Disassembler
in [Cobol]
|
From: LX-i on 1 Mar 2006 21:28 CG wrote: > This discussion has deteriorated to to the point of absurdity. When the > attitude appears to be, "My mind's made up, do not confuse me with > facts." it is time to quit! I'm done! What you're missing (or seem to be) is the point of what they're saying. They're not saying that your product doesn't do something useful, or that you've had customers use it and realize great gain from it. To me, it would seem that I could write some COBOL and compile it. Then, I run it through a decompiler, and it creates COBOL that generates the same object code. That does not *necessarily* equal "recovering the source" - very different COBOL code would likely produce the same object code. While the functionality, in the purest sense, would be preserved by this process, the source code would not be the same. Equivalent, yes; but not *the same*. It would be nigh impossible, given compiler optimizations. Notice that what I just wrote doesn't say that the tool you're describing isn't as it says it is. Maybe IBM programs have extra markers in the object code that makes it possible. You're getting offended over slights that are only in your mind. I haven't read anything in this thread that came across the way you seem to have taken it. If you're interested in explaining how it works, these folks would be more than willing to listen (I know I've been reading this thread, even though all my experience has been with Unisys mainframes). -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~ ~ / \/ o ~ ~ ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel(a)thebelowdomain ~ ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~ ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~ ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: LX-i on 1 Mar 2006 21:30 Pete Dashwood wrote: > I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels at > 12. I've been asked about it, because I adopted it. :) I like it... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~ ~ / \/ o ~ ~ ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel(a)thebelowdomain ~ ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~ ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~ ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Mar 2006 06:04 <docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:du5dgo$9b1$1(a)reader2.panix.com... > In article <46mbn8Fbeu63U1(a)individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>news:du1nsi$p2f$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>> In article <1141137619.797762.312570(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, >>> Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>> <ozzy.kopec(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1141046648.949404.165450(a)v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... >>>>> > Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I can think of at least two separate sites (and a number of occasions >>>>> on >>>>> both of them) where we were very glad to have source recreated from >>>>> listings >>>>> after decks of cards got shredded or minced in various readers or >>>>> were >>>>> destroyed by water after a storm where part of the roof was removed... >>>>> >>>>> Maybe your bud's Boss was an oldtimer like me :-) >>>> >>>>I worked in a place where an operator dropped a whole tray of punched >>>>jcl cards (and successfully mixed them quicker than a poker dealer >>>>could have done). >>> >>> Oh, I *cannot* resist... >>> >>> 000100 AND WITH THESE AND OTHER INSTANCES IN MIND WE SHOULD, THEREFORE, >>> 000200 MAKE SURE THAT ALL CODE IS BACKWARDSLY-COMPATIBLE WITH SUCH >>> 000300 LIMITATIONS... JUST BECAUSE I HAVEN'T WORKED WITH A PUNCHED DECK >>> 000400 IN DECADES IS NO REASON NOT TO 'JUST IN CASE' THINGS, RIGHT? >>> >>Cheap shot, Doc. > > I know... but I *couldn't* resist. > >> >>When writing COBOL it is necessary to use level numbers anyway. Why >>shouldn't they also assist in the (today) extremely unlikely event that >>the >>source needs to be recreated from a listing? > > 'Grandpa, why do you snore so loud?' > I have this quaint idea running round in the back of my head that "answering a question with a question is no answer at all". Can't imagine in what den of iniquity or degraded bar I picked up that little gem ... :-) > 'To keep the tigers away.' > > 'Grandpa, there aren't any tigers anywhere near here.' > > 'See how well it works?' > I have indeed seen the same logic applied to snapping fingers in order to deter elephants. With equal efficacy. > It used to be, back in the Oldene Dayse and on some sites I where I > worked, that part of the Production Turnover Ritual involved generating a > listing (on greenbar, of course) and replacing the previous version in the > binder reserved for the program... Just In Case everything went kerflooie > and one had to re-key the code from scratch. > > I haven't seen much greenbar lately. > I haven't seen many folders lately. Guess it's the weather. >> >>I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels >>at >>12. It isn't problematic because there is room to insert other levels if >>required. > > I've worked in places where Prod Review turned down my code because I used > an 03 where the Site Standard dictated an 05. They sign my timesheets, > they get what they ask for... within reason, of course. > Absolutely... (Hides Jobsworth award behind back and shuffles from one foot to the other...) >> >>It isn't about 'just in case' anyway. It is about the habits of a >>lifetime, >>which do no harm... > > Hmmmmmmm... it reminds me of a man of sixty saying 'I've thought this way > about it ever since I was a lad of five.' > > On the one hand... it shows a five-year-old who has insights beyond his > years and that is good. > > On the other hand... it shows a sixty-year-old who cannot see something > differently than a five-year-old and that is... perhaps not-so-good. > "Except ye become as one of these, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." > It might be that, once in a while, all things need to be questioned or > re-questioned... including this statement, of course. > D'ja think so? :-) Pete.
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Mar 2006 06:07 "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message news:7ecdf$440658c7$45491d7a$4125(a)KNOLOGY.NET... > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels >> at 12. > > I've been asked about it, because I adopted it. :) I like it... > "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." :-) I consider it an honour. Hope it never has to be used in earnest... Pete.
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Mar 2006 06:25
"Peter Lacey" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message news:440604BA.81BF8077(a)mts.net... > Pete Dashwood wrote: > >> >> The problem with Evangelism is that it seems to close the ears... >> >> Pete. > > Pot calling the kettle black, methinks! > > Peter L. Perhaps you could give an example to back up this calumny? There is a subtle but important difference between not listening, and listening but not being persuaded. In my correspondence with you, you were not persuaded. I listened to what you said and tried to address it on several occasions. The concepts were foreign to you, and you already had closed your mind to the possibilities. Nevertheless, I invested time because you asked a fair question. That's OK. I wasn't evangelising anyway. Really don't care one way or the other. :-) Pete. |