Corruption of COBOL.
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: 182966 Constantly updated Free COmputer and business portal 94
Next: Traditional COBOL environment
From: Pete Dashwood on 10 Feb 2010 19:59 john(a)wexfordpress.com wrote: > On Feb 9, 10:34 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> James J. Gavan wrote: >>> j...(a)wexfordpress.com wrote: >> >>>> Cobol is free. Fujitsu offers a free compiler. Open Cobol runs on >>>> Linux and with some fuss and feathers under MSWindows. Ditto for >>>> Tiny Cobol. So that argument does not hold water. >> >>>> John Culleton >>>> COBOL since 1968 >> >>> By and large COBOL is NOT free. IBM - how much for a compiler; are >>> there on-going costs ? Unisys - same questions. (Not being in the >>> mainframe world I just don't know the answers). >> >>> Yes there is/was a free version of Fujitsu, but I don't think it is >>> the one Pete Dashwood and others are actually using today ? >> >> Can't speak for others Jimmy, but I am (occassionally) using Version >> 6, the last one I bought and registered. The FREE one is version 3, >> but I can't imagine anyone seriously using that as the basis for a >> commercial business. I believe the current version is V10 but I >> dropped off this particular treadmill and stopped paying maintenance >> when I realised there was very little functional difference between >> V6 and v5 and between v5 and v4, and the support that this payment >> was supposed to entitle me to was so bad it wasn't worth paying for. >> It was shortly after that that I moved to C# and the whole thing >> became academic. >> >> >> >> >> >>> So in addition to sticking your head in the mud with a 1985 mindset, >>> developers are now recommended to use the 'freebies' only - but be >>> extremely careful, even some of those have features beyond COBOL 85, >>> which you mustn't use. >> >>> Let's take this from another angle. While there are government >>> standards applied by most countries, the auto-industry more or less >>> arrives at a set of self-imposed rules, ('features' would perhaps be >>> a better word); it's good for business anyway. There was a time when >>> auto indicators were those little thinggies that popped up to >>> indicate you wanted to turn left or right. They enhanced those by >>> giving them colour and today we have the inbuilt indicators. >> >>> As well as wanting to make money, the particular auto maker Company >>> X, whose vehicles I like, also can see the advantage to consumers of >>> adding features which are not yet part of the given 'Auto Industry >>> Self-Imposed Features'. So taking a hypothetical, my brand new car >>> has the following - which according to you I should ignore :- >> >>> - I can run on gasoline, ethanol, natural gas or electricity >>> - light features, that in an emergency would light up a football >>> field >>> - rare, but like Agent 007 - I can take it submarining >> >>> So because the 'others' don't as yet have these features, I should >>> not use them on the spanking new car I just bought ? >> >>> In technology there is, and has to be progression, to meet consumer >>> needs. Like Michael Jackson wanted to be a cryogenic you are >>> recommending that we only use something (COBOL 85) which was defined >>> THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago. Well of course you will counter, use other >>> stuff, perhaps Java, direct calls to Windoes APIs. Somehow, even >>> though you spoke to her once, I don't think our Gracie would agree. >> > She once said that she didn't want to use COBOL for the things FORTRAN > was good for, > and vice versa. And I met her twice, just for the record, at ACM > chapter meetings. > >>> I doubt she mentioned to you, some of the early machinations in >>> COBOL's inception. One company, (a clue, the word 'Blue' fits), for >>> whatever reason, wanted a specific feature made 'Confidential'. >>> Gracie didn't like that and along with a buddy 'suggested' to the >>> Canadian representative that he should 'accidentally' publish the >>> feature - it happened - 'Confidentiality' was gonzo !. No, I didn't >>> dream that up - I got an e-mail from her 'buddy'. >> >>> The other thing you should remember is that neither Java nor C# have >>> either ANSI or ISO imprimaturs. (Sun gave up on getting Java ISO- >>> approved after they saw the BS that was involved). So far as we are >>> concerned we have individual compiler vendors putting in their two >>> cents, initially via ANSI (J4 now PL22.4), and then going through >>> the rigmarole of ISO. Remember our compiler vendors are COMPETITORS >>> for the same product. Observing the players at the J4 June/July 2000 >>> meeting at Newbury, I asked the question, "How do the Micro Focus >>> and IBM representatives get on". Back came the answer, "They get on >>> very well socially, but remember they are representing competitors". >> >>> I sure can't prove it, but looking at some of the features, >>> (extensions to you), which M/F introduced, I just wonder why they >>> never became part of COBOL. As Bill Klein once pointed out, having >>> seen a feature which looked like it had solid approval, M/F >>> introduced it, only to find that J4 dickered with it after the >>> event, possibly making the M/F approach invalid. > > It has always been an objective of compiler makers to lock in their > customers with proprietary features. > Of course, before the advent of hugh level languages, they didn't have to... >> >>> Pure conjecture on my part - J4 saw the necessity for changing >>> something already established, or what M/F suggested as a new >>> feature just wasn't worth the effort - OR - just pure Competitor >>> human vindictiveness ? Don't kid yourself it couldn't happen. I've >>> seen some several instances of vindictiveness creep into commerce >>> in my career. >>> As a closing shot, your approach requires using the full shebang of >>> a program's format, to which PECD reacts with, 'COBOL is too >>> verbose'. >> >> Not quite. I think it is too verbose when using OO, IN COMPARISON TO >> OTHER OO LANGUAGES. >> >> It is a subtle, but very important qualifier. >> >>> M/F introduced the feature 'Get rid of the red tape'. Accepting that >>> you probably abhor the thought of COBOL having OO, at this point in >>> time I am writing a class to handle Dates and Times in COBOL; yes it >>> uses the ACCEPT FROM and DATE FUNCTIONS, but you not need to be >>> conversant with them, their use is in my methods (source). Boyo, >>> boyo do I use that 'exclude red tape'. Assuming PECD produced a >>> Fujitsu version of my DateAndTime class, once he sees it, I can >>> guarantee his code will be at least twice as large as mine ! Other >>> vendors just didn't somehow see the advantage of getting rid of red >>> tape. >> > Who is PECD? A very good question. I understand he has spent many decades answering this question. > >> At this point I don't anticipate duplicating your code, Jimmy. I >> have date components that do everything I want, and the .Net >> Framework has Classes that would do anything I overlooked. >> >> As for Red Tape, most COBOL purists (and I suspect that John is one) >> will say that it destroys the readability of COBOL, which has >> traditionally been one of its major advantages. They are probably >> right. But it is academic to me as I don't care about it. It was >> important when source code was everything. For me, at least, it >> isn't any more. All that matters is functionality and a documented >> interface to it. > > Years ago I was presented with a printout of a program that another > branch of state government had written. > We wanted to adapt it to our use. So I went to the IDENTIFICATION > DIVISION where the author had written > his name, organization and even his phone number, and of course a > statement of the purpose of the program in the REMARKS section. I > called him and we discussed the fine points. Now this information can > be documented in any programming language, but except for COBOL the > language itself doesn't encourage it. COBOL, at least COBOL in the old > days, did encourage it. I do not suggest we go back to the 60's where > the style was to go on for pages of description in in the REMARKS > section. But a little who what when where why up there is useful. Absolutely. No argument there. I should mention that I document the C# I write in exactly this way, and the same with low level Assemblers. > And > although we don't use cross-compilers much a comment in the SOURCE > COMPUTER paragraph can help when tracing down those pesky non-standard > extensions. I think that compiler flagging options do this pretty well and I'd trust the compiler before I'd trust human comments. > > Again years ago a programmer named Marcello Maniago stated that there > was no such thing as a one time program. If it worked well it would be > used again, perhaps with modifications. If it didn't work it wouldn't > be used the first time. So sound internal documentation of every > program is still sound policy. Those who disparage it never ran a > programming shop. Programmers as a class love to program and hate to > document. That is why the IDENTIFICATION DIVISION was such a brilliant > concept---make documentation a part of programming. It is generally risky to generalize about a group of people, John. I have met programmers (COBOL and non-COBOL who recognise the value of documenting source, and I have met others who don't. There was a time (when COBOL was the best or only game in town) when source code was King. It was protected in the inner sanctum of the Holy of Holies and only the High Priests of COBOL had access to it. But times change. Today I have components written in many different languages (some of which I didn't write and DON'T have source code for),all playing together nicely on the level playing field which is .NET. In a world of objects and layers it is OBJECT code that is important. It provides FUNCTIONALITY through a documented interface which shows what it can do. I want that functionality; I interface to that component. It does what it says it does. I NEVER need to change it. (I might want to extend it or enhance it, but OO technology allows me to do that pretty easily, whether I have the source or not (I can include existing methods in a new class whether I actually have the source code for them or I don't.) The best analogy I can think of is the way in which we use OS functions every day without ever having the source code for them. So the whole book is being rewritten. Given that (at least in my world) the focus has shifted away from source code, given that self-documentation of source was one of the major "selling points" for COBOL, you may see why I don't get excited about it. >> > > > As for procedural code versus OO I think we have a distinction without > any critical differences. COBOL 85 versions such as OpenCobol have an > ability to call programs written in COBOL and in C, passing parameters > back and forth. These can be statically or dynamically linked. > Programs in other languages can be called by using > CALL "system" USING programstring. > Where programstring contains something like > "wish myprogram.tcl" Unfortunately, there is a perception (usually by people who don't really understand OO) that Object Oriented Programming is simply Modular Programming reinvented. It really isn't, but the differences are often subtle and it is easy to decide "ITSA" when it is actually "ITSLIKE". Leaving aside the mechanics of OOP, the whole implementation of it needs a methodology overview. Traditional Waterfall based Project Management methodologies just don't work well with OO. Agile style interactive, iterative development is ideally suited to it. > > Parameters can be passed either in the command string or in a file. > > It is snowing like blazes and I suspect my roof is holding about three > feet now. > It was built in an era when 2 x 4's etc. were a tad bigger than they > are today and load bearing walls were built on 16 in centers rather > than 24 in centers. Point is, not every change is an improvement. > No, every change is not an improvement. However it is also true that there is no improvement without change. Pete (aka Peter E. C. Dashwood, PECD) -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Bill Gunshannon on 10 Feb 2010 20:46 In article <7th10iFumhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article <7telkiFcvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes: >>> SkippyPB wrote: >>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:39:37 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>> SkippyPB wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:05:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fred Mobach wrote: >>>>>>>> Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alistair wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 10:32 am, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>>>>>>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. But don't try and rewrite Shakespeare in English, >>>>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can't resist: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2 B / not 2 B? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LOL! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess it is only a matterof time before someone with more >>>>>>>>> time on their hands than they should have, produces a TXT >>>>>>>>> version of the works of Shakespeare. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it would get kids to read the original, I wouldn't complain. >>>>>>>>> :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If via >>>>>>>> lynx -dump >>>>>>>> to TXT reformatted HTML will do you can have a look at >>>>>>>> http://shakespeare.mit.edu/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I was a teenager I had the Complete works of Shakespeare >>>>>>> (and a few others of my favourite authors, Kipling, Poe, and >>>>>>> Edgar Rice Burroughs (many people don't realize he wrote a lot >>>>>>> more than "Tarzan") in book form, of course, and spent many >>>>>>> happy hours engrossed in them. Over the years, with travelling >>>>>>> and moving (not to mention pilferage from storage warehouses) >>>>>>> these have been lost and I keep thinking I must replace them, >>>>>>> but never get round to it. From time to time, I get the urge for >>>>>>> Shakespeare and I recently bought the RSC production of King >>>>>>> Lear, on DVD. It came with a bound transcript, and, although it >>>>>>> is not my favourite Shakespeare play (and is pretty heavy going >>>>>>> in places) I did enjoy it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you so much for this link, Fred. I have bookmarked it and >>>>>>> will be using it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pete. >>>>>> >>>>>> As a kid I wasn't into Shakespeare so much but I did read >>>>>> everything Edgar Allen Poe wrote and I read a lot of non-Tarzan >>>>>> books that Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote as well. I also, at age 10 >>>>>> or 11, read the original Mary Shelley book Frankenstein and Bram >>>>>> Stoker's Dracula. Both had what I can only describe as a rich >>>>>> language. I admit I had strange reading habits as a kid. No >>>>>> idea where they came from. I also was into reading Sir Arthur >>>>>> Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes' books and a lot of science fiction >>>>>> by the authors of the day. >>>>> >>>>> Yep, all great stuff and I did the same at around the same age. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if what we read at an early age can shape us? >>>>> >>>>> I guess it can if we agree with it or are delighted by it. Or maybe >>>>> the rich world of fiction is just a good escape for people at any >>>>> age. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to think any flaws in my current character were not the >>>>> result of reading the authors you mention... :-) >>>>> >>>>> Of course, if I can blame my faults on Poe or Shakespeare, that >>>>> would be a really good cop out... :-) >>>>> >>>>> Pete. >>>> >>>> Well Mr. Poe was an Opium addict :) Nevermore, nevermore. >>> >>> I never heard of that. He certainly was adicted to alcohol and on ONE >>> occasion tried to suicide from an overdose of Laudunum (an opiate >>> commonly used in Victorian times for sleeping problems)... sure >>> you're not thinking of Samuel Taylor Coleridge? Xanadu is definitely >>> tripping and there are parts of the Ancient Mariner which look like >>> they were influenced by substance abuse... >>> >>> "The very deeps did rot >>> Oh, Christ! That ever this should be >>> Yea... slimy things did crawl with legs >>> Upon the slimy sea." >> >> Poe's opium addiction was well known, at least here in the colonies. >> > Citation please, bill? > > A web search revealed several sites that disagree. I guess it is a matter of semantics. Even the pages that refute his being an "addict" said he used both opium and Laudunum (tincture of opium). I am sure if you asked most opium users today they would insist that they were not addicted. The science of opium use seems to disagree. But it really isn't worth arguing about. He was a great writer, drug addict or not and he is dead. 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: Alistair on 11 Feb 2010 06:28 > Michael Wojcik > Micro Focus > Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University- Hide quoted text - > Thanks for the explanation of the derivation etc., of lolcat, etc. I had visited the site and was only mildly amused before concluding that lolcat is too verbose for serious yoof use.
From: Pete Dashwood on 11 Feb 2010 07:42 Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article <7th10iFumhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> In article <7telkiFcvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes: >>>> SkippyPB wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:39:37 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> SkippyPB wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:05:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fred Mobach wrote: >>>>>>>>> Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alistair wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 10:32 am, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>>>>>>>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. But don't try and rewrite Shakespeare in English, >>>>>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can't resist: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 B / not 2 B? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LOL! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I guess it is only a matterof time before someone with more >>>>>>>>>> time on their hands than they should have, produces a TXT >>>>>>>>>> version of the works of Shakespeare. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it would get kids to read the original, I wouldn't >>>>>>>>>> complain. :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If via >>>>>>>>> lynx -dump >>>>>>>>> to TXT reformatted HTML will do you can have a look at >>>>>>>>> http://shakespeare.mit.edu/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I was a teenager I had the Complete works of Shakespeare >>>>>>>> (and a few others of my favourite authors, Kipling, Poe, and >>>>>>>> Edgar Rice Burroughs (many people don't realize he wrote a lot >>>>>>>> more than "Tarzan") in book form, of course, and spent many >>>>>>>> happy hours engrossed in them. Over the years, with travelling >>>>>>>> and moving (not to mention pilferage from storage warehouses) >>>>>>>> these have been lost and I keep thinking I must replace them, >>>>>>>> but never get round to it. From time to time, I get the urge >>>>>>>> for Shakespeare and I recently bought the RSC production of >>>>>>>> King Lear, on DVD. It came with a bound transcript, and, >>>>>>>> although it is not my favourite Shakespeare play (and is >>>>>>>> pretty heavy going in places) I did enjoy it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you so much for this link, Fred. I have bookmarked it and >>>>>>>> will be using it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pete. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a kid I wasn't into Shakespeare so much but I did read >>>>>>> everything Edgar Allen Poe wrote and I read a lot of non-Tarzan >>>>>>> books that Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote as well. I also, at age >>>>>>> 10 or 11, read the original Mary Shelley book Frankenstein and >>>>>>> Bram Stoker's Dracula. Both had what I can only describe as a >>>>>>> rich language. I admit I had strange reading habits as a kid. >>>>>>> No idea where they came from. I also was into reading Sir >>>>>>> Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes' books and a lot of >>>>>>> science fiction by the authors of the day. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep, all great stuff and I did the same at around the same age. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder if what we read at an early age can shape us? >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess it can if we agree with it or are delighted by it. Or >>>>>> maybe the rich world of fiction is just a good escape for people >>>>>> at any age. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to think any flaws in my current character were not the >>>>>> result of reading the authors you mention... :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, if I can blame my faults on Poe or Shakespeare, that >>>>>> would be a really good cop out... :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Pete. >>>>> >>>>> Well Mr. Poe was an Opium addict :) Nevermore, nevermore. >>>> >>>> I never heard of that. He certainly was adicted to alcohol and on >>>> ONE occasion tried to suicide from an overdose of Laudunum (an >>>> opiate commonly used in Victorian times for sleeping problems)... >>>> sure you're not thinking of Samuel Taylor Coleridge? Xanadu is >>>> definitely tripping and there are parts of the Ancient Mariner >>>> which look like they were influenced by substance abuse... >>>> >>>> "The very deeps did rot >>>> Oh, Christ! That ever this should be >>>> Yea... slimy things did crawl with legs >>>> Upon the slimy sea." >>> >>> Poe's opium addiction was well known, at least here in the colonies. >>> >> Citation please, bill? >> >> A web search revealed several sites that disagree. > > I guess it is a matter of semantics. Even the pages that refute his > being an "addict" said he used both opium and Laudunum (tincture of > opium). I am sure if you asked most opium users today they would > insist that they were not addicted. The science of opium use seems > to disagree. But it really isn't worth arguing about. He was a great > writer, drug addict or not and he is dead. Sure. I know it is hard to believe from anyone in this forum :-) but I wasn't looking for an argument (gong sounds in the distance...). Just interested, and seeing some conflicting information. I think Skippy's post was pretty definitive and am well satisfied with that. :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Michael Wojcik on 11 Feb 2010 15:14
Pete Dashwood wrote: > > Thank you very much for your time and trouble here.I have saved the mail for > future reference. No trouble. I come from a long line of researchers. We do this for fun. > If the course you are pursuing requires you to follow this stuff, I can only > say, "Wow! I'm glad I never took Rhetoric..." No requirement. I am in Digital Rhetoric, but that's such a broad field that I'm sure many of my compatriots have never done any research into online dialects (though no doubt they're aware of some). Current work in Digital Rhetoric ranges from applying the ideas of traditional rhetoric to new media (eg how people make arguments using Powerpoint), to new rhetorical theories for environments like social-networking websites, to cognate fields like law (particularly regarding intellectual property) and software studies. And Digital Rhetoric is only one small part of the current academic discipline of rhetoric. > If you are doing it simply out > of personal interest, then you really do need to get out more, Michael... Oh, I've been looking at this stuff on and off for twenty years or so. Spread out over that, it hasn't really taken up much of my time. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University |