ROSCOE tutorial needed
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: SQL Commands
Next: Cobol call BPXWDYN
From: sunny on 22 Apr 2006 06:51 Hi, We got a project recently which involves heavy usage of ROSCOE editor. Nobody in our team has ever worked on ROSCOE. We have worked extensively on TSO. Has anybody done any mapping of TSO to ROSCOE functionality? We wud be graeful if we an get a document of common commands Thanks,
From: charles hottel on 22 Apr 2006 17:06 I do not have a mapping of TSO to ROSCOE, but I do have a document from a somewhat old ROSCOE RPF training that I took. I would not be too put off my it being old as most of it will still be applicable to current day ROSCOE. Some of the examples give valid techniques even though you might not do the example that way today because there is now a ROSCOE command that does the job. Unfortunately the document I have is not in machine readable format. I would be willing to copy it and mail it to you, or to fax it to you. You should be able to get ROSCOE manuals and there is also a 'help" command. I will be glad to answer any questions that I can. "sunny" <sachingupta1981(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145703087.314305.185440(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > Hi, > > We got a project recently which involves heavy usage of ROSCOE editor. > Nobody in our team has ever worked on ROSCOE. We have worked > extensively on TSO. > > Has anybody done any mapping of TSO to ROSCOE functionality? > > We wud be graeful if we an get a document of common commands > > Thanks, >
From: on 22 Apr 2006 20:28 In article <1145703087.314305.185440(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, sunny <sachingupta1981(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >We got a project recently which involves heavy usage of ROSCOE editor. >Nobody in our team has ever worked on ROSCOE. Kind of makes me wonder A) How someone managed to sell a team for a ROSCOE-based project which has no ROSCOE experience. B) How someone managed to buy a team for a ROSCOE-based project which has no ROSCOE experience. >We have worked >extensively on TSO. Kinda makes me wonder why someone would volunteer to work on a project involving heavy use of a tool with which they had no experience. DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 22 Apr 2006 20:48 <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:e2ehob$23h$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > In article <1145703087.314305.185440(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, > sunny <sachingupta1981(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Hi, >> >>We got a project recently which involves heavy usage of ROSCOE editor. >>Nobody in our team has ever worked on ROSCOE. Many years ago I worked for IBM and we needed to use ROSCOE due to a farcical set of circumstances which I won't go into here... As I was the least busy person on our team at the time (and the latest to join) I got the job of streamlining all our standard procedures and providing ROSCOE procedures for them. (In those days these were called ROSPROCs, but I understand that has changed now). I was given a reference card and told to get busy. It was fun. I had a great time (really, not being sarcastic...) knocking up various procedures and trying them out. It was very easy and anyone who has a knowledge of modern scripting (I didn't at that time as there was no such thing) should have no difficulty. I think the only bit that got a bit involved was where it interfaced to SPF screens, but even that was straightforward after you did a couple. ROSCOE is endearingly simple and fun to write. A year or so later we had to move to TSO and everybody was sorry as ROSCOE served us well. > > Kind of makes me wonder > > A) How someone managed to sell a team for a ROSCOE-based project which has > no ROSCOE experience. > ROSCOE is trivial. > B) How someone managed to buy a team for a ROSCOE-based project which has > no ROSCOE experience. > ROSCOE is trivial. >>We have worked >>extensively on TSO. > Most folks with that background will learn ROSCOE in a day by reading the Reference card and looking at a few Procedures. > Kinda makes me wonder why someone would volunteer to work on a project > involving heavy use of a tool with which they had no experience. Good point. These are obviously confident people... :-) Pete.
From: on 22 Apr 2006 22:00
In article <4b017rFv089bU1(a)individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:e2ehob$23h$1(a)reader1.panix.com... >> In article <1145703087.314305.185440(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, >> sunny <sachingupta1981(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>Hi, >>> >>>We got a project recently which involves heavy usage of ROSCOE editor. >>>Nobody in our team has ever worked on ROSCOE. [snip] >> Kind of makes me wonder >> >> A) How someone managed to sell a team for a ROSCOE-based project which has >> no ROSCOE experience. >> > >ROSCOE is trivial. ROSCOE is a specific technical skill, Mr Dashwood, and not a matter of Grammar, Rhetoric or Logic; by definition is it not of the Trivium. > >> B) How someone managed to buy a team for a ROSCOE-based project which has >> no ROSCOE experience. >> > >ROSCOE is trivial. So trivial that they learned it yesterday and the posting is already out-of-date, I am sure... God Save the Me! > >>>We have worked >>>extensively on TSO. >> > >Most folks with that background will learn ROSCOE in a day by reading the >Reference card and looking at a few Procedures. Well... poor lad's wasting time posting here, it seems. > >> Kinda makes me wonder why someone would volunteer to work on a project >> involving heavy use of a tool with which they had no experience. > >Good point. These are obviously confident people... :-) Not always right but never in doubt, perhaps. DD |