duly noted. BTW did you check that M/F Excel demo. Still got to >> pause in the code with a Breakpoint in the Animator but both the >> sheets showing ENLARGED single letters of the alphabet and the Chart >> are in the taskbar at the foot of your screen. Silly me. > > I only converted the PECD code and did not check the result of the MF > demo program. I was too pleased at getting my first ever OO Cobol > program to work to think of anything else. Despite some "precious" talk about the only Object Orientated programmer being a Smalltalk programmer, what you did is use Object Orientied components (Automation servers) to interface to Excel. These components have to be instantiated and their Methods and Properties addressed in order to do useful work. Certainly, it was done from a procedural framework, but that doesn't in any way diminish your achievement. Everyone has to start somewhere. I was very glad to see you not only got it "working" but achieved the expected result.(Which was specific and not catered for in sample code anywhere.) You have every right to call this an "OO COBOL program", inasmuch as it is using Object Oriented facilities to do work. It doesn't have to be a CLASS to manipulate objects. (Wilson Price wrote an excellent entire book on "Object Oriented COBOL programming" which uses completely procedural frameworks to launch his classes. Whether you do it with scripts or programs the "glue" is very often not OO. That does not in any way make it less useful.) In languages which are designed for Object Orientation (like C# and Java...) everything is a Class, but there are still aspects of procedural coding which are relevant. (The main differences are that your process can now be multiply instanced, can be encapsulated and isolated, and can run anywhere (if it is built as a component)). True Object Oriented DESIGN has little to do with programming and much more to do with the concepts of objects and layers. It just so happens that Object Oriented PROGRAMMING is a very good way to implement these designs. OO programming has come a long way since Smalltalk, (which has been pushed aside for very good reasons; modern derivatives are simply better and easier to use, and they "cut to the chase" better than Smalltalk does. ) Use whatever works for you. It may be procedural, it may be Object Oriented. As you progress, a pattern will emerge and you will find what is most useful and comfortable.(Keep an eye on new stuff, though, as well...it is very important not to close your mind or your options...) I like components and have, ever since I realised what I can do with them. Other people have other requirements and don't understand the Component Object Model (John saw them as "esoteric" and having no place in a COBOL world. It comes down to perception.) For me it isn't esoteric because I've been using it for nearly 20 years now and have been rewarded financially for my efforts in picking it up. COBOL components was a very good introduction into objects and layers. Moving on to Java and C#, the concepts of encapsulation, reuse, and total flexibility in where you want to run something, did not go amiss, but the idea of namespaces and partial Classes pushes it even further and the facilities available through the .NET Framework just make the whole thing an Aladdin's cave. Nevertheless, with feet firmly placed on the ground, I use what is useful.to me. COBOL can build Classes and components; C# does it better. (And there is stuff in the pipeline that looks like it might be better still...) Don't worry about whether you are an "OO Programmer" or not, just continue to produce the goods, as you always have. Don't get sidetracked by labels. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 22 Feb 2010 10:45
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 04:32:14 -0800 (PST), Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Yes, I should show more respect for our allies from the war of 1812. >BTW, do you mention the great American defeat to anyone from south of >the border? I hear that they proudly proclaim that they have never >lost a war. After Vietnam? -- "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 |